47.1k views
4 votes
Which restrictive covenant would be considered illegal?

1. A covenant that is more restrictive than local zoning ordinances.
2. A restriction that is time-limited and expires after a stated period.
3. A covenant that restricts the type of building that may be constructed.
4. A covenant that restricts selected parcels within a defined subdivision.

User Xharlie
by
7.7k points

1 Answer

4 votes

Final answer:

An illegal restrictive covenant is one that imposes discriminatory restrictions based on race, ethnicity, or other protected characteristics. Covenants more restrictive than zoning ordinances, temporary in nature, or that dictate building types or parcel selections, are not inherently illegal.

Step-by-step explanation:

Restrictive covenants are legal limitations within property deeds that dictate certain uses or non-uses of the land. While many of these covenants are legal and enforce inable, such as those imposing certain aesthetic requirements or structural standards, others can be deemed illegal if they violate constitutional rights or public policies. For instance, a covenant that restricts the sale or occupation of property based on race, ethnicity, religion, or other protected characteristics is illegal. The legality of a restrictive covenant also depends on whether it serves the public interest without being arbitrary or unreasonable. Historically, covenants that restricted property sale to certain racial or ethnic groups were found unconstitutional in the 1948 Shelley v. Kraemer ruling, which has been reinforced by subsequent legal decisions.

Comparatively, criteria such as the covenant being more restrictive than local zoning ordinance, having a time-limited duration, dictating the type of building construction, or selecting parcels within a subdivision typically do not render a restrictive covenant illegal, provided they comply with the broader objectives of public welfare, safety, and do not discriminate based on protected categories.

Accordingly, a covenant that restricts selected parcels within a defined subdivision would not be inherently illegal, but a covenant that restricts ownership or occupancy based on race, ethnicity, or religion would be clearly illegal. Based on historical contexts and constitutional principles, any covenant which contains discriminatory restrictions on the basis of race, religion, or other protected characteristics, would be considered illegal and unenforceable.

User Amar
by
7.8k points