Building restrictions and all restrictions as to the use or occupancy of real property shall be strictly construed, and restrictions which provide for the forfeiture or defeasance of title to or an interest in real property because of the violation of the restrictions on other real property and if the parcels of real property are owned by different persons or individuals shall be construed as applying only to the property embraced in the restriction and owned by the party on whose property the violation of the restriction occurred.
Source: L. 27: p. 606, § 46. CSA: C. 40, § 153. CRS 53: § 118-8-3. C.R.S. 1963: § 118-8-3.
ANNOTATION
Law reviews. For note, "The Effect of Tax Titles Upon Easements and Restrictions Upon the Use of Land in Colorado", see 33 Dicta 228 (1956). For article, "Subdivision", see 28 Rocky Mt. L. Rev. 471 (1956). For article, "Forever is an Awfully Long Time: Affordable Housing Covenants in Colorado (Part II)", see 48 Colo. Law. 44 (Aug.-Sept. 2019).
Under this section, any doubt relative to the meaning and application of a covenant must be resolved in favor of unrestricted use of property and all restrictions relative to the use or occupancy of real property must be strictly construed. Covenant provision that allowed "two horses or bovine animals to be kept on a lot of five or less acres" did not prohibit sheep from being maintained on such a lot. Dunne v. Shenandoah Homeowners Ass'n, Inc., 12 P.3d 340 (Colo. App. 2000).
Phrase "single-family dwelling" in restrictive covenant is a structural restriction and not a use restriction. Double D Manor v. Evergreen Meadows, 773 P.2d 1046 (Colo. 1989).
Use of single-family dwelling as group home for developmentally disabled children is a residential use and does not violate residential use requirement of restrictive covenant. Double D Manor v. Evergreen Meadows, 773 P.2d 1046 (Colo. 1989).