## Facts

- A 59.77-acre tract in Charlotte was originally owned by the Garrisons and was not subject to restrictive covenants.
- The Garrisons conveyed portions of the tract through multiple transactions tied to subdivision-style residential development.
- The Garrisons conveyed roughly eight acres in the southern portion to Virgil R. Williams by deed containing the restriction that “only one single-family residence may be erected on any one lot.”
- Plaintiffs purchased lots in the northern portion as single-family residential lots and sought to maintain that character.
- The Garrisons retained less than an acre that was unsuitable for building and burdened by a railroad right-of-way.
- Williams planned multi-family construction on his southern tract.
- Plaintiffs sued to enjoin multi-family construction, claiming the restriction created a covenant or servitude running with the land for the benefit of nearby lot owners.
- The trial court held the restriction was a personal covenant enforceable, if at all, only by the Garrisons and denied injunctive relief.

## Issues

1. Whether the deed restriction limiting construction to one single-family residence per lot created a covenant or servitude running with the land enforceable by plaintiffs as later grantees in the subdivision area.
2. Whether the restriction was merely a personal covenant enforceable only by the original grantors.
3. Whether the restriction was void for vagueness.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of North Carolina reversed.
- The court held the restriction created a servitude/covenant running with the land and was intended to benefit the residential lot owners, including plaintiffs.
- Plaintiffs had standing to enforce the restriction and could enjoin multi-family construction inconsistent with it.
- The court rejected the vagueness challenge, holding the restriction sufficiently definite.
- The case was remanded for entry of injunctive relief consistent with the opinion.

## Legal Principles

- A purchaser can claim the benefit of covenants in a deed to the purchaser’s vendor only if the covenant attaches to and runs with the land (or is an enforceable equitable servitude).
- Whether a deed restriction is personal or runs with the land turns on the parties’ intent at the time of delivery.
- Intent is determined primarily from the deed’s language; if ambiguous, a court may consider the parties’ situation and the surrounding circumstances without using extrinsic evidence to vary the written instrument.
- A land-use restriction framed as a limitation on development may be construed as running with the land where the context shows it was meant to protect the residential character of property conveyed to, or held by, a class of grantees.
- A restriction limiting construction to one single-family residence per lot is not void for vagueness when stated in clear, common land-use terms.

## Conclusion

The court treated the single-family, one-residence-per-lot restriction as a land burden imposed for the protection of residential lot owners, not as a personal promise to the original grantors; therefore, later lot owners could enforce it to stop multi-family development.


Stegall v. Hous. Auth. of the City of Charlotte, 278 N.C. 95, 178 S.E.2d 824 (1971)