Land Use Restriction Not Binding Unless Written

no picture

Mintz v. Township of Millstone


On January 21, 2005, the Appellate Division in Mintz v. Township of Millstone, 374 N.J.Super. 396, held that a local planning board could not use anecdotal evidence of an alleged land use restriction as a basis for denying an application for subdivision approval where the owner/applicant took title to the affected lands without notice of such restriction. Here, the anecdotal evidence consisted of the "memories of some residents" and a comment in the minutes of the planning board's hearing that took place when the owner/applicant's predecessor in title first obtained approval from the board to create the property out of a larger tract. According to the court, there was "no dispute" that the purchaser/applicant would have been unable to discover the planning board's alleged prohibition against further subdivision by "conducting a diligent search of the chain of title." Mintz, 374 N.J.Super. at 398, 402. "Indeed, as the evidence heard by the board indicates, the only way a purchaser . . . could gain knowledge of this alleged restriction would be through the testimony of neighbors and the decoding of a typographical error in the minutes of a board meeting that occurred over twenty years earlier." Ibid. at 402.

The court further remarked that under the instant circumstances where "[t]he board's actions in attempting to create [an] alleged restriction are so wanting" a reviewing court may simply declare the restriction unenforceable without having to weigh the "competing interests" that may exist between a governmental agency seeking to impose a limitation on the use of land and an innocent purchaser who acquires the said property without notice of any such restriction. On the contrary, "[t]here need only be a weighing of these competing interests when a local agency has at least memorialized its ruling. A 'deed restriction of the mind,' such as that found by the board to exist, cannot be enforced." Ibid. at 406.

Trackbacks (0) Links to blogs that reference this article Trackback URL
http://www.njlawblog.com/admin/trackback/24799
Comments (2) Read through and enter the discussion with the form at the end
Jeff Ziccardi - May 19, 2007 8:21 AM

My question is can a developer restrict the use of a room in a condo? A developer is building condos with two bedrooms and a den with a closet. The den in next to the other bedroom and the bathroom and has a door on it. I want to use the den as a third bedroom.
Is that something I can do and how can they enforce such a restriction?
The condo is in Lower Township of Cape May County New Jersey

David Byrne - May 31, 2007 8:51 AM

Mr. Ziccardi. We received your blog comment. It is very possible that a developer, by virtue of a master deed, can limit the use of the rooms, and hence the # of occupants. The Association would enforce this. The municipality likely has a similar restriction. I hope that this helps.

Post A Comment / Question Use this form to add a comment to this entry.







Remember personal info?