Citing an earlier case, the court provided this standard for when a property can be relieved of the burdens of a covenant:
in Essenson v. Polo Club Associates, 688 So. 2d 981, 984 (Fla. 2d DCAThe court found that even though the property in question here fronted a major street and had been rezoned to support the medical office desired by the new owner, the covenant still had benefits for the other owners in the subdivision.
1997), this court held that the party seeking to be relieved of the deed restriction
hadfailed to carry its burden of proof by showing that "the change occurred,
(1) after theagreement, (2) without any fault on its part, and (3) that the
change destroyed all valueof the covenant," in spite of the fact that the
plaintiff demonstrated changed circumstances resulting from a rezoning
affecting its property.