In Conlin v Upton, a published Michigan Court of Appeals opinion, the court held that a set of bylaws, adopted by an association established by the developer, could not impose greater or different restrictions on the construction of homes in the subdivision than those established by the developer. Provisions that were different or more restrictive than those established by the developer were invalid.
However, a question of fact remained whether the developer had assigned his architectural rights to the association and the case was remanded to the trial court for resolution of that fact question.
The opinion contains a fairly complete discussion of the state of the law on covenants running with the land, who is burdened by them, and when and under what circumstances they may be amended.