Which of the following was the result in Country Club Dist. Homes Assn. v. Country Club Christian Church, the case in the text in which the defending church wanted to use three lots in a subdivision for a parking lot, and the subdivision homeowners' association sued to enforce a restrictive covenant providing that lots in the subdivision would only be sued for private residences?
A- The court ruled that the church was not subject to the restrictions because it was a nonprofit entity.
B- The court ruled that the church was not subject to the restrictions because it was a religious entity.
C- The court ruled that the church was barred by the restrictive covenant from using the lots as a parking lot.
D- The court ruled that the church was allowed to proceed because using the lots for parking was the highest and best use for the property.
E- The court ruled that the church was not subject to the restrictions because the church itself was not a private residence but was allowed to remain, and it was clearly entitled to sufficient parking.