## Facts

- A developer recorded a subdivision plat in 1947 containing protective covenants generally limiting lots to “Residential 1,” with certain parcels expressly reserved for commercial use.
- West Alameda Heights was a large subdivision of over 350 lots and was almost fully built out primarily as single-family residences.
- A few nonresidential uses existed within the subdivision (including a service station, garden center, and apartments), but these were located on parcels originally set aside for commercial purposes.
- Blocks 13, 14, and 15 were platted and restricted for residential use and had not been amended to permit commercial development.
- Developers proposed constructing two large shopping centers on major portions of blocks 13, 14, and 15.
- Surrounding areas outside the subdivision experienced extensive commercial development, and adjacent roads became major four-lane highways.
- Homeowners presented evidence that the shopping centers would increase traffic within the subdivision and diminish residential enjoyment and property values.
- The trial court declared the restrictions void as to the affected portions of blocks 13, 14, and 15 and denied injunctive relief, reasoning that changed conditions made the lots unsuitable for residential use.

## Issues

1. Whether restrictive covenants limiting subdivision lots to residential use may be cancelled based primarily on commercial development and changed conditions outside the subdivision.
2. Whether equity should enforce the covenants by injunction when the subdivision remains substantially residential and the covenants’ purposes continue to provide benefits to homeowners.

## Decision

- The Colorado Supreme Court reversed the judgment voiding the restrictive covenants on the affected lots.
- The court held the covenants remained valid and enforceable because the subdivision itself retained its largely residential character and the covenants’ purposes had not been defeated.
- The court remanded with directions to grant injunctive relief preventing construction of the shopping centers on the restricted lots.

## Legal Principles

- Restrictive covenants are not cancelled for changed conditions unless the changes are so radical that they practically destroy the essential objects and purposes of the restrictions.
- External commercial development and increased traffic on adjacent arterials, without substantial destruction of the subdivision’s residential plan, is insufficient to abrogate subdivision covenants.
- In applying relative-hardship considerations, courts weigh the benefit of enforcement to the protected residential owners against the burden on the restricted lots; increased profitability from a prohibited commercial use does not alone establish hardship.
- Limited nonresidential uses permitted on parcels originally designated for such use do not constitute waiver or abandonment of residential restrictions on other lots subject to unchanged covenants.

## Conclusion

The court enforced the subdivision’s residential restrictive covenants and ordered injunctive relief because surrounding commercial growth did not eliminate the continuing residential character and benefits of the recorded plan, and the threshold for cancellation under changed conditions was not met.


West Alameda Heights Homeowners Ass’n v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 169 Colo. 491, 458 P.2d 253 (1969)