Assessing Land-Use Reform

There are many explanations for the stark differences in housing production across the states, but among the key factors are restrictive zoning regulations and land-use processes that make it hard to get to yes on any proposed new housing development. Considerable research shows a correlation between the restrictiveness of zoning regulations and the supply of housing—and, subsequently, of rents and housing prices. 

Many states have acknowledged the need to reform their land-use systems, and over the past eight years, we’ve seen at least 20 states pass significant legislation to make it easier and less risky to build. The states range from those whose residents voted for Democratic presidential candidates in the last four elections (such as California, Maryland, New Jersey, and Washington) to those that voted for Republican candidates (Montana and Tennessee), and those in-between (Arizona and Florida). In addition, many cities, including Austin, Birmingham, Sacramento, and St. Paul, have significantly reformed at least some of their land-use regulations. 

Such reforms show the power of the states to act as laboratories of experimentation, because different states have taken a wide range of approaches to improving their land-use systems. The most common categories of reforms, and representative examples of state approaches in each, are described below. 

• Requiring local governments to plan for new development. Arizona, for example, passed legislation in 2024 requiring localities to assess the need for additional housing every five years, and to report annually on progress toward meeting those needs. California, which has had a robust planning requirement for many years, has strengthened the requirement and its enforcement. Connecticut, Colorado, Florida, Nebraska, Oregon, Washington, and Utah also have either strengthened existing planning requirements or mandated significant requirements for the first time in recent years. 

• Requiring local governments to develop affordable housing. California assigns each municipality the number of new units it needs to make available by rezoning or other actions. Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island all require that 10% of each municipality’s housing stock be affordable for low- or moderate-income households. Oregon requires cities with populations above 10,000 to set targets for specific income levels, then allows developers to build to meet those targets. 

• Requiring local governments to allow specific types of housing. At least 16 states have passed legislation in recent years to require local governments to allow accessory dwelling units (ADUs) on the same lot as a single-family dwelling. Similarly, a number of states have required at least some of their municipalities to allow transit-oriented development, defined as “dense, walkable, and mixed-use spaces near transit.” Massachusetts, for example, requires communities served by its transit authority to provide a zoning district “of reasonable size” near stations, where multifamily housing at specific densities is permitted.

• Requiring local governments to allow more density. Arizona, California, Montana, Oregon, and Washington all now require localities to allow low-density multifamily buildings, such as duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, or small apartment buildings in areas zoned for single-family dwellings. Florida and Maine take a different tack, requiring localities to allow mixed-income or affordable multi-family developments to be built at a multiple of the density the locality already allowed.

• Mandating process changes. These mandates take a variety of forms. Massachusetts, for example, lowered the threshold required to approve a development from two-thirds to a simple majority of the local governing body. Some states require their localities to use ministerial, not discretionary, review, for projects to comply with a comprehensive plan (Montana), or to meet basic standards (Vermont), or to approve certain kinds of housing, such as ADUs (Rhode Island) or affordable housing (California). California requires localities that reject proposed projects to find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the project fails objective health and safety requirements in place at the project’s preliminary application. Washington limits the number of public hearings a locality can hold on a proposed project. Texas limits the time localities can take to make decisions on proposed projects, and allows third-party review if the relevant local authority does not make a decision within 15 days of the deadline.  

• Eliminating or limiting environmental review. Only a few states require (or allow their local governments to require) environmental review for housing developments. Those that do have been criticized for imposing too much time and cost while resulting in overly technical reports that hamper decision-makers’ and the public’s understanding of the proposal’s potential costs and benefits and generate considerable litigation. California recently eliminated environmental reviews for certain kinds of housing, while Minnesota eliminated the requirement that comprehensive plans be subject to environmental review. 

• Limiting local governments’ authority to impose minimum parking requirements. Colorado and Florida have prohibited localities from imposing minimum parking standards on high-density developments in neighborhoods near transit. Montana and Washington prohibit local governments from requiring more than one off-street parking space per housing unit, and Vermont caps the parking spaces that can be required to 1.5 spaces per unit. Oregon requires
  cities and counties with more than 5,000 people to either repeal all parking mandates or choose from a menu of reforms. 

• Mandating the zoning for certain kinds of land. Three states—California, Oregon, and Washington—have passed legislation specifying the density and other zoning requirements that local governments can impose on land owned by faith-based organizations to be developed as affordable (or in some cases mixed-use) housing. Maryland mandates density requirements for land owned by nonprofits (including faith-based organizations) that has been proposed for development as mixed-market-rate and affordable housing. California requires local governments to rezone land owned by transit agencies to accommodate housing. California and several other states have passed similar legislation to allow the conversion of office and commercial buildings into housing. Arizona, for example, requires municipalities with a population of at least 150,000 to permit by-right commercial or office buildings to be converted to multifamily residential development (with some exceptions).

• Allowing a builders’ remedy. When a municipality fails to meet its housing targets or to comply with planning requirements, a number of states—California, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island—provide a “builders’ remedy.” The nature of the policies differs between states, but generally they apply when a developer proposes to build mixed-use or affordable housing in a locality that has not met the state’s requirements for a specific number or share of affordable housing units. The developer is typically allowed to use a streamlined permitting procedure in which the locality can reject the proposal only on specified narrow grounds. If the jurisdiction refuses to permit the project, the developer is typically entitled to an expedited appeal, often to a specialized court or administrative body. In California, for example, jurisdictions that have not complied with the state’s planning requirements must review proposals within strict deadlines and significant limits on local discretion, as long as the project includes a share of low- or moderate-income units. 

• Providing incentives for localities to adopt pro-housing measures. California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Utah, and Washington have all established funds to encourage their local governments to zone for high-density, mixed-income developments near transit. Utah has authorized localities to use tax-increment financing to spur development in areas served by light rail or buses. Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont recently made changes to their tax-credit financing program to encourage affordable housing. 

The many reforms passed, as well as others under consideration across the country, raise questions about which are the most effective at increasing the housing supply, under what circumstances, and with what costs and benefits. To help support policymakers, advocates, researchers, and the media as they try to understand how states are addressing housing challenges, and to aid in the evaluation of the various state approaches, the NYU Furman Center is launching a centralized, accessible repository of the various reforms and research about their effects. The Land Use Reform Tracker, funded by Arnold Ventures, will:

• Identify and categorize state land-use legislation nationwide.
• Analyze the legislation to compare the nuances between different states’ approaches, and assess the pros and cons of these policy choices.
• Provide a publicly available, searchable database of land-use laws, an analysis of their terms, and research about their effects.
• Regularly update the database to reflect new legislation, policy analysis, and research. 

Working with a national advisory board of experts in land use, the Furman Center is currently collecting and analyzing legislation passed since 2017, and designing and testing the database to make the information easily accessible; we expect it to be available by March 2026. We have already started sharing analysis in some of the categories of reform described above, with a policy brief published in April 2025 exploring the different approaches for encouraging development on land owned by faith-based organizations. In the next few months, we will publish a second analysis of state approaches to the builders’ remedy, and follow that with periodic reports on other categories of reforms. 

The experimentation underway across the country to find the most effective ways to promote the production of more housing in order to address the housing-affordability crisis is remarkable, unprecedented, and much needed. To be most effective, however, that experimentation needs to be carefully monitored and studied, and information about what is being tried, what’s working, and why, must be readily available. The Furman Center’s tracker is a tool that can make rigorous comparisons, cross-fertilization, and research easier.