Definition
A covenant "runs with the reversion" when the benefit or burden of that covenant passes automatically to whoever succeeds to the reversionary interest in a property — that is, to the grantor's successor — rather than remaining a purely personal obligation between the original parties.
To understand this, it helps to distinguish the two relationships a landlord-tenant or grantor-grantee arrangement creates. The party who grants a limited estate (a lease, a life estate, or a term of years) retains a reversion: the right to have the property return when the granted estate ends. The party who holds the granted estate holds what is sometimes called the particular estate. Covenants made alongside the grant can attach to either side. A covenant that runs with the reversion binds or benefits not just the original grantor but every subsequent holder of that reversionary interest — typically, a landlord's assignee or a grantor's heir or transferee.
The classic context is landlord-tenant law. When a landlord assigns the lease (or conveys the freehold subject to the lease), covenants that run with the reversion travel with the transfer. The new reversioner steps into the original landlord's shoes with respect to those covenants, acquiring both the right to enforce the tenant's promises and the obligation to perform the landlord's promises.
---
Common Confusion
Running with the reversion is frequently conflated with running with the land, but the two describe opposite sides of the same transaction. A covenant runs with the land when it attaches to the possessory or granted estate — the tenant's or grantee's interest. A covenant runs with the reversion when it attaches to the retained or reversionary estate — the landlord's or grantor's interest. Both covenants must satisfy related but distinct privity requirements, and a researcher examining historical sources must be careful about which side of the relationship a court is addressing. Confusing the two leads to misreading whether a successor landlord or a successor tenant is bound.
---
Core Elements
For a covenant to run with the reversion, courts have historically required:
1. A reversionary interest must exist. The doctrine applies only where a grantor retains a future interest — a reversion — in the property after carving out a lesser estate.
2. The covenant must touch and concern the reversion. The promise must relate to the land or its use in a way that affects the reversioner in that capacity, not merely as an individual. Purely collateral personal promises do not run.
3. Privity of estate between the original parties. There must be a tenure relationship — typically landlord and tenant — between the covenanting parties at the time the covenant is made.
4. Intent that the covenant run. The original parties must have intended the covenant to bind and benefit successors to the reversion, not just the contracting parties personally. Modern courts often infer this from context; older cases required more explicit indication.
5. Succession to the reversion. The party seeking to enforce or be bound by the covenant must have actually succeeded to the reversionary interest, not merely acquired some collateral right.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This term appears most often in older English and American common law materials dealing with landlord-tenant covenants and fee farm grants. Researchers working in pre-twentieth-century property records or cases will encounter it regularly; modern legal drafting tends to absorb the concept into broader discussions of covenant assignment or lease assignment clauses without using the specific phrase.
The key research trap: historical sources often discuss running with the land and running with the reversion in the same breath without clearly distinguishing which side of the relationship is at issue. A covenant enforced by an assignee of the landlord against the original tenant runs with the reversion; a covenant enforced by the original landlord against an assignee of the tenant runs with the land. Misidentifying which side is moving will send you to the wrong doctrinal analysis.
Jurisdictional research adds another layer. American courts absorbed the English common law rules, but statutory modifications — particularly under landlord-tenant reform statutes from the mid-twentieth century onward — often altered or displaced the common law requirements, especially the privity requirements. In states that have adopted modern property codes or residential landlord-tenant acts, the phrase itself may not appear at all, but the underlying question (whether a successor landlord is bound by or can enforce the original landlord's covenants) remains live and is resolved by statute.
This concept also connects to real covenant doctrine more broadly. Researchers analyzing whether a particular covenant is enforceable between remote parties should trace both lines — the land side and the reversion side — before concluding who is bound.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's Law Dictionary (2nd Ed.) provides a compressed but accurate statement: "A covenant is said to 'run with the reversion' when either the liability to perform it or the right to take advantage of it" passes with the reversion. The entry is notably brief, reflecting that by the early twentieth century the concept was treated as well-settled common law background rather than a contested doctrinal question requiring extended definition.
What Black's does not address — and what researchers should not assume — is the touch-and-concern requirement's application to reversionary covenants specifically, or the interplay with statutory privity rules that emerged in American jurisdictions. The historical dictionaries treat this as a landlord-tenant doctrine; they do not address how it maps onto modern commercial lease assignments or fee simple determinable scenarios where a reversion-like future interest exists outside the classical lease context.
---
Jurisdictional Note
The core doctrine is English in origin and was received broadly across American common law states, but the practical significance varies. States with comprehensive landlord-tenant statutes may resolve the same questions through statutory assignment provisions rather than common law covenant doctrine. Researchers should check whether a given jurisdiction has codified lease assignment rules before relying solely on common law "running with the reversion" analysis.
---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
Real Covenants — Running with the Land (Horizontal and Vertical Privity) (The Law Mind Property Law Encyclopedia)
---