Which type of architectural review covenant is likely to be enforceable?

The enforceability of an architectural review covenant often hinges on whether the standards set forth are reasonable, objective, and serve a legitimate purpose in maintaining the character of a community. Covenants based solely on aesthetics can be subjective and may not provide a solid basis for enforcement, as personal tastes vary widely. A covenant based on "harmony with the surroundings" typically is more enforceable since it implies consideration for the overall character of the neighborhood, ensuring that new constructions align with existing structures.

However, a covenant based on "minimum cost restrictions," while it may be perceived to allow for objectivity, raises concerns regarding economic discrimination and might not necessarily relate to the physical characteristics or aesthetic quality of properties. In contrast, a covenant revolving around the outlook of surrounding properties can also offer a level of enforceability as it connects to the actual impact of one property on another and can be framed in a way that is clear and understandable.

Therefore, the correct answer is centered on the idea that enforceability tends to favor covenants that ensure consistency with the community standards while being grounded in objective criteria rather than purely subjective measures. Covenants that check for overall harmony or the physical impact of structures tend to hold more weight in legal discussions about enforceability compared to purely aesthetic considerations.