## Facts

- Owners of residential lots in the Carrsbrook Subdivision sought a declaration enforcing restrictive covenants against the owners of four unimproved lots at the subdivision’s western edge fronting U.S. Route 29.
- The four lots were subject to a recorded restrictive covenant prohibiting commercial use, intended to run with the land and preserve the subdivision’s residential character.
- Albemarle County later rezoned the four lots for commercial use only, creating a conflict between public zoning and private deed restrictions.
- Since the subdivision’s creation, Route 29 expanded substantially and surrounding property developed into a heavily commercial corridor.
- The subdivision itself remained residential, with no commercial development or change in internal use.
- The lot owners expressed an intent to develop the four lots commercially, hired an architect, and sought consent from subdivision owners in exchange for proposed improvements.
- The homeowners filed for declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent commercial development.
- After an ore tenus hearing, the circuit court declared the covenants enforceable and enjoined commercial use; the lot owners appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the pleadings alleged an actual controversy sufficient to support declaratory relief under Virginia’s declaratory judgment statute.
2. Whether the restrictive covenant prohibiting commercial use was a valid, binding encumbrance running with the four lots and properly construed as barring commercial development.
3. Whether claimed lack of actual knowledge of the covenant prevented enforcement against the lot owners.
4. Whether changed conditions in the surrounding area rendered the covenant unenforceable because its essential purpose was effectively destroyed.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed the circuit court’s judgment enforcing the covenant and enjoining commercial use.
- The Court held an actual, justiciable controversy existed because the lot owners took concrete steps toward imminent commercial development.
- The Court held the restrictive covenant was clear, unambiguous, and enforceable against the four lots notwithstanding other subdivision documents cited by the defendants.
- The Court held purchasers were bound at least by constructive notice because the covenant was recorded in the chain of title; lack of actual knowledge did not defeat enforcement.
- The Court rejected the changed-conditions defense because external changes and rezoning did not constitute changes so radical as to practically destroy the covenant’s essential residential purpose within the subdivision.

## Legal Principles

- Declaratory relief is available when a real and immediate dispute exists; an imminent threatened violation of recorded property restrictions can create a justiciable controversy before physical breach occurs.
- A clear, recorded restrictive covenant running with the land is enforceable according to its terms; zoning classifications do not nullify private covenants, which operate independently.
- Constructive notice from properly recorded instruments binds subsequent purchasers; actual ignorance of a recorded restriction does not bar enforcement.
- Under the changed-conditions doctrine, a restrictive covenant becomes unenforceable only if changes are so radical that they practically destroy the essential objects and purposes of the restriction as applied; substantial external commercialization alone is insufficient where the restricted community’s internal residential character remains intact.

## Conclusion

The court enforced Carrsbrook’s recorded residential-use covenants against planned commercial development of four Route 29 frontage lots, holding that imminent development created a justiciable controversy, constructive notice bound the purchasers, rezoning did not override private restrictions, and surrounding commercial growth did not meet Virginia’s stringent changed-conditions standard.


River Heights Assocs. Ltd. P’ship v. Batten, 267 Va. 262, 591 S.E.2d 683 (2004)