## Facts

- A developer subdivided Southland Heights (about 40 acres) in 1941 and recorded covenants restricting all lots to single-family dwellings and prohibiting stores and other commercial businesses.
- The subdivision was originally outside city limits, surrounded largely by residential and agricultural uses, with little nearby commercial activity.
- Over ensuing decades, Reno’s population grew substantially, and a major road bordering the subdivision was extended and widened into a four-lane arterial, increasing traffic and noise near the perimeter.
- Commercial development expanded in the vicinity outside the subdivision, including a major shopping center and other commercial uses near the subdivision.
- The subdivision’s interior remained predominantly single-family residential, with relatively low internal traffic, a quiet environment, and well-maintained homes.
- The developer retained a 3.5-acre parcel at a corner within the subdivision and proposed building a supermarket/shopping center on that parcel.
- The developer offered testimony that the parcel’s highest and best use and market value were commercial, and that local officials were willing to rezone it for commercial use.
- Homeowners sued to enjoin the proposed commercial development as a violation of the recorded covenants.
- The developer argued the covenants were no longer enforceable due to changed conditions and because sporadic covenant violations within the subdivision showed waiver or abandonment.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial external changes (population growth, arterial traffic, and nearby commercial development), increased economic value for commercial use, and potential rezoning render residential-only restrictive covenants unenforceable under a changed-conditions theory.
2. Whether sporadic and limited covenant violations within the subdivision establish waiver, abandonment, or acquiescence barring enforcement.
3. Whether permissive zoning decisions or willingness to rezone can defeat more restrictive private covenants.

## Decision

- The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the injunction enforcing the covenants.
- The court held that surrounding-area changes did not so radically alter conditions within the subdivision as to defeat the covenants’ residential purpose.
- The court rejected the argument that higher commercial value or “highest and best use” justified nonenforcement while the covenants still provided substantial benefits to homeowners.
- The court held that potential rezoning did not invalidate private restrictions.
- The court concluded that sporadic, limited, and remote violations did not show abandonment or waiver.

## Legal Principles

- Restrictive covenants remain enforceable unless changed neighborhood conditions are so great that they defeat the original purpose of the restrictions within the restricted area.
- Increased profitability or market value for a nonconforming use does not terminate covenants when they continue to confer real and substantial benefits on the subdivision owners.
- Public zoning classifications and rezoning decisions do not override stricter private covenants; the two regimes operate independently.
- Sporadic or minor covenant violations, especially when not widespread, do not establish abandonment, waiver, or acquiescence preventing enforcement.

## Conclusion

The court enforced the residential-only covenants and enjoined commercial construction because the subdivision continued to function as a stable single-family residential community, and external commercial growth, increased traffic, potential rezoning, and limited violations did not defeat the covenants’ purpose or bar equitable relief.


Western Land Co. v. Truskolaski, 495 P.2d 624 (Nev. 1972)