Modern building codes and land use regulations in the U.S. emerged during the Progressive Era of the late 19th and early 20th century. These regulations’ complex histories involve competing narratives of health and safety on the one hand, and exclusion and regulatory capture on the other.
In recent years, it has become widely acknowledged that land use regulations increase the cost of homes and decrease the supply of homes, with deleterious effects on the environment, cities, and residents. Building codes, too, can be associated with increased housing costs, yet there is a necessary cost-benefit analysis between safer, more energy efficient buildings and increasing the cost of new construction that makes housing out of reach for households.
In the U.S., local governments typically control land use regulation through zoning, operating under the direction of state statute. This has been the case since the early 20th century, when the Standard State Zoning Enabling Act was distributed by the Department of Commerce in 1924. This model legislation was adopted by all 50 states, and, as of 1988, was still in force (albeit in modified form), in 47. The Supreme Court of the United States cemented the legality of zoning in its decision Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., (272 U.S. 365 1926). A century later, this has resulted in the U.S. having 50 legal regimes governing the adoption, modification, and enforcement of approximately 30,000 distinct zoning codes.
Building codes have evolved along a parallel path. In the 21st century, houses with only one or two units are generally governed by the International Residential Code (IRC), while multifamily buildings are governed by the International Building Code (IBC), both of which are model codes promulgated on a triannual cycle by the International Code Council (ICC), a non-governmental organization, that are then adopted, with or without modifications, by states or localities.
Building codes are distinct from zoning codes as building code adoption and implementation need not be carried out by the same entity — state building codes may be enforced by cities or counties, the so-called “Authorities Having Jurisdiction.” According to the U.S. Census Bureau, more than 20,000 such authorities exist nationwide. The promulgation of building codes also varies significantly state-to-state. Eight states have statewide building codes, 16 states have predominantly local building codes, and 26 employ a combination of state and local building codes, wherein there is a statewide building code, with some localities permitted to amend or replace the state building code.
Both zoning and building codes present complexity and barriers to necessary housing production in their current forms. The process to acquire building permits — which requires developers to comply with zoning, building, environmental review, stormwater management, traffic mitigation, and a host of other rules — also slows down and increases the cost of production. Modifying only building or zoning codes presents a missed opportunity. Additionally, both present complementary challenges related to local government process and permitting.
In the past decade, an increasing awareness of the history, cost, and exclusionary nature of zoning spawned an extensive campaign to reform zoning at both the state and local levels. While predominantly Democratic states like California and Oregon were among the first to implement statewide zoning reform, state- level efforts to reform zoning are notably bipartisan in nature, with Republican strongholds including Utah, Montana, and Florida passing both comprehensive and targeted zoning reforms. Like land use and building code reform, permitting reform has also taken place at both the state and local level. As state law grants local “authorities having jurisdiction” the power to oversee the permitting process, some states have compelled these jurisdictions to streamline and issue permits more quickly.
Local governments have also independently passed zoning reforms. Minneapolis notably eliminated parking minimums and single-family exclusive zoning through its comprehensive planning process that took effect in 2020. Cities like Alexandria, VA, and Austin, TX, have enacted similar reforms. However, eliminating single-family exclusive zoning — without changing requirements related to setbacks, floor area ratios, parking, or other rules — can lead to paper only changes, where, though more homes are technically allowed on a given lot, there are no tangible impacts on the number of homes that can be built.
