## Facts

- A common grantor acquired an 85-acre tract and developed it into the Jefferson Manor subdivision in Campbell County, Virginia.
- Over time, the grantor conveyed numerous lots using substantially uniform deed restrictions limiting use to residential purposes, reflecting a general plan of residential development.
- A roughly 1.5-acre parcel at a roadway intersection was not expressly numbered on the original subdivision plat, and its chain of title did not expressly recite a residential-use covenant.
- The parcel was conveyed to an intermediate owner and later deeded to Mid-State Equipment Company, Inc.; that deed stated the parcel was not subject to the subdivision restrictions.
- Mid-State began using the parcel for an equipment business in an area that was otherwise uniformly residential.
- Nearby subdivision property owners sued to enjoin Mid-State’s commercial use, alleging the parcel was burdened by an implied reciprocal negative easement (equitable servitude) limiting use to residential purposes.
- A commissioner in chancery found Mid-State operated a commercial establishment, concluded an implied residential restriction applied, and recommended injunctive relief; the trial court confirmed the report and permanently enjoined commercial use.

## Issues

1. Whether a general plan of residential development can impose an implied reciprocal negative easement restricting a parcel to residential use even when that parcel is not expressly covered by written deed restrictions in its chain of title.
2. Whether the restriction is unenforceable because Mid-State was a purchaser for value without notice of any residential-use limitation.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed the injunction against Mid-State’s commercial use.
- The Court held the subdivision was developed pursuant to a general residential plan and that the disputed parcel was intended to be part of that plan, making it subject to an implied residential-use restriction.
- The Court held Mid-State was not a purchaser for value without notice because the surrounding uniform residential development and related circumstances were sufficient to impose at least inquiry/constructive notice.

## Legal Principles

- Equity may enforce land-use restrictions arising from a common grantor’s general plan when substantially uniform restrictions appear in numerous conveyances for the benefit of the grantor and purchasers.
- Under the implied reciprocal negative easement doctrine, lots retained by the common grantor or later conveyed without express restrictions may still be burdened if the evidence shows the grantor intended the parcel to be subject to the general plan.
- Such restrictions are enforceable against subsequent owners except a purchaser for value without notice.
- Notice includes inquiry/constructive notice; visible uniform residential development and circumstances suggesting a common plan can require a reasonable purchaser to investigate possible restrictions, defeating bona fide purchaser status.
- Professional opinions that a parcel is unrestricted do not negate notice where recorded history and observable conditions would prompt further inquiry by a prudent purchaser.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a permanent injunction prohibiting commercial use because the evidence showed a general residential plan intended to include the parcel, creating an implied residential-use servitude, and Mid-State took the property with inquiry/constructive notice of the restriction.


Mid-State Equip. Co. v. Bell, 225 S.E.2d 877 (Va. 1976)