4e903822-0edb-4383-bc98-3ada8123036c.doc 911 Rick v. West, NY Supreme Court, 1962 Or whether commercialization activities around the restricted area is sufficient to render the covenants unenforceable Issue Reasoning Although commercialization has increased, such activity has not rendered the restrictive covenants unenforceable because they are still of real and substantial value to the homeowners. ∆ did not carry its burden of showing that the subdivision is not now suitable for residential purposes because of changed conditions Rule As long as the original purpose of the covenants can still be accomplished and substantial benefit will inure to the restricted area by their enforcement, the covenants stand even though the subject property has a greater value if used for other purposes A zoning ordinance cannot override privately-placed restrictions, and a trial court cannot be compelled to invalidate restrictive covenants merely because of a zoning change In order for community violations to constitute an abandonment, they must be so general as to frustrate the original purpose of the agreement Facts ∆ common owner, divided 40 acres into lots and restricted their use to residential homes. At the time of the subdivision, there was very little commercial development around it. But since then, while nothing inside changed, a lot changed outside the subdivision prompting Western Land to want to build a shopping center on a 3.5acre parcel inside the subdivision in the violation of the restrictive covenant it imposed. Outside changes: City of Reno grew from 20,000 to 95,100 A lot of increase in traffic and noise in the surrounding area Reno condemned 1.04 acres on the edge of the subdivision to widen a road Substantially increase in commercial development. But owners wanted the subdivision to remain a residential one with little traffic. The homes in the subdivision were well cared for and attractively landscaped. There were some covenant violations: No house on lots < 6000 sq ft: 2 violations Someone about approval committee One house used as office then nursery (but now used as home) violation of 6000 sq ft: it is ∆’s fault – he is the one that subdivided the lots. The irregularity are too distant and sporadic accosted you a general consent and abandonment or waiver Held Procedure P argues D argues Changes that have occurred since 1941 are not so great as to make it inequitable or oppressive to enforce the covenant. Home owners brought an action to enjoin the appellant from constructing the shopping center. The trial court found that ∆ failed to show that the area in question is now unsuitable for residential purposes. Affirmed. Inequitable to enforce the restrictions: artists of the restrictive covenants, has been thwarted. The restrictive covenants are no longer enforceable because they have been abandoned or waived due to violations by homeowners.