Restrictive Convenants

[^woody^]

They may go with the land but they also need someone to be able to enforce them

Of course they need someone to enforce them. Whether the landowner chooses to or not is irrelevant to the fact is any covenant is enforceable by the beneficiary, and does not become unenforceable over time or with the passage of ownership.

 

[garyo]

may not be enforceable now especially if neither of the parties are around to enforce it.

The covenants run with the land, not parties. So the beneficiary is the landowner and successors to the land.

Is it always really that simple? I was about to buy a place last year that had a covenant. The beneficiary was dead, and after some Googling it seemed there was case law to say that depending on the type of covenant then a persons heirs wouldn't be able to enforce. The purchase didn't go ahead so I didn't ever get any 'real' advice on it, but having just looked again, I came across this post on this other forum:

Other restrictive covenants (those that are negative in substance) may still be enforceable by anyone who can show that they have the benefit of the covenants. It is only covnenats that forbid some action (generally building work or change of use) without the consent of a specifcc name person or company that will cease to be enforceable when that person dies or the company is dissolved.

Of course if the covenant goes on to say something like: "without the consent of Somecompany Limited or its successors in title to [some nearby property]" then that is a differnt matter.

from

http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forum...nant-from-dissolved-company-still-enforceable