What is the difference between a right of way and a building restriction?

We are impressed with the cogent criticism of the conceptual underpinnings of Friesen. First, it is unquestioned that building restrictions constitute property rights for some purposes (Mock v. Shulman (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 263, 269--270, 38 Cal.Rptr. 39; see 5 Powell on Real Property (1971) 671, p. 147). Furthermore, it is difficult to justify affording compensation for the appropriation of an easement, which is unquestionably compensable 'property' (see 2 Nichols on Eminent Domain [9 Cal.3d 173] (3d ed. 1970) 5.72), while denying payment for violation of a restriction. Both easements and building restrictions may be created by agreements between private parties and, therefore, upon condemnation in both situations the financial burden of the condemner is increased solely by virtue of agreements made between private parties. ³ Equally important, the violation of a building restriction could cause far greater damage in monetary value to a property owner than the appropriation of a mere right of way. To establish a substantive distinction by merely labeling one a property interest for which compen sation [507 P.2d 967]

Page 79