## Facts

- Ridge Park Addition in Albuquerque was subject to recorded building and use restrictions filed January 18, 1951.
- The restrictions established a residential scheme requiring single-family, single-dwelling use for lots in the subdivision, with an exception allowing blocks 4 and 9 to be used for commercial or residential purposes.
- Dennis S. and Patricia J. Pena owned Lots 9 and 10, Block 8, which were within the residentially restricted portion of the subdivision.
- After the restrictions were recorded, the City of Albuquerque zoned Lots 9 and 10 (among other property) for commercial use even though the lots remained subject to the private residential restrictions.
- Acting under an amendment provision, a majority of Ridge Park Addition lot owners voted to change the restrictions to permit commercial (and related higher-intensity) use on the Pena lots while leaving the remaining residential lots subject to the original residential limitations.
- Plans were made to construct a drug store and a physician’s office on Lots 9 and 10.
- Ridge Park Home Owners and other affected homeowners sued to enjoin the construction as a violation of the recorded residential restrictions.
- The district court initially granted a preliminary injunction, but later concluded the majority-approved amendment was valid, dismissed the complaint, and denied permanent injunctive relief.
- Plaintiffs appealed, arguing the amendment was invalid because it removed the residential restriction from only a small part of the residential area.

## Issues

1. Whether a majority of subdivision owners may validly amend recorded restrictive covenants to remove residential-use restrictions from only a small portion of the residentially restricted lots (here, two lots), while leaving the rest of the similarly restricted lots bound.
2. Whether commercial zoning of the subject lots prevents enforcement of more restrictive private residential covenants.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Mexico reversed the district court’s dismissal.
- The court held the purported amendment invalid because it attempted to change the restrictions as to less than all of the property subject to the shared residential plan, destroying the mutual and reciprocal character of the restrictions among similarly situated owners.
- The court stated the general rule that less restrictive zoning does not diminish the legal effect of more restrictive private covenants; rezoning for commercial use does not, by itself, supersede enforceable plat restrictions.
- The case was remanded for proceedings consistent with enforcing the original residential restrictions, including injunctive relief.

## Legal Principles

- Recorded subdivision restrictions adopted as part of a general plan create mutual and reciprocal equitable property rights among owners of lots subject to that plan.
- An amendment clause allowing modification by a majority vote is construed in light of the common plan and does not authorize a majority to grant selective relief to a few lots while keeping comparable lots bound by the original limits.
- A majority-approved amendment that targets only a small portion of the restricted residential lots for commercial use is invalid when it upsets the equality of burdens and benefits among owners within the residential scheme.
- Zoning ordinances and private restrictive covenants operate independently; when zoning is less restrictive than private covenants, the private covenants remain enforceable.
- A property’s rezoning for commercial use does not bar neighboring lot owners from enforcing existing, more restrictive residential covenants through equitable relief.

## Conclusion

Ridge Park Home Owners v. Pena held that a majority of subdivision owners could not use an amendment provision to free only two residentially restricted lots for commercial development while leaving the rest of the residential lots subject to the original covenants, because such a selective change defeats the mutual, reciprocal rights created by the subdivision’s general plan; the court also recognized that commercial zoning does not displace stricter private residential restrictions and reversed the dismissal for further relief consistent with enforcement.


Ridge Park Home Owners v. Pena, 88 N.M. 563 (1975)