In my example between two people, I had them first trade properties and then give each other the property back conditionally, so that each person occupied the same residence at all times. Trying to set up the same scenario while expanding the number of people, I made that initial trade circular among all members, and then each member was conditionally given his original property back. And with that setup, you are right on the problem if one person violates conditions, one of the other owners now has two properties, and everyone else still remains with one. So that would not be effective enforcement of a covenant. I tried addressing that issue in my second paragraph, although quickly. I will expand on what I tried to describe as a solution.
Instead of 1 giving to 2, 2 ->3, 3->4…(x-1)->x, x->1 in the first step, it goes as follows. Person 1 splits his property into (X-1) pieces, gives piece1 to person2, piece2 to person3, …piece(X-2) to person(X-1), piece(X-1) to person(X). At the same time Person 2 does the same thing, gives his piece1 to person1, piece2 to person3, piece3 to person4…piece(X-1) to person(X). And so on down to person X. At the end of this step, every person owns a part of everyone else’s property who is involved. Then for the conditional giving of property back to the original owner. Person2 gives piece1 of what was originally person1’s property back to person1 under whatever conditions are agreed upon. At the same time, Person3 gives piece2 of what was originally person1’s property back to person1 under the same conditions. Person4 gives piece3 back to person1 conditionally. And so on. Also at the same time, person1 gives piece1 of what was originally person2’s property back to person2 under the same conditions, while person3 gives piece2 of what was originally person2’s property back to person2 under the same conditions…and so on. At the end, each person retains the total property he started with, now with conditions. But in this case all members have a stake in any individual property. So in the case of a contract violation, each of the remaining members now owns (1 + 1/(X-1)) lots of property, where every member left owns a part of the lot of the person who is now kicked out.
Did that help, or merely obfuscate things further?
Also, in case it seems too harsh of an agreement, I have something else in mind using this basic setup where any violating person would still have the opportunity to sell his property rather than simply get kicked out. But I don’t need to go into that since it will probably only confuse things right now. If the current setup is valid, then the setup I have in mind for that would also be valid.