Under the doctrine of attornment, which covenant in a gym lease case runs with the land and remains enforceable against the tenant after the landlord transfers the lease to a third party?

• A. The covenant in the lease requiring clients to sign liability waivers that touch and concern the land.
• B. The covenant to pay rent.
• C. The covenant not to assign without consent.
• D. The insurance requirement.

Answer: (A)

The key idea is that covenants which run with the land are real covenants that touch and concern the property, so they bind successors in interest even after the lease is transferred to a new landlord. In this gym lease scenario, the covenant requiring clients to sign liability waivers touches the use and safety of the premises and the way the space is operated. Because it affects how the land is used and what happens on the land, it’s attached to the property itself rather than being a purely personal promise between the original landlord and tenant. Under attornment, the new landlord steps into the shoes of the former one, and this covenant remains enforceable against the tenant regardless of who holds the lease, since it runs with the land.

Other covenants described are more about the tenants’ contractual relations or personal assurances and do not necessarily bind successors in the same way. For example, while paying rent is fundamental, it’s a classic contractual obligation that can be handled through privity of contract and estate, and its continued enforceability after transfer is more about that direct contract than about a land-bound covenant that runs with the property. Therefore, the liability waiver covenant stands out as the one that cleanly runs with the land and remains enforceable after the landlord transfers the lease.