-
Environmental Law
- Personal Injury from PFAS Exposure and Contaminated Drinking Water
- Lead Exposure in Families – Legal Help for New Jersey and New York Residents
- Environmental Litigation
- Environmental Cleanup Cost Recovery
- Hazardous Site Remediation
- Underground Storage Tanks
- Regulatory Permitting, Compliance & Enforcement
- Toxic Exposure Claims
- Drinking Water Litigation
- Property Development
- Municipal & Government Entity Representation
- Mold Claims Defense For Property Owners
Search Site
10 Jefferson Plaza, Suite 400 | Princeton, New Jersey 08540
845 Third Avenue, 6th Floor | New York, New York 10022
845 Third Avenue, 6th Floor | New York, New York 10022
Call for a consultation
732-355-1311
When it comes to beachfront property, few things are as prized as an unobstructed view of the ocean. But what happens when neighbors disagree over what “open view” really means? A recent decision from the New Jersey Appellate Division sheds light on how restrictive covenants can shape property rights along the shore.
The Case: Gallo v. Hafner
In Cape May County, the plaintiffs, Frank J. Gallo and others, own a flag lot at 7-107th Street in Stone Harbor. Their neighbor, John A. Hafner, Jr., owns the adjacent beachfront parcel at 1-107th Street. Hafner’s property is subject to a 1985 restrictive covenant that prohibits:
• Any construction in the rear 50 feet of the lot
• Plantings above four feet in height
The purpose? To preserve an “open view to the ocean” for neighboring properties.
The Dispute
Despite the covenant, Hafner constructed a two-foot-high berm and planted trees ranging from three to six feet tall on top of it. The plaintiffs argued this violated the restriction and blocked their view.
Hafner countered by claiming the covenant was no longer enforceable due to “changed circumstances.” Specifically, he pointed to government-built dunes that already obstructed any direct ocean view from the plaintiffs’ property. He also disputed the interpretation of the covenant itself.
The Courts Weigh In
• Trial Court Ruling: The judge found the covenant unambiguous and interpreted it broadly to protect not just the ocean horizon but also the dunes and beachscape. The court enforced the restriction and granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs.
• Appellate Division: On appeal, the higher court affirmed the ruling, holding that the covenant remained enforceable despite the dunes. The restriction still served its purpose of preserving an open vista toward the ocean environment.
Why It Matters
This case highlights several important principles in real estate law:
• Restrictive covenants endure: Even when physical circumstances change, courts may uphold covenants if they continue to serve their intended purpose.
• Interpretation favors clarity: Ambiguities are resolved by looking at the covenant’s language and intent.
• Property rights vs. natural changes: Government actions like dune construction don’t automatically nullify private agreements between landowners.
For property owners, especially in coastal communities, this decision underscores the importance of understanding—and respecting—restrictive covenants. They can have lasting impact on how land is used and enjoyed, even decades after being recorded.
Our Attorneys
Contact Our Firm
