Summary
In Peoples-Pittsburgh Trust Co. v. McKinley-Gregg Automobile Co., 353 Pa. 110, 44 A.2d 295, it was held, as stated in the syllabus, that "Where a neighborhood in which property subject to a building restriction is located has so changed in character that the restriction is no longer of practical utility and would prohibit the use of the land under existing zoning ordinances, the restriction is not enforceable...."
Summary of this case from Larue v. WeiserOpinion
September 27, 1945.
October 30, 1945.
Deeds — Restrictions — Changes in neighborhood — Zoning laws — Obsolete covenant.
Where a neighborhood in which property subject to a building restriction is located has so changed in character that the restriction is no longer of practical utility and would prohibit the use of the land under existing zoning ordinances, the restriction is not enforceable and does not prevent title to the land from being marketable.
Submitted September 27, 1945.
Before MAXEY, C. J., DREW, LINN, STERN, PATTERSON, STEARNE and JONES, JJ.
Appeal, No. 3, March T., 1946, from decree of C. P., Allegheny Co., Oct. T., 1945, No. 1890, in case of Peoples-Pittsburgh Trust Company v. McKinley-Gregg Automobile Company. Decree affirmed.
Bill in equity. Case stated.
Decree entered in favor of plaintiff, opinion by McNAUGHER, J. Defendant appealed.
Maurice Chaitkin, for appellant.
Charles F. C. Arensberg, George W. Richards, Jr., and Patterson, Crawford, Arensberg Dunn, for appellee.
In this case the question at issue was the marketability of the title to a certain parcel of real estate on Center Avenue, Pittsburgh. The real estate are identified as lots 41, 42, 43 and 44 in the "Mellon Plan" of the Baum Grove property situate in the Eighth Ward of Pittsburgh on the northerly side of Center Avenue. The "Plan" shows a dotted line thirty-five feet back from the northerly line of Center Avenue, with the inscription: "Dotted lines represent the line to which all buildings are to be erected." The purpose of this restriction was to create a residential district, in which all houses erected on the plot would be set back a uniform distance from the street.
Since this restriction was created there has been a change in the use of property in the area under consideration. The land on the northerly side of Center Avenue is now zoned as "commercial" and the property on the southerly side of the street is zoned "light industrial." A number of buildings used for commercial purposes have been erected on the northern side of Center Avenue, without conforming to the dotted line on the "plan" and without objection from any person owning property on the lots included in the plan. The court below said: "it would be unjust and inequitable to hold that this building restriction is still effective, particularly since the same is of no practical utility today and would prohibit the use of the land under the present building ordinances: Henry v. Eves et al., 306 Pa. 250," 159 A. 857.
The court below concluded as a matter of law that the dotted line above described is not now effective or enforceable as a building restriction and that the deed tendered to defendant for lots numbered 41, 42, 43 and 44 in the plan mentioned conveys to defendant a good and marketable title to those lots. A final decree in accordance with their conclusions was entered.
The decree is affirmed at appellant's cost.