Restrictive covenants

Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis

A restrictive covenant is a contractual obligation requiring the covenantor not to do the thing specified (such as building on the land or using the land for particular purposes). Unlike positive covenants, the burden of a restrictive covenant is capable of 'running with the land' so that successive owners or occupiers are bound by the restriction.

Covenants restricting the carrying out of certain activities on land imposed by a seller may be divided into three classes:

  1. •

    covenants imposed for the seller’s own benefit—these are personal to the seller and are not enforceable by anyone else, unless expressly assigned

  2. •

    covenants imposed on or after 1 January 1926 by the seller (as the owner of retained land of which the land being sold formed a part) and intended to protect or benefit the retained land—these are capable of running with the land and may be enforceable without express assignment by the owner for the time being of the land for the benefit of which they were imposed

  3. •

    covenants imposed by the seller on a sale of land to various buyers who, with their respective successors in title, are intended

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Existing user? Sign-in TAKE A FREE TRIAL
Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Property News

Telecommunications Code—redevelopment (Vodafone v Icon & AP Wireless)

Property Disputes analysis: In a wide-ranging and interesting review of various creative arguments seeking to establish grounds for opposing the renewal of a subsisting code agreement under paragraphs 31(4) (a), (c) and (d) of the Electronic Communications Code (‘Code’), the Upper Tribunal (‘UT’) held that the grounds were not proven. This update focuses on grounds 31(4) (c) and (d), namely having an intention to redevelop, and the paragraph 21 public benefit test. Written by David Jones and Mark Barley, associate and partner at Womble Bond Dickinson.

Upper Tribunal denies SDLT overpayment relief in failed late MDR claim (L-L-O Contracting Ltd and others v HMRC)

Tax analysis: In L-L-O Contracting Ltd and others v HMRC, the Upper Tribunal (UT) dismissed the companies’ appeals against the First-tier Tax Tribunal’s (FTT) decision to dismiss appeals against HMRC’s decision not to allow claims to SDLT overpayment relief. The companies had not claimed multiple dwellings relief (MDR) in their SDLT returns and, having missed the time limit for making the claims, sought to obtain the relief by way of overpayment relief claims under paragraph 34 of Schedule 10 of the Finance Act 2003 (FA 2003).

HM Land Registry publishes updated guidance on non-monetary transfer fees

HM Land Registry has updated its Registration Services fees guidance to clarify information regarding transfers or assents of registered estates not made for monetary consideration. The update provides additional detail under the 'Transactions under Scale 2' section about how fees are calculated for these types of transfers. This technical clarification maintains existing fee structures while providing greater clarity on their application.

Determining the true and ancient limits—why boundary agreements always bind successors in title (White v Alder)

Property Disputes analysis: The case involved a written boundary demarcation agreement entered into by two neighbours shortly before they each sold their respective properties. The subsequent owners found themselves in a dispute about the same boundary. The respondents, the Alders, sought to rely on the agreement, but the appellant, Mr White, argued that as a successor in title he was not bound by it—either at all or because he had no knowledge of it. The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal. Lady Justice Asplin, with whom Lord Justice Zacaroli and Sir Launcelot Henderson agreed, held that a boundary agreement binds successors in title because of its very nature. It delineates a boundary and therefore defines the property that can be transferred or conveyed. Since no one can transfer or convey more land than they own, a boundary agreement binds successors in title whether or not they know about it. Written by Tanita Cross, barrister at Exchange Chambers.

View Property by content type :  
News
Practice notes
Precedents
Q&As

Popular documents

Easements—extinguishing

Easements—extinguishingThere are different ways in which an easement may cease to exist and this Practice Note looks primarily at unity of seisin, also known as unity of ownership.For other ways in which an easement may be extinguished, consider:•abandonment; see Practice Note: Easements lost by

Easements—obligations to repair and maintain

Easements—obligations to repair and maintainThis Practice Note looks at where the responsibility lies for repairing and maintaining land which is subject to easements and at who is responsible for the cost of its upkeep particularly where there is no express agreement allocating responsibility for

Implied easements—common law

Implied easements—common lawThere are three different ways by which an easement can be implied at common law:•necessity•intended use•the rule in Wheeldon v BurrowsEasements may also be implied by statute under section 62 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (LPA 1925), see Practice Note: Easements—LPA

Positive covenants—binding successors in title

Positive covenants—binding successors in titleA covenant is a form of contract. The doctrine of privity of contract establishes that the rights and liabilities created by a contract bind the parties to it but no-one else. However, in the case of a covenant relating to land, property law principles
Easements—extinguishing

Easements—extinguishing

Easements—extinguishingThere are different ways in which an easement may cease to exist and this Practice Note looks primarily at unity of seisin, also known as unity of ownership.For other ways in which an easement may be extinguished, consider:•abandonment; see Practice Note: Easements lost by

Easements—obligations to repair and maintain

Easements—obligations to repair and maintain

Easements—obligations to repair and maintainThis Practice Note looks at where the responsibility lies for repairing and maintaining land which is subject to easements and at who is responsible for the cost of its upkeep particularly where there is no express agreement allocating responsibility for

Implied easements—common law

Implied easements—common law

Implied easements—common lawThere are three different ways by which an easement can be implied at common law:•necessity•intended use•the rule in Wheeldon v BurrowsEasements may also be implied by statute under section 62 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (LPA 1925), see Practice Note: Easements—LPA

Positive covenants—binding successors in title

Positive covenants—binding successors in title

Positive covenants—binding successors in titleA covenant is a form of contract. The doctrine of privity of contract establishes that the rights and liabilities created by a contract bind the parties to it but no-one else. However, in the case of a covenant relating to land, property law principles