Definition
A covenant, burden, or benefit is said to "run with the land" when it passes automatically to successive owners of the property without the need for explicit assignment or re-agreement. Rather than being a personal obligation binding only the original parties, the right or restriction attaches to the land itself, so that anyone who acquires the property takes it subject to — or entitled to enforce — that covenant.
The concept arises most commonly in two related but distinct contexts:
1. Real covenants (enforceable at law): A promise made in a deed or conveyance that binds or benefits future owners of the burdened or benefited parcel. For a covenant to run with the land at law, courts traditionally require that the original parties intended it to run, that privity of estate exists (both horizontal, between the original covenantor and covenantee, and vertical, between each party and their successors), and that the covenant touch and concern the land — meaning it must affect the use or value of the land rather than being merely a personal arrangement.
2. Equitable servitudes: A closely related doctrine under which courts of equity will enforce a covenant against a successor who took with notice of the restriction, even without strict privity. The touch-and-concern and intent requirements still apply, but the privity requirements are relaxed.
The phrase "runs with the land" is also used more loosely to describe easements, profits, and other property interests that transfer with the land by operation of law rather than by individual conveyance.
---
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): No standard entry. The phrase has no meaningful presence in everyday English outside of legal and real-estate contexts.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): Not defined. The component words — "run," "with," and "land" — appear separately; the compound phrase does not.
The absence of this phrase from ordinary dictionaries is itself informative: it is pure legal art, and a researcher encountering it in a deed, covenant, or judicial opinion without background in property law is likely to misread it as metaphor. It is not. It is a term of precise doctrinal consequence.
---
Common Confusion
Running with the land is frequently conflated with personal covenants. The distinction is consequential: a personal covenant binds only the original parties and cannot be enforced against or by their successors. Whether a given covenant runs or is personal is a legal question that turns on the intent of the parties and the touch-and-concern test, not merely on where the covenant appears in the chain of title.
Researchers should also not conflate the law-side doctrine (real covenants requiring full privity) with the equity-side doctrine (equitable servitudes requiring only notice). The two developed along parallel but distinct tracks, and historical sources often treat them separately or use the term "running with the land" to mean one or the other without clear signal.
---
Core Elements
For a covenant to run with the land at law, the traditional formulation requires three elements:
INTENT: The original parties must have intended the covenant to bind successors. Courts look first to the language of the instrument; the word "assigns" in the conveyance has historically been treated as strong evidence of intent, though modern courts examine the instrument as a whole.
PRIVITY OF ESTATE: Two forms must be satisfied. Horizontal privity refers to the relationship between the original covenantor and covenantee — traditionally, they must have shared some property interest beyond the covenant itself at the time it was made (grantor-grantee, landlord-tenant). Vertical privity refers to the succession of each party's interest to their respective successors in title.
TOUCH AND CONCERN: The covenant must affect the parties in their capacity as landowners, not merely as individuals. Restrictions on use, obligations to maintain, and rights of way typically satisfy this test; purely personal promises do not.
Under modern Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes, the touch-and-concern test is substantially relaxed, and the inquiry shifts toward whether the covenant is reasonable and not against public policy. Researchers working with older materials should be alert to which framework a given jurisdiction applies.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This term sits at the intersection of conveyancing history and modern property doctrine, and historical sources handle it unevenly.
PRIVITY TRAPS: The horizontal privity requirement has been one of the most contested and variable elements across jurisdictions and eras. Rapalje & Lawrence and other nineteenth-century sources reflect an era when English common law privity rules were still being imported and adapted — not all American courts adopted the same model. A covenant that "runs" under one state's formulation may not run under another's. Research into older deed restrictions, restrictive covenants, or subdivision conditions requires attention to which privity standard the jurisdiction applied at the time of creation.
HISTORICAL SHIFT: The Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes (2000) deliberately moved away from the touch-and-concern and privity requirements that dominated the older case law. Researchers using pre-2000 treatises or cases will encounter a doctrinal landscape substantially different from what many modern courts apply. Do not assume continuity.
EQUITABLE SERVITUDES AND RACE RESTRICTIONS: The equitable servitude doctrine — which relaxes privity in favor of a notice standard — developed partly to enforce neighborhood restrictive covenants, including racially restrictive ones that could not always satisfy the strict law-side requirements. Shelley v. Kraemer (1948) is the landmark case rendering racially restrictive covenants unenforceable, but the underlying doctrinal structure (equitable servitudes running with the land) remains in use for legitimate land-use restrictions. Researchers in housing law, civil rights history, and subdivision development must navigate this overlap carefully.
EASEMENTS DISTINGUISHED: Easements are sometimes loosely described as "running with the land," but the doctrinal framework governing their transfer differs from that governing covenants. Do not apply the covenant-running analysis to easement questions without checking the relevant jurisdiction's easement law separately.
CORPUS CONNECTIONS: Researchers working on residential subdivision restrictions, commercial ground leases, condominium and HOA governance documents, or historic deed chains will encounter this term frequently. It also appears in landlord-tenant contexts when lease covenants are at issue.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Rapalje & Lawrence define the concept in terms consistent with the English common law baseline: a covenant runs with the land when it is so annexed to the estate that it passes to the assignee of the land. They emphasize that the covenant must "concern" the land — an early formulation of the touch-and-concern test — and note that a covenant running with the land binds the assignee even without notice, distinguishing it from equitable obligations that depend on notice for enforcement.
This formulation captures the law-side doctrine cleanly but underweights the developing equity-side doctrine. Nineteenth-century American dictionaries, Rapalje & Lawrence included, often reflect the Spencers' Case (1583) lineage without fully accounting for the parallel development of equitable servitudes through equity courts. Researchers should treat historical dictionary definitions as capturing one strand of a two-strand doctrine.
What historical dictionaries largely do not address: the modern Restatement approach, the constitutional overlay introduced by equal protection doctrine, or the doctrinal complications introduced by common-interest community governance structures (HOAs, condominiums) that now rely heavily on running-covenant analysis.
---
Jurisdictional Note
A minority of states, following the Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes, have substantially abandoned the privity and touch-and-concern requirements in favor of a reasonableness standard. Most states retain at least a modified version of the traditional elements, though their application varies considerably. Researchers should not assume that a covenant enforceable in one state will run in another.
---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
Primary: property_79: Real Covenants — Running with the Land (Horizontal and Vertical Privity) (The Law Mind Property Law Encyclopedia)
---