## Facts

- A common grantor subdivided property in Shoreline, Washington and sold lots (1937–1941) subject to an identical recorded restrictive covenant.
- The covenant included (1) two racially restrictive sentences barring sale/occupancy by non-White persons and (2) a density limit allowing only one detached single-family dwelling per one-half acre, plus accessory structures.
- In 2002, Viking Properties, Inc. bought a lot subject to the covenant and sought redevelopment at a higher density than the covenant allowed.
- Viking asked neighboring lot owners to release the covenant; they refused.
- Viking sued for declaratory relief to invalidate the covenant, contending the racial terms made the entire covenant void or inseverable, the density limit violated public policy reflected in the Growth Management Act (GMA) and local planning/zoning, and enforcement would violate substantive due process.
- The parties agreed the racial provisions were void and unenforceable; the dispute centered on severability and enforceability of the density limitation.

## Issues

1. Whether the covenant’s void racial restrictions are severable so that the density restriction remains enforceable.
2. Whether the density restriction is void as against public policy under the GMA, the city comprehensive plan, or zoning regulations that permit greater density.
3. Whether judicial enforcement of the density restriction violates the purchaser’s substantive due process rights.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s summary judgment that invalidated the entire covenant and remanded.
- The court held the racial restrictions were void and unenforceable but severable from the density restriction.
- The court upheld the density restriction as valid and enforceable notwithstanding the GMA and more permissive local zoning.
- The court held enforcement of the density restriction did not violate substantive due process.

## Legal Principles

- Racially restrictive covenant provisions are void and unenforceable, but their inclusion does not automatically invalidate otherwise lawful and independent restrictions in the same covenant.
- A covenant provision may be severed when the unlawful term is not essential to the covenant’s operative purpose and the remaining term is grammatically and functionally independent.
- Planning and zoning schemes, including the GMA and local comprehensive plans, do not negate private restrictive covenants merely because public regulations allow less restrictive land use; absent clear statutory direction, private covenants may impose stricter limits.
- Judicial enforcement of a private land-use covenant does not violate substantive due process when enforcement is rationally related to legitimate interests such as protecting settled property expectations and preserving neighborhood character.

## Conclusion

The court struck the covenant’s racially restrictive language but enforced the separate low-density, single-family restriction, concluding it was severable, consistent with Washington land-use policy frameworks, and constitutionally enforceable through judicial action.


Viking Props., Inc. v. Holm, 155 Wash. 2d 112, 118 P.3d 322 (2005)