what is the societal benefit of allowing land use restrictions when selling land? it seems like all the arguments are "it allows for permanent green spaces or mandatory sidewalks or mandatory affordable housing or mandatory low pollution areas" etc but that all seems like stuff that could just be enforced on a city level with new developments and permits rather than as a contract between two private people.

or to put it different, how does society benefit from a system where kroger can sell me land, but with the stipulation about what i'm allowed to put on it? it seems to me that if kroger wants a say in how that land is used, they need to lease it rather than sell it, which is exactly what happens in the article. the article doesn't seem to expand much on the "the supermarket giant put a requirement on the deed that no grocery store could open there until 2038" aspect