Many states have also passed more comprehensive housing supply bills potentially impacting land use. For instance, Montana, Colorado, and California all have laws requiring localities to estimate and plan for growth, changing their land use regulations in line with those growth projections.

Many best practices have been identified and codified by existing national organizations. The Mercatus Center at George Mason University tracks land use reform efforts at the state level every year, Pew Charitable Trusts has similarly produced research showing the variety of reform efforts, while the American Enterprise Institute has produced an entire set of policy briefs devoted to “light-touch density,” or what many others call “missing middle” housing of duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, ADUs, townhouses and small apartment buildings.

Similarly, the National League of Cities, through their Housing Supply Accelerator Playbook, includes 14 land use reform strategies that local governments can implement. The National Association of Counties Housing Task Force had land use reform as one of five focus areas, with five actionable steps county governments can take. The National Governors Association’s Center for Best Practices has convened a state Housing Policy Advisors Institute to identify best practices at the state level.

It is also important to note that land use reform is not new, though its success certainly is. National studies, including the Douglas Commission on Urban Problems in 1968, the 1982 President’s Commission on Housing, and the Advisory Commission on Regulatory Barriers to Affordable Housing in 1991 all examined, at least in part, the effects of land use and zoning regulations on limiting the production of housing. Indeed, many of the contemporary changes date back to those proposals; for example, President Reagan’s Commission on Housing recommended eliminating minimum lot sizes, allowing manufactured housing in all residentially zoned areas, and removing density requirements except for where there is “a vital and pressing governmental interest.”

Principles Behind Land Use, Permitting, & Building Code Reform

Land use reform at the state level offers the broadest, most immediate impact. Further, land use and zoning are important to local governments in the U.S., and localities should retain their ability to create land use and zoning plans. While local governments can and should enact land use reform on their own, and indeed, many localities across the U.S. are doing so, the inclusion of state-level leadership provides some advantages.

First, cities and counties derive their ability to regulate land use from states, allowing for a certain uniformity in land use reform. This Task Force believes that states should amend their laws to require or incentivize localities to reform their land use to allow for a greater variety of housing types; states should provide funding, technical assistance, and support to ensure that all localities are able to meet these new requirements. Housing markets are regional, and housing solutions must also be regional. State-level reforms should address the needs of large cities, small towns and predominantly rural areas. Since local governments get their authority to regulate land use from the state, their land use regulations must factor in the welfare of residents across the state, not just in that locality. State-led land use reform ensures a baseline uniformity, recognition of differences across regions, and predictability for homebuilders and residents. States have taken different approaches to land use reform. Some opt for outright preemption regarding certain practices like requiring ADUs or planning for transit-oriented development. Others, like Montana’s SB 382, require large municipalities to enact a set of pro-growth strategies from a list of 14 potential policies. A third group has sought to encourage pro-housing zoning reforms through incentive programs. For example, New York’s Pro-Housing Community Program, California’s Prohousing Designation, and New Hampshire’s Housing Champion Designation all evaluate local governments on the extent to which they have enacted pro-housing reforms and then provide additional incentives or grants to those cities over those that have not done so. States should identify the reforms that they wish to ensure are in place state-wide — such as eliminating parking minimums, allowing for ADUs statewide, and eliminating bans on manufactured housing — and allow localities to implement those reforms with the support and technical assistance that they need. Recent experience also suggests that, once states have moved the needle on zoning reform, many municipalities will go farther than the state-level requirements.

Second, land use, permitting, and building code reform invites strange coalitions. Land use regulations ultimately limit the private property rights of landholders, while building codes and permitting are government regulations that increase the cost of construction. On the other hand, the origin of zoning in the U.S. can be traced back to segregationist policies that sought to prevent integration in neighborhoods, through either explicitly racial zoning, or economic zoning with large lot sizes and bans on apartment buildings. Land use regulations minimize change, block development, and allow for the privatization of public space. Conversely, land use regulations encourage sprawl, reduce housing options, and increase carbon emissions. With a larger geographic footprint and a more diffuse constituency, state legislators may be able to pass land use reform that would otherwise be impossible at the local level by working with these broad coalitions.

States across the political spectrum, including Oregon, Montana, California, Connecticut, Utah, Washington, Arizona, Vermont, Colorado, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Maine, Florida, New Hampshire, Maryland, and Minnesota, have implemented statewide zoning reforms. Although content and process vary considerably, these experiences offer valuable principles for effective state-level reform:

• Leadership Matters: In Montana, the Governor made clear that land use reform was going to happen, and then he brought in leaders from across the state into a Housing Task Force to identify needed reforms with a quick turnaround of only five months to produce a report. Governors in Colorado, Maryland, and Utah have similarly made housing reform centerpieces in their legislative agendas.
• Coalitions Matter: Successful land use reform requires government leaders engaging diverse stakeholders, including homebuilders, homeowners, tenant advocates, homelessness advocates, developers, environmental groups, transportation advocates, and local officials to identify common areas of interest. The executive branch needs the legislative branch, and state-level policy reforms work best when multiple groups can see their priorities reflected in them.
• Omnibus Bills Rarely Work but do Set the Stage: In the past few years, policymakers in several states have introduced wide-ranging omnibus bills that attempt to address all angles of the housing crisis. In general, these bills have failed. However, in the following legislative session, these omnibus bills often set the stage for numerous smaller bills that can get passed. This approach allows different legislators to support specific elements of what amounts to broader reform packages.
• Local Leaders Need a Voice at the Table: Rather than treating local leaders as obstacles, successful reform efforts engage them as essential implementation partners. Working with local governments and state municipal leagues can help ensure that state-level reforms can be implemented as intended, so long as local governments have the support that they need.
• Land Use Reform is Not a One-Shot Deal: Given the current regime of land use, permitting, and building code enforcement, changes are often iterative. While California first allowed Accessory Dwelling Units in the 1980s, there was little construction until state-wide reform in 2016 that reduced parking requirements and streamlined permitting. However, as localities found ways to circumvent the intention of the reforms, additional laws were passed in 2017, 2019, 2021, and 2022 — with more expected in 2025 — to allow for widespread ADU construction. The end result has been a striking increase in ADU permitting and construction, from fewer than 1,000 ADUs permitted annually before 2016, to over 20,000 permitted in 2021 alone.