Because courts regularly enforce injunctions based on valid restrictions and because the parties' damages are immaterial, the circuit court did not err in failing to apply a balancing test. The third exception, limitations and laches, is not at issue in this case. Defendants challenge the restrictions under the remaining two exceptions as discussed infra . First, defendants argue that the trial court committed error requiring reversal in enjoining defendants' violations because the violations were purely technical and resulted in no substantial harm to plaintiffs. As noted, although courts generally will enforce valid restrictions, an equitable exception to that rule occurs when a restriction is technically violated and no substantial injury results.
Courts give effect to the instrument as a whole when interpreting restrictive covenants.
If any doubt arises surrounding the restrictions' meaning, the court must consider the subdivider's intention and purpose. The restriction clearly permits only one dwelling per lot. Defendants' house detracted from the covenants' stated purposes of regulating construction to guarantee a level of privacy and aesthetic enjoyment to the subdivision's landowners. Thus, the trial court correctly held that plaintiffs' harm was substantial. Second, defendants maintain that the trial court erred in enjoining defendants' violations because conditions had changed in the subdivision so as to make enforcement of the covenants inequitable.