Lamica v. Gerdes

We find no merit in appellant’s contention that the court erred in striking from his answer allegations as to changed conditions and zoning. This Court has heretofore stated that, “ ‘It is generally held that the encroachments of business and changes due thereto, in order to undo the force and validity of the restrictions, must take place within the covenanted area.’ ” Also, “ ‘A valid restriction on the use of real property is neither nullified nor superseded by the adoption or enactment of a zoning ordinance, nor is the validity of the covenant thereby affected.’ ” (Emphasis ours) Tull v.…