## Facts

- Green Lawn subdivision in Detroit was platted with the apparent intent that Collingwood Avenue be maintained as a high-grade residential street (except certain boundary-fronting lots).
- Collingwood Avenue contained 91 lots; residences were erected on all lots, and many deeds (about 53 of 91) included restrictions limiting use to residential purposes.
- John A. and Christina McLean owned the west 35 feet of lot 86 on Collingwood Avenue, improved with a dwelling occupied by them; an alley ran behind the lot.
- The McLeans began constructing a gasoline filling station at the rear of their lot adjacent to the alley.
- Nearby lot owners sued in equity to enjoin construction, alleging a general residential scheme and that the McLeans’ lot was burdened by a reciprocal negative easement despite the absence of an express restriction in their deed.
- The McLeans argued their chain of title contained no restriction, they lacked notice of any servitude, and the station was not a nuisance per se.
- The trial court enjoined construction; the McLeans appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a lot lacking an express residential-use restriction in its chain of title can be burdened by an implied reciprocal negative easement arising from a common development scheme.
2. Whether the McLeans had actual or constructive notice sufficient to bind them to the implied restriction.
3. Whether injunctive relief was appropriate, and if so, whether the decree required modification due to partial construction.

## Decision

- The Michigan Supreme Court held that lot 86 was burdened by a reciprocal negative easement consistent with the subdivision’s general residential plan, even though the McLeans’ deed contained no express restriction.
- The Court concluded the McLeans were bound at least on constructive notice, based on the recorded pattern of restrictions affecting other lots and the uniform residential character of the street.
- The Court declined to decide the nuisance question because the case could be resolved on reciprocal negative easement doctrine.
- The decree was modified and affirmed; the injunction against the gasoline station remained effective, with adjustments reflecting construction already undertaken.

## Legal Principles

- When a common owner sells one lot with restrictions benefiting land retained, a mutual servitude arises: during the restraint period, the owner of retained lots may not do what the restriction forbids to the lot sold; this is a reciprocal negative easement that runs with the land.
- Reciprocal negative easements are not retroactive; they arise from the common owner’s establishment of restrictions as lots are sold under a common scheme.
- A purchaser may be bound by subdivision restrictions not stated in the purchaser’s deed if a common scheme is shown and the purchaser has actual or constructive notice, including inquiry notice from the neighborhood’s uniform development and record notice reflected in other lots’ recorded instruments.
- Equity will enjoin uses inconsistent with an enforceable reciprocal negative easement to protect the subdivision’s general plan.

## Conclusion

The court enforced an implied reciprocal negative easement to preserve a residential subdivision plan, holding that a purchaser can be restrained from a commercial use even without an express deed restriction when a common scheme exists and the purchaser has constructive notice; the injunction was upheld with limited modification.


Sanborn v. McLean, 233 Mich. 227, 206 N.W. 496 (Mich. 1925)