• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

How Outdated Zoning Laws Are Fueling America’s Housing Crisis

jar546

CBO
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
12,946
Location
Not where I really want to be
The United States is grappling with a significant housing shortage that has driven costs to unsustainable levels and left many without adequate housing options. While it is convenient to blame minimum building codes for the crisis, the deeper and more impactful issue lies in restrictive zoning laws. These laws, which dictate how land can be used, often stand as barriers to developing diverse and affordable housing solutions. Originally intended to organize urban growth and ensure orderly development, zoning laws have morphed into tools that perpetuate "Not In My Backyard" (NIMBY) sentiments. They overwhelmingly favor single-family homes over multi-family units, limiting housing diversity and pushing urban sprawl to its extremes. This sprawl demands costly infrastructure extensions for roads, utilities, and public services, placing unsustainable financial burdens on municipalities and taxpayers.

As a Building Official, I see this issue firsthand. In some areas, there are established multi-family zones already developed with aging infrastructure. Developers are eager to rebuild these zones with newer, more resilient structures, especially since many of them are located in special flood hazard areas (SFHAs). However, restrictive density rules within the zoning code often create insurmountable barriers. For example, in multi-family zoned areas, if a developer wants to replace an outdated three-unit townhouse with a modern and resilient structure, they may find they are only allowed to build a single-family home due to these restrictive rules. This not only stifles necessary redevelopment but also wastes valuable opportunities to improve housing availability and enhance resilience against flooding and other hazards.

The inefficiency of suburban expansion is staggering. Single-family developments consume enormous amounts of land while generating less tax revenue per acre than higher-density developments. Cities and towns must foot the bill for the extended infrastructure needed to support these sprawling neighborhoods, from new schools to widened roads and expanded water systems. This burden grows heavier as populations increase, and the cycle of suburban sprawl exacerbates economic and environmental challenges. In contrast, denser developments, such as apartments and townhouses, maximize land use, require fewer resources, and contribute more to local tax bases.

One of the most promising solutions to the housing crisis is the widespread adoption of multi-family housing. Townhouses, apartments, co-ops, and condos offer efficient and affordable ways to house growing populations. These options allow more people to live comfortably in urban areas without requiring significant land expansion. Cities like Minneapolis have already taken bold steps to address this issue by eliminating single-family zoning and allowing multi-family housing in areas once restricted to single-family homes. This policy shift has paved the way for more inclusive and adaptable neighborhoods, setting an example for other cities to follow.

An equally important aspect of solving the housing crisis is embracing mixed-use developments. These spaces integrate residential, commercial, and recreational areas, creating vibrant communities where people can live, work, and shop without needing to rely heavily on cars. Mixed-use developments reduce travel times, encourage local economic growth, and foster a sense of community that sprawling suburbs often lack. They also offer a sustainable way to increase housing density while improving quality of life. One notable trend is the repurposing of struggling retail malls into mixed-use spaces that include residential units, offices, and shops. These transformations breathe new life into underutilized properties but often face regulatory hurdles due to outdated zoning laws.

Parking requirements present another significant challenge. Traditional zoning laws demand extensive parking for commercial and residential developments, leading to vast, underutilized lots that could otherwise serve as housing or community spaces. This car-centric approach perpetuates urban sprawl and wastes valuable land. Innovative solutions, such as integrating parking into multi-use buildings or rethinking public transportation systems, can significantly reduce the amount of land devoted to parking while improving urban density. By prioritizing smart design over outdated mandates, cities can reclaim land for housing and reduce their environmental impact.

Increased housing density directly supports the development and sustainability of public transportation. When people live closer together in well-planned, mixed-use areas, public transit becomes more viable and efficient. This shift not only reduces dependence on cars but also decreases traffic congestion and air pollution. Furthermore, well-connected transit systems make urban living more accessible and affordable, fostering economic growth and social mobility.

The housing shortage in the United States cannot be solved without addressing the root causes embedded in zoning laws. These laws, while often overlooked in public debates, are among the most significant barriers to creating affordable, sustainable, and vibrant communities. Reforming them to encourage higher-density housing and mixed-use developments is essential. By fostering diverse housing options and reducing unnecessary restrictions, we can begin to build a future where housing is not just a privilege but a right accessible to all. The time has come to rethink outdated practices and embrace innovative solutions that meet the needs of a growing population while paving the way for smarter, more livable cities.
 
Last edited:
For example, in multi-family zoned areas, if a developer wants to replace an outdated three-unit townhouse with a modern and resilient structure, they may find they are only allowed to build a single-family home due to these restrictive rules.
That example does not make sense
In contrast, denser developments, such as apartments and townhouses, maximize land use, require fewer resources, and contribute more to local tax bases.
Based on what formula? Units per acre if so then you need to compare city expenditure's such as police, fire, emergency services, garbage, sewer and water based on units per acre.
 
That example does not make sense

Based on what formula? Units per acre if so then you need to compare city expenditure's such as police, fire, emergency services, garbage, sewer and water based on units per acre.
The example does make sense because the zoning densities were changed long after the three unit was built. This is something that we are actively working to try to fix with the current commission. You cannot rebuild what you had unless it was damaged from a natural disaster. If you decide to tear down a three unit in that particular zoning area, the densities are so low that you can only fit a single-family home, which is completely counterproductive.

regarding your second comment, density clearly outweighs less dense areas when it comes to the tax base and the actual costs for the municipalities. There have been an abundance of studies and graphs that clearly show the tax base per acre for higher density versus a acre with a Walmart on it that’s full of nothing but parking.
 
regarding your second comment, density clearly outweighs less dense areas when it comes to the tax base and the actual costs for the municipalities.
That one might depend on how many kids are in the density/schools...With 70% of our Town taxes going to the schools and whatever from the State and whatever from the Feds...
 
That one might depend on how many kids are in the density/schools...With 70% of our Town taxes going to the schools and whatever from the State and whatever from the Feds...
I think comparison is assuming that you have the same number of people with the same composition (adults vs. children). I have not heard anything that the density of dwellings has an effect on increasing or decreasing children.
 
I think comparison is assuming that you have the same number of people with the same composition (adults vs. children). I have not heard anything that the density of dwellings has an effect on increasing or decreasing children.
If they are studios or one bedrooms it absolutely does....
 
If they are studios or one bedrooms it absolutely does....
But again, we are not comparing like-to-like in that scenario. We can't compare a 3-5 bedroom house against a studio/single bedroom apartment. It's a fundamentally flawed comparison that really does not serve a purpose.
 
But again, we are not comparing like-to-like in that scenario. We can't compare a 3-5 bedroom house against a studio/single bedroom apartment. It's a fundamentally flawed comparison that really does not serve a purpose.
And that is where the ASSUMPTIONS are wrong......We are not building one bedroom houses...we are building one bedroom apartments....And conversely...I see a small percentage of apartments that are 3 BR and most houses are...You can't necessarily do "like for like", you have to go with what is being built and occupied...SFD are generally a loser on revenue, I know that, but if you jam more kids in a smaller space, likely more of a loser....
 
There is no magic bullet and a measured approach is required...The last place I worked tried to encourage MF next to industrial as a buffer to SF....What they then ended up with was 100 neighbors speaking against any proposal in the Industrial zones instead of 5.....
 
Do none of you work in jurisdictions where the zoning prohibits all multi family housing? Where SFR required a minimum 1 acre lot? I thought those places were what were "fueling America's housing crisis"? That and home builders much more motivated to build $1m+ houses rather than <$250k houses.
 
Do none of you work in jurisdictions where the zoning prohibits all multi family housing? Where SFR required a minimum 1 acre lot? I thought those places were what were "fueling America's housing crisis"? That and home builders much more motivated to build $1m+ houses rather than <$250k houses.
CT just rebranded it "workforce" housing instead of affordable.....So it's rich people causing the problem ($1mil+)...maybe we should just tax them more....
 
If you decide to tear down a three unit in that particular zoning area, the densities are so low that you can only fit a single-family home, which is completely counterproductive.
Then it is not a multi-family zone like your OP stated. It may be a grandfathered non-conforming use in a single family zone district.
 
There have been an abundance of studies and graphs that clearly show the tax base per acre for higher density versus a acre with a Walmart on it that’s full of nothing but parking.
Are they including the sales tax a Wal-Mart collects? It is all part of the tax system that needs to be included.

A block and mortar store without onsite parking will not survive.

Try carrying your newly purchased 70" TV or a weeks worth of groceries home on a public transportation system
 
The example does make sense because the zoning densities were changed long after the three unit was built. This is something that we are actively working to try to fix with the current commission. You cannot rebuild what you had unless it was damaged from a natural disaster. If you decide to tear down a three unit in that particular zoning area, the densities are so low that you can only fit a single-family home, which is completely counterproductive.

But single-family is not multi-family. A zoning regulation that only allows single family dwellings in areas zoned multi-family is self-contradictory.
 
And that is where the ASSUMPTIONS are wrong......We are not building one bedroom houses...we are building one bedroom apartments....And conversely...I see a small percentage of apartments that are 3 BR and most houses are...You can't necessarily do "like for like", you have to go with what is being built and occupied...SFD are generally a loser on revenue, I know that, but if you jam more kids in a smaller space, likely more of a loser....
I think this is where the issue lies. We believe our experience is a representative sample for what is happening on a regional or national level, but we don't need any evidence to come to this conclusion. This is a logical fallacy called a faulty generalization.

For instance, you indicate few apartments being built in your jurisdiction are 3 bedroom and many are single bedroom. This is completely contrary to mine when I was working for a municipality. I don't know that I ever saw an apartment building with single bedrooms. A few being added into existing dwellings, but no actual apartment buildings. The minimum size was 2 bedroom with about 20% being 3 bedrooms.

However, all of this is irrelevant to the original post. If we are doing a purely economic comparison, we must perform a like-for-like comparison, or the comparison is fundamentally flawed. We could all make arguments that cramming families into a single bedroom apartment would generate less costs in infrastructure, but most families would not perform well in this environment (the is the most politically correct way I can think of to say this).

However, one of the main issues is that restrictive zoning reduces choice of the consumer. We functionally have local governments dictating what type of housing is available in a given market, rather than allowing the free market to decide.
 
Do none of you work in jurisdictions where the zoning prohibits all multi family housing? Where SFR required a minimum 1 acre lot? I thought those places were what were "fueling America's housing crisis"? That and home builders much more motivated to build $1m+ houses rather than <$250k houses.
I was in one where single family zoning was the status quo and multi-family was treated like poor people trying to invade the community. That shifted towards the end of my time there.

The issue wasn't the fact that there was a housing crisis. It was an infrastructure crisis. The community was only able to meet 50% of the budgetary requirements to maintain the road infrastructure (utility was not far behind). They had to choose between accepting higher density or significant tax increases. From a political standpoint, it is better to piss off a couple dozen residents around new apartment buildings, than to piss everyone off with drastically increased tax rates.
 
However, all of this is irrelevant to the original post. If we are doing a purely economic comparison, we must perform a like-for-like comparison, or the comparison is fundamentally flawed. We could all make arguments that cramming families into a single bedroom apartment would generate less costs in infrastructure, but most families would not perform well in this environment (the is the most politically correct way I can think of to say this).
There is a difference between suburbia and reasonable, well-planned multi-family housing or just increased density, such as townhomes and mixed-use planning and zoning. If the bubble you live in is thinking that either you have a large single-family home with a white picket fence or you are in a high-rise apartment, that's what's flawed.
 
Where i am gated communities cover over 50% of the buildable area and they set the rules on how much land a house needs and bands muiti-family buildings. Changing zoning laws would not help.
 
Where i am gated communities cover over 50% of the buildable area and they set the rules on how much land a house needs and bands muiti-family buildings. Changing zoning laws would not help.
Actually, they would because the municipality they are located in determines zoning and density. The more units the developer can build on a smaller lot, the more profit, so the industry would love to see mixed-use and increased density. The gated communities only exist because the municipality allows them to.
 
The developer does not own the land. The community (lot owners) own the land. Kind of like a condo association. The lots were drawn out and sold over 50 years ago. It least half of them are built on. I don't think they would ever agree to increase the density.
 
Back
Top