Skip to content

Easement, Covenant or Use Restriction

Property instrument — instantiates Property Rights Bundle Governance

A durable burden that attaches to the resource itself — carving out a specific right for a non-owner, or forbidding a specific use — and travels with it through every sale.

An Easement, Covenant or Use Restriction carves a defined sliver out of an owner's bundle and permanently attaches it to the resource. Its defining move is that the burden runs with the land, not with the person: unlike a license, which is a revocable permission to a particular holder, an easement or covenant binds the resource itself and survives every change of owner — the next buyer takes the property already encumbered. It comes in two shapes: an affirmative carve-out granting a non-owner a specific right against the owner's exclusion (a right of way, a utility line, a view corridor), and a negative restriction forbidding the owner a specific use (no building above two storeys, no commercial operation, no development of a wetland). Either way it is a standing constraint recorded on the resource, not a deal renegotiated with each successor.

Example

A farmer's back field is landlocked — the only route to the public road runs across a neighbour's property. Rather than beg permission each season (a license the neighbour could revoke) the two grant a right-of-way easement: a recorded, permanent right for the farmer's parcel to cross a defined ten-foot strip of the neighbour's land to reach the road.[1] Because it is appurtenant to the land, it does not evaporate when either farm is sold — a future buyer of the neighbour's property takes it already burdened by the crossing, and a future buyer of the farm inherits the benefit. The same instrument works in reverse as a restriction: when the neighbour later sells a roadside lot, the deed carries a restrictive covenant barring any structure that would block the farm's sightline to the highway. Neither the easement nor the covenant changes who owns what; each permanently reshapes what the owner may do, and hands that reshaping to every future owner along with the title.

How it works

The instrument does two things that mark it off from a mere permission. It records a durable encumbrance on the resource — a burden noted against the title so that it binds successors and is discoverable by anyone examining what they are buying. And it carves a specific exception into the exclusion stick — either granting a defined access to a non-owner or subtracting a defined use from the owner. What distinguishes it from a license is permanence and attachment: it cannot simply be revoked, because it lives on the resource rather than in a relationship. What distinguishes it from a maintenance duty is direction: it constrains or carves out use and access, it does not oblige upkeep.

Tuning parameters

  • Affirmative vs. negative — whether the instrument grants a use to another (easement) or forbids a use to the owner (restrictive covenant). The two carve the exclusion stick from opposite sides.
  • Appurtenant vs. in-gross — whether the benefit attaches to a neighbouring parcel or to a person/entity. Appurtenant burdens transfer cleanly with land; in-gross ones raise thorny questions of who may still enforce them decades later.
  • Scope precision — how tightly the carve-out or restriction is bounded (the exact strip, the exact prohibited use). Vague scope is the seed of every future boundary fight.
  • Duration and termination — perpetual vs. term-limited, and how it can be released. Perpetuity gives certainty but can strand a resource under a restriction long after its purpose died.
  • Enforcement standing — who may sue to enforce, and whether the benefit can be waived or bought out. Broad standing hardens the restriction; narrow standing can leave it unenforceable in practice.

When it helps, and when it misleads

Its strength is durability across ownership: it lets access and use commitments outlive the parties who made them, so a right of way, a conservation limit, or a height restriction holds firm no matter who buys next — exactly what a revocable license cannot promise. It is how a promise about a place is made to stick to the place.

Its failure mode is the flip side of that permanence: encumbrances accumulate and ossify, and a restriction that made sense in 1960 can bind a parcel uselessly forever, especially when standing to release it has scattered or been lost. Historically, covenants running with the land were also a notorious vehicle for entrenched exclusion. The classic misuse is a use restriction dressed as neighbourly stewardship but designed to freeze out disfavoured uses or owners — permanence weaponised. The discipline that guards against it is to scope each instrument tightly, to build in review, sunset, or release paths so a dead restriction can be cleared, and to keep the register of encumbrances public so no successor is bound by a burden they could not discover.

How it implements the components

  • encumbrance_and_constraint_register — the instrument is a recorded encumbrance on the resource: a burden noted against title that binds every successor and is discoverable by prospective owners.
  • access_exception_and_compulsory_use_rule — it carves a standing exception into the owner's exclusion, either granting a defined non-owner access (right of way) or subtracting a defined use.

Its access carve-out is voluntary and negotiated, unlike the compulsory public override reviewed by Compensation or Takings Review; and it constrains use and access rather than imposing upkeep duties, which is Stewardship or Non-Waste Covenant's role — the two "covenants" pull in different directions.

Notes

The tell that separates this from an Access License or Permit is what the right attaches to: a license attaches to a person and can be pulled; an easement or covenant attaches to the resource and rides through every sale. That permanence is the instrument's whole value and its whole danger — which is why tight scope and a workable release path matter more here than almost anywhere else in the bundle.

References

[1] An easement appurtenant benefits a neighbouring parcel and transfers with it; a covenant running with the land binds successive owners to a use restriction; both are servitudes — durable interests attached to the resource rather than to a person. Conservation easements apply the same machinery to restrict development. These are real property-law devices, used here to anchor the mechanism's shape, not any specific case. ↩