Court Opinion

ID: 9624095
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 06:50:44.108967+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:05:38.810517
License: Public Domain

SPENCE, J.
I dissent.
Plaintiff’s lot is a corner lot situated on the southwest corner of Paloma Avenue and Ocean Avenue in a high-class residence district known as Ingleside Terraces. It conforms generally in shape and size to the other restricted lots on Paloma Avenue which lots are approximately 50 feet or more in width and 110 feet or more in depth. There are no unrestricted lots on Paloma Avenue. The relatively few unrestricted lots on the southerly side of Ocean Avenue are generally smaller in width and depth than the restricted lots in the tract, which number more than 700. There is no commercial development on the northerly side of Ocean Avenue in the near vicinity. In this connection, the trial court found that for a distance of approximately one-half mile the northerly side of Ocean Avenue “is occupied solely and exclusively by single family dwellings, a church and two public schools. ’ ’
The effect of the judgment, which is affirmed by the majority opinion, is to lift the restrictions on plaintiff’s lot, thereby *699permitting commercial development to invade the unbroken residential development on Paloma Avenue. This is said to be justified on the basis of changes which have occurred since the restrictions were imposed. I find no evidence of changes which would justify the nullification of these restrictions.
Within the tract, the development has occurred exactly as planned, except for minor deviations on four out of a total of approximately 800 lots in the entire tract, which deviations might be enjoined. Without the tract and in the general vicinity, no changes have occurred so as to make applicable the rule of Hess v. Country Club Park, 213 Cal. 613 [2 P.2d 782], and Downs v. Kroeger, 200 Cal. 743 [254 P. 1101]. Not a single case presenting similar facts has been cited to sustain the nullification of the restrictions under consideration. On the contrary, one of the main cases upon which the majority relies clearly indicates that the changed conditions in the neighborhood must have “rendered the purpose of the restrictions obsolete.” (Marra v. Aetna Const. Co., 15 Cal.2d 375, 378 [101 P.2d 490].) This court further said: “But, if the original purpose of the covenant can still be realized, it will be enforced even though the unrestricted use of the property would be more profitable to its owner.” (Pp. 378-379.) (See also Strong v. Hancock, 201 Cal. 530 [258 P. 60]; Robertson v. Nichols, 92 Cal.App.2d 201 [206 P.2d 898].)
There is no finding by the trial court that any alleged changes in the neighborhood have rendered the purposes of the restrictions “obsolete” or that the original purpose of such restrictions cannot be realized; and if any of the trial court’s findings may be said to be to that effect, I find no evidence to support such findings.
It seems clear that a line must be drawn somewhere dividing residential and commercial development in any tract where both are to be permitted. It seems equally clear that the residential lots which are contiguous to commercial lots will necessarily be somewhat less valuable. This situation is inherent in any plan of restrictive covenants to provide for orderly development; and it cannot justify the lifting of the restrictions on such contiguous lots unless the plan itself is to be destroyed.
The plan of the original owners who imposed the restrictions was a reasonable one, which gave assurance to the purchasers of single family dwelling lots, and particularly those on Paloma Avenue, that no commercial development would invade that avenue. That plan appears as reasonable today *700as it was when formulated by plaintiff’s predecessors. Nothing has occurred in the intervening years other than the normal and anticipated development of the tract and surrounding-area. Plaintiff, as the owner of a lot which is contiguous to an unrestricted lot, as well as to a restricted lot, knew of the restrictions when he made his purchase. He should not be permitted to evade those restrictions merely because it would be to his advantage to do so. His neighbors were entitled to rely upon the restrictions and he should be bound thereby, at least until such time as there may be such abnormal and unanticipated changes as to make the restrictions “obsolete.”
I would reverse the judgment.
Traynor, J., concurred.