New York Law (NYLE) Practice Exam

Can the owners of adjacent parcels enforce a restrictive covenant against a parcel that does not reference it in the chain of title?

1. Yes, if the parcels are united under a common grantor.

2. No, because the restriction must be part of the direct chain of title.

3. Yes, as long as the properties are adjoining.

4. Yes, as long as the owners can prove intent to enforce the restriction.

The correct answer is: No, because the restriction must be part of the direct chain of title.

The reasoning behind affirming that the restriction must be part of the direct chain of title rests on the fundamental principles that govern the enforceability of restrictive covenants in property law. A restrictive covenant is a private agreement that restricts the use of land and typically must "run with the land," meaning it binds successors and assignees of that land. For a restrictive covenant to be enforceable against a property, there generally needs to be a clear connection through the chain of title. This ensures that subsequent owners have notice of the restriction and can be bound by its terms. If a parcel does not reference the restrictive covenant in its chain of title, that parcel's owners cannot be held accountable for, nor can they enforce, restrictions that are unrecorded or outside of their legal claim to the property. This maintains the certainty and predictability of property ownership and rights. Regarding the other choices, they each introduce concepts that do not align with this fundamental rule. The idea of a common grantor may apply in specific scenarios, but it does not negate the requirement for the chain of title to reference the covenant for enforceability. Simply being adjoining is insufficient; proximity does not imply binding legal obligations regarding restrictions. Lastly, while intent can be a factor in interpreting