CC&R recorded in county office Nahrstedt v. Lakeside Village Condo Assn – indicates pet restriction, wants to keep her cats Δ Holding: Reasonableness of use restriction are determined by reference to development as a whole. When recorded, presumption of reasonableness unless arbitrary, violation of public policy, or burdens outweigh benefits substantially Restrictions created later by HOA, not recorded, get standard reasonableness Violation of Public Policy Restriction on age/sex/race/etc. – Arbitrary No rational relationship to protection, preservati0on, operation or – purpose of affected land Business judgment rule for kicking from 40 West 67th St. Corp. v. Pullman – Π Standard Actions in good faith and exercise of honest judgment in furtherance – of legitimate corporate purposes Procedures, etc. Consider Due Process POLICY SERVITUDES Servitudes fill gaps in K-Law WRT property – – K between neighbors would not run with the land necessarily want to sell part interest in the land (co-tenancy) cause partition action Don’t is always possible Defeasible fee would make the land undesirable to subsequent purchasers because of risk that land will revert in event of violation PUBLIC CONTROL OF LAND USE Zoning Exercise of police power Power of the government to protect the health, safety, – welfare, and morals Rezone such that Ambler use their land for industrial Village of Euclid – couldn’t purposes claim loss of 75% of land value Rationalization Quasi-Nuisance argument – Consider connection with circumstances/locality, if validity of legislative classification is legislative judgment controls fairly debatable, Granted when landowner can show there is a hardship unique to the Variance – property owner’s Distinct from Challenged law as applied Nectow v. City of Cambridge Euclid. – rather than on its face. Court held that there was no valid exercise of police power property so the law was unconstitutional as applied. WRT Π’s Policy Holdout problem that would not allow servitudes Nuisance law would only deal with problems ex post Either way High transaction costs/uncertainty – Eminent Domain Requires – “public use”
Nahrstedt v. Lakeside Village Condo Assn – CC&R recorded in county office indicates pet restriction, Δ wants to keep her cats Holding: Reasonableness of use restriction are determined by reference to development as a whole. When recorded, presumption of reasonableness unless arbitrary, violation of public policy, or burdens substantially outweigh benefits Restrictions created later by HOA, not recorded, get reasonableness standard Violation of Public Policy – Restriction on age/sex/race/etc. Arbitrary – No rational relationship to protection, preservati0on, operation or purpose of affected land 40 West 67th St. Corp. v. Pullman – Business judgment rule for kicking Π from Standard – Actions in good faith and exercise of honest judgment in furtherance of legitimate corporate purposes Procedures, etc. Consider Due Process POLICY – SERVITUDES – Servitudes fill gaps in K-Law WRT property K between neighbors would not run with the land Don’t necessarily want to sell part interest in the land (co-tenancy) cause partition action is always possible Defeasible fee would make the land undesirable to subsequent purchasers because of risk that land will revert in event of violation PUBLIC CONTROL OF LAND USE Zoning Exercise of police power – Power of the government to protect the health, safety, welfare, and morals Village of Euclid – Rezone such that Ambler couldn’t use their land for industrial purposes claim loss of 75% of land value Rationalization – Quasi-Nuisance argument Consider connection with circumstances/locality, if validity of legislative classification is fairly debatable, legislative judgment controls Variance – Granted when landowner can show there is a hardship unique to the owner’s property Nectow v. City of Cambridge – Distinct from Euclid. Challenged law as applied rather than on its face. Court held that there was no valid exercise of police power WRT Π’s property so the law was unconstitutional as applied. Policy Holdout problem that would not allow servitudes Nuisance law would only deal with problems ex post Either way – High transaction costs/uncertainty Eminent Domain – Requires “public use”