88 Nev. 200, 495 P.2d 624 (Nev. 1972)
Western Land Co. v.
Do substantial changes in the conditions surrounding a restricted residential subdivision and permissive rezoning justify terminating or refusing to enforce recorded residential-use covenants against border lots, where the subdivision itself continues to derive substantial benefit from the restrictions?
Restrictive covenants established as part of a general plan of development create reciprocal equitable servitudes enforceable by any benefited lot owner within the subdivision. Courts will refuse to enforce such restrictions under the changed-conditions doctrine only if changes are so pervasive and fundamental as to defeat the original purpose of the covenant and render it of no substantial value to the benefited properties. Zoning ordinances do not supersede or nullify more restrictive private covenants; permissive zoning merely allows, but does not require, uses that covenants may prohibit. Claims of abandonment or waiver require clear, widespread, and material violations inconsistent with the covenant's purpose; isolated or minor infractions are insufficient. Relative hardship generally does not bar enforcement where the defendant purchased with notice and the restrictions continue to provide substantial benefit to the subdivision.
The residential-use restrictions remained enforceable notwithstanding external commercial development and rezoning. The subdivision continued to derive substantial benefit from the covenants; there was no abandonment or waiver; and zoning changes did not override private restrictions. Injunctive relief against Western Land Co. was properly granted.
Western Land is a leading authority on the robustness of private land-use controls. It sets a high bar for the changed-conditions defense: changes largely outside the restricted area do not defeat covenants if the restrictions still provide substantial benefit within the subdivision. It also clarifies that permissive zoning does not cancel private covenants and that abandonment/waiver demands pervasive, material noncompliance. For students, the case supplies a structured analysis for covenant enforcement, highlights the border-lot problem, and illustrates why injunctive relief is often the appropriate remedy for ongoing or threatened violations.