Restrictive covenants

Copyright © 2026 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

WRA announces mandatory registration for all paid accommodation providers in Wales

The Welsh Revenue Authority (WRA) has announced that all accommodation providers charging for overnight stays in Wales will be legally required to register with the WRA. The new legislation applies to all forms of paid visitor accommodation—including spare rooms, holiday cottages, cabins, campsites, and hotels—regardless of the frequency of letting. Registration will open in autumn 2026 and will include penalties for non-compliance. This measure aims to support councils in implementing the Visitor Levy.

MHCLG publishes draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill and accompanying consultation on banning leasehold flats

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) has published a draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill on 27 January 2026 for pre-legislative scrutiny.  It sets out proposals to reform the commonhold model, making it easier for existing leaseholders to voluntarily convert their buildings to commonhold and to ban the use of leasehold for most new flats. This follows recommendations from the Law Commission and the Commonhold White Paper published in March 2025.

Occupiers’ liability and the threshold test for duty of care (Lillystone v Bradgate)

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: Upon appeal, the High Court found that a claimant casual footballer paying to play a ‘knockabout’ game at school premises where there were no arrangements in place to retrieve a ball kicked out of play into another part of the defendant’s sports facilities (adjacent sports playing fields) caused his own injury when he climbed a 2.1m gate and severely lacerated his hand. The claimant was a trespasser while climbing the gate between two adjacent parts of the premises where he was not a trespasser. The defendant’s duty of care did not extend to providing any system or facilities to aid ball retrievable, despite the trial judge’s findings that doing nothing and waiting was ‘not what football players would do’. The threshold test imposing a duty of care was not met because the claimant decided to climb the locked gate to gain access to adjacent playing fields. What amounts to ‘reasonable’ safety of visitors under section 2(2) and (5) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 (OLA 1957) appears to fall firmly within the characteristics equating to a definition of ‘reasonable’ amounting to ‘adequate’, rather than equating to the dictionary definition of reasonable ‘based on or using good judgment and therefore fair and practical’. On the facts and circumstances of this case the sports premises were safe, despite there being no facility for ball retrieval. The danger to the claimant only arose because the claimant decided to take a risk to climb a gate that was an obvious danger. Written by Abigail Holt, barrister at Garden Court Chambers.

BPF responds to GLA and MHCLG consultations on London housebuilding measures

The British Property Federation (BPF) has published its responses to consultations by the Greater London Authority (GLA) and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) on measures to support housebuilding in London. BPF welcomes the proposals as a step in the right direction to improve scheme viability and accelerate housing delivery in the capital. However, it says the measures do not go far enough to address London’s structural viability challenges.  BPF highlights concerns including the short, time-limited nature of the proposed relief, the exclusion of some housing models, barriers facing small and medium-sized developers, and the limited scale of Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) relief.

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

Popular documents

In a transfer of land if the rights reserved are stated to be ‘reserved for the benefit of the transferor

In a transfer of land if the rights reserved are stated to be ‘reserved for the benefit of the transferor and their successors in title the owners and occupiers of the retained land or any part thereof and all persons authorised by them’, does this create a valid reservation of rights for the

Are easements extinguished by unity of seisin where the servient tenement and part only of the dominant

Are easements extinguished by unity of seisin where the servient tenement and part only of the dominant tenement are in common ownership? Will the remainder of the dominant tenement continue to enjoy the easements over the servient tenement?Unity of seisin (in modern terms, unity of ownership) is

Easements and perpetuities

Easements and perpetuitiesDrafting — Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 2009The Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 2009 (PAA 2009) effectively disapplies the rule against perpetuities from future easements granted on or after 6 April 2010. This means that the draftsman creating the grant of the

The Prescription Act 1832 states ‘...The claimant must show a period of use of 20 years immediately

The Prescription Act 1832 states ‘...The claimant must show a period of use of 20 years immediately preceding the claim’. A claimant establishes more than 20 years user of a right of access and is then sent letters by the servient owner stating there is no access. More than a year later a claim for
In a transfer of land if the rights reserved are stated to be ‘reserved for the benefit of the transferor

In a transfer of land if the rights reserved are stated to be ‘reserved for the benefit of the transferor

In a transfer of land if the rights reserved are stated to be ‘reserved for the benefit of the transferor and their successors in title the owners and occupiers of the retained land or any part thereof and all persons authorised by them’, does this create a valid reservation of rights for the

Are easements extinguished by unity of seisin where the servient tenement and part only of the dominant

Are easements extinguished by unity of seisin where the servient tenement and part only of the dominant

Are easements extinguished by unity of seisin where the servient tenement and part only of the dominant tenement are in common ownership? Will the remainder of the dominant tenement continue to enjoy the easements over the servient tenement?Unity of seisin (in modern terms, unity of ownership) is

Easements and perpetuities

Easements and perpetuities

Easements and perpetuitiesDrafting — Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 2009The Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 2009 (PAA 2009) effectively disapplies the rule against perpetuities from future easements granted on or after 6 April 2010. This means that the draftsman creating the grant of the

The Prescription Act 1832 states ‘...The claimant must show a period of use of 20 years immediately

The Prescription Act 1832 states ‘...The claimant must show a period of use of 20 years immediately

The Prescription Act 1832 states ‘...The claimant must show a period of use of 20 years immediately preceding the claim’. A claimant establishes more than 20 years user of a right of access and is then sent letters by the servient owner stating there is no access. More than a year later a claim for