Restrictive covenants on property: Can a neighbour enforce one?

You have planning permission for your extension. The builder is ready to start. Then a neighbour points to a restrictive covenant in an old conveyance and says you cannot build it.

Can they really stop you?

Sometimes, yes. But the fact that a restrictive covenant appears in your title does not mean that every neighbour can enforce it, or even that it remains enforceable at all.

Restrictive covenants are one of the stranger features of property ownership in England and Wales. A promise made when an estate was laid out 30, 60 or even 100 years ago can still affect what somebody can do with their home today. Equally, a formidable-looking restriction may turn out to benefit nobody who can now enforce it.

The useful questions are therefore not simply “Is there a covenant?” but: what does it actually prevent, who has the benefit of it, and what can you do if it stands in the way?

Quick answer

A restrictive covenant is a private legal promise limiting how land may be used, for example by preventing further building, business use or use other than as a single private dwelling. Unlike many other promises affecting freehold land, a restrictive covenant can continue to bind later owners.

A neighbour may be able to enforce one, but only if they have the legal benefit of the covenant. Planning permission does not override it. Depending on the circumstances, a covenant may be released or varied by agreement, or discharged or modified by the Upper Tribunal under section 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

Contents

• What is a restrictive covenant?
• Where can I find restrictive covenants affecting my property?
• Can a neighbour enforce a restrictive covenant?
• Do old restrictive covenants expire?
• Does planning permission override a restrictive covenant?
• What happens if you breach a restrictive covenant?
• Can a restrictive covenant be removed or changed?
• How does section 84 work?
• What if the covenant says you need consent?
• What about restrictive covenant indemnity insurance?
• What should you do if a covenant causes a problem?
• Frequently asked questions

What is a restrictive covenant?

A restrictive covenant is a promise, usually contained in a deed, transfer or old conveyance, not to use land in a particular way. The land subject to the promise carries the burden of the covenant. The covenant will usually have been imposed for the benefit of other land.

Common examples include restrictions on building another house, extending without approval, running a business, parking commercial vehicles or using the property for anything other than a private residence.

That is different from a positive covenant, which requires somebody to do something, such as maintain a fence or contribute towards repairs. Positive covenants do not generally bind later owners of freehold land in the same way.

This guide is principally about freehold restrictive covenants. Covenants in leases work differently and have to be considered as part of the lease as a whole. The separate Silver Brief guides can be found in the leasehold section.

Where can I find restrictive covenants affecting my property?

For registered land, the obvious place to start is the title register. HM Land Registry’s Search for land and property information service allows you to obtain a copy.

The burden of a restrictive covenant will commonly appear in the charges register. Sometimes the wording is reproduced there. Quite often, however, the register refers back to an older transfer or conveyance, and you need that document to see exactly what was agreed.

This is where restrictive covenants can become frustrating. Your own title may clearly show that your property is burdened by a covenant, but the title of a neighbouring property will not necessarily say that its owner has the benefit.

In other words, finding the restriction can be the easy part. Working out who can enforce it may mean going back through old conveyances and looking at the land the covenant was originally intended to protect.

With unregistered land, the position can be more complicated again. Restrictive covenants created after 1925 may need to have been protected as land charges. That is one reason why an old covenant should not be treated as enforceable, or unenforceable, simply from its wording.

Can a neighbour enforce a restrictive covenant?

Possibly, but being your neighbour is not enough.

The person trying to enforce the covenant must have its legal benefit. Broadly, that may involve showing that the covenant was intended to protect identifiable land and that the benefit has passed to the present owner. On some estates, a properly established building scheme may also give owners mutual rights to enforce covenants against one another.

Sometimes that is relatively straightforward. Imagine two adjoining plots where one owner sold off part of the garden and imposed a restriction protecting the house they retained.

At the other end of the scale, you may be looking at a covenant created when a large estate was broken up a century ago, with the original owner and several generations of successors long gone. Establishing who now has the benefit can then be a substantial part of the problem.

I would be wary of both statements that commonly surface in neighbour disputes: “It is written in your deeds, so I can enforce it” and “It is 80 years old, so it means nothing.” Neither is necessarily true.

It is also worth distinguishing covenants from rights of way. A right of way is an easement, not a restrictive covenant. If the dispute concerns a driveway, path or other access, see neighbour blocking a right of way.

Do old restrictive covenants expire?

No. There is no 20-year rule, 50-year rule or 100-year rule under which restrictive covenants simply disappear.

A covenant can, of course, have been drafted to last for a limited period. But where it was not, age alone does not bring it to an end.

That can come as a surprise where the language belongs to another era. A covenant may prohibit the keeping of poultry, the erection of particular outbuildings or a trade that has not been carried on locally for generations. It is tempting to assume that nobody could seriously rely on such an old document today.

Sometimes the passage of time does matter. The purpose of the restriction may have disappeared, the character of the neighbourhood may have changed substantially or it may have become difficult to establish who is entitled to enforce it. Those matters can become important when enforceability, modification or discharge is considered.

But age is not an answer in itself.

Nor does a street full of apparently similar extensions prove that the covenant has somehow died. Some may have had consent. Others may not have breached the particular wording. Some owners may simply have taken the risk.

Does planning permission override a restrictive covenant?

No, and this catches people out surprisingly often.

Planning permission and restrictive covenants belong to separate legal systems. The council may be perfectly content for an extension, new house or change of use to go ahead while a private covenant still prevents it.

The Government’s Upper Tribunal guidance on restrictive covenants expressly draws this distinction.

So the fact that you have planning permission does not answer the covenant problem. Equally, securing a release from the covenant does not give you planning permission.

The same principle applies to other private property rights. Planning permission does not authorise you to build over somebody else’s land, interfere with a right of way or ignore obligations under the Party Wall etc. Act 1996. The guide to how close a neighbour can build to the boundary looks at some of those separate issues.

What happens if you breach a restrictive covenant?

If somebody entitled to the benefit establishes a threatened or actual breach, they may seek an injunction from the court. Depending on the circumstances, that could prevent work from going ahead or require steps to remedy a continuing breach. Damages may also be available.

That makes “build first and sort it out later” a dangerous approach.

The point was illustrated starkly in Alexander Devine Children’s Cancer Trust v Housing Solutions Ltd [2020] UKSC 45. Development had deliberately been carried out in breach of restrictive covenants before an application was made to modify them. The Supreme Court confirmed that such conduct could be highly relevant when the Tribunal later considered whether to exercise its discretion. The Supreme Court case summary explains the decision.

Disputes can also become expensive quickly if urgent injunction proceedings, historical title investigation or expert evidence are needed. The separate guide to property litigation costs explains the wider costs risks.

If the real complaint is that a neighbour has physically built across the boundary, that is primarily a trespass and boundary issue, even if a covenant is also relevant. See my neighbour has built on my land.

Can a restrictive covenant be removed or changed?

Sometimes.

One possibility is agreement with whoever is entitled to the benefit. They may agree to release the covenant altogether or vary it so that a particular extension, development or use is permitted. They may want payment, their professional costs paid or conditions attached to the agreement.

If agreement is reached, it will normally need to be documented formally.

The other main route is an application to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) under section 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925. The Tribunal has power in appropriate cases to discharge a restrictive covenant or modify it so that a proposal can proceed.

Before approaching somebody who may have the benefit, however, it is worth stopping to work out the position properly. Contact can sometimes affect whether indemnity insurance remains available.

How does section 84 work?

The Upper Tribunal cannot remove a restrictive covenant simply because it is inconvenient. There must be a statutory basis for doing so.

In broad terms, the Tribunal can consider matters such as whether changes to the property or neighbourhood have made the restriction obsolete, whether it is preventing a reasonable use of the land without securing substantial practical benefits for the person entitled to enforce it, whether those entitled to the benefit agree to the change, or whether the proposed discharge or modification would cause them no injury.

Those are deliberately broad descriptions. The statutory tests matter, and establishing one does not necessarily mean that the Tribunal must grant the application. It retains a discretion.

Compensation may also be payable in circumstances allowed by section 84.

An application can therefore involve considerably more than filling in a form. Evidence may be needed about the history and purpose of the covenant, changes in the neighbourhood, planning permission, the proposed use and the effect on the land said to benefit from the restriction.

The current Upper Tribunal guide to discharging or modifying restrictive covenants explains the procedure in detail.

It also makes an important distinction. Section 84 deals with restrictive covenants. It does not give the Tribunal the same power to remove positive covenants or easements such as rights of way.

What if the covenant says you need consent?

Not every restrictive covenant contains an outright ban. Many say that building work, alterations or another use are prohibited unless prior written consent is obtained from a named person, developer, estate owner or successor.

This can cause trouble years later.

An extension may have been completed without anybody objecting. The owner then comes to sell and discovers that the planning permission and building regulations approval were obtained, but the separate covenant consent was not.

That is not merely a theoretical problem. In July 2026, Parliament’s Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee raised concerns with the Housing Minister about homeowners facing substantial demands for retrospective consent under restrictive covenants. Its letter and accompanying announcement on restrictive covenants highlighted cases involving demands for large sums of money.

The first question remains whether consent was actually required under the wording and who, if anyone, is now entitled to give it. Old companies disappear, land is sold and the original consent mechanism may no longer fit neatly with modern ownership.

Nor should you assume that planning permission means consent under the covenant must follow. They are different questions.

If the title requires formal written approval, a neighbour saying years ago that they “didn’t mind” may not solve the problem either.

What about restrictive covenant indemnity insurance?

Restrictive covenant indemnity insurance is sometimes used where there is a risk of enforcement, particularly during a sale, purchase or proposed development.

It does not remove the covenant and it does not establish that the covenant is unenforceable. It is insurance against specified consequences if an enforcement problem arises, subject to the wording and conditions of the policy.

Timing matters. Policies commonly require that nobody with a possible benefit has been approached and that there has been no existing dispute or objection.

That is why contacting a neighbour or former developer before taking advice can occasionally close off an option that might otherwise have been available.

What should you do if a covenant causes a problem?

Start with the documents rather than the argument.

Obtain the current title register and any transfer or conveyance referred to in it. Read the covenant in its original context. Look for the wording of the restriction, the land it was intended to protect, any exceptions and any provision requiring consent.

Then ask whether what you actually want to do falls within the restriction. Old wording can be deceptively precise. A covenant preventing another “dwellinghouse” from being erected does not necessarily raise the same issue as one prohibiting “any building”.

Next comes the question that is often overlooked: who has the benefit today?

If building work is involved, keep the covenant separate from planning permission, boundaries, party wall requirements and easements. Solving one of those problems does not solve the others.

And if a neighbour is already objecting, try not to turn a title question into a personal feud before the documents have been checked. It is remarkably easy for a neighbour dispute to become harder simply because both sides become committed to positions before anybody has established what the legal documents actually say.

The broader guide to resolving neighbour disputes looks at practical ways of keeping these disagreements proportionate.

Frequently asked questions

Does a restrictive covenant expire after 20 years?

No. There is no general 20-year expiry rule for restrictive covenants. Age can become relevant to enforceability or an application to discharge or modify a covenant, but it does not automatically bring the restriction to an end.

Can HM Land Registry remove a restrictive covenant?

HM Land Registry records interests affecting registered land, but it does not simply cancel a valid covenant because an owner considers it obsolete. There must be a proper legal basis for altering the register, supported by appropriate evidence such as a release or Tribunal order.

Can I ignore a covenant if other neighbours have breached it?

Not safely. Other apparent breaches may be relevant, particularly if they show that the character of the neighbourhood has changed, but they do not automatically release your property from the covenant. Some works may also have been consented to or may not have breached the restriction at all.

Can a neighbour enforce a covenant if it is not on their title?

Potentially, yes. The burden may appear on your title without the benefit being expressly shown on the neighbour’s register. Whether they can enforce it depends on how the benefit of the covenant was created and whether it has passed to them.

Is a restrictive covenant the same as a right of way?

No. A restrictive covenant limits what an owner may do with their own land. A right of way is an easement allowing somebody to use another person’s land for access. Different legal rules apply.

The difficult question is often not what the covenant says

A restrictive covenant dispute often begins with somebody finding a sentence in an old deed and treating it as decisive. Usually, it is only the starting point.

The words matter, but so do the land the covenant was intended to protect, who now has its benefit and what has happened since it was imposed.

That is why appearances can be misleading. A restriction written in Victorian language may still be perfectly capable of enforcement. Another that looks formidable in the title may turn out to protect no identifiable land in the hands of anyone now entitled to complain.

Before abandoning an extension, paying for consent or telling a neighbour that an old covenant is worthless, it is worth establishing which of those situations you are actually dealing with.

Last legally reviewed: 27 August 2026

This article is based on general principles of English and Welsh law, is intended for informational purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice or establish a professional relationship.

About the author, Clare Lowes