. It is well established that an injunction may be used to prevent prospective or threatened violations of a restrictive covenant. 20 Am. Jur. 2d, Covenants, Conditions, p. 876, sec. 312; Vorpahl v. Gossman (1964), 24 Wis.2d 232, 128 N.W.2d 430. In Schneider v. Eckhoff (1926), 188 Wis. 550, 26 N.W. 838, certain property owners sought to enforce building line restrictions which were contained in their deeds as well as in that of the defendant.
Therefore, we are satisfied that the sheds constructed by Pietrowski and the other homeowners did not defeat the purpose of the restrictive covenants by changing the character of the subdivision from a single family residential neighborhood. SeeVorpahl et al. v. Gossman etal., 24 Wis.2d 232, 238, 128 N.W.2d 430 (1964) ("The change contemplated by this rule is qualitative, i.e., a shift from a residential area to commercial."). Further, we conclude that given the purpose of the restrictions it was reasonable for the circuit court to distinguish between the sheds constructed around the neighborhood, and the garage constructed by the Dufranes.
And, under the law, a restriction made binding on a purchaser's heirs and assigns — which is the case here — is "enforceable by injunction if the covenant is an element of a comprehensive developmental scheme which is mutually beneficial" to the buyer and adjacent property owners who purchase their property through the developer, subject to the same or a similar covenant. Vorpahl v. Gossman, 24 Wis.2d 232, 236, 128 N.W.2d 430, 432 (1964). On the basis of the parties' affidavits and the various conveyancing documents of record, we held earlier in this opinion that the restrictions on the four lots were imposed as part of a common development plan to benefit the property owners by preventing owners of adjacent lots from direct business competition.