But momentum and results are not the same thing. I led the research behind the National Association of Home Builders’ (NAHB) new zoning reform tracker and interactive maps that reviewed more than 300 state and local reforms across the country. (To view the maps, click to accept all cookies.) Several patterns emerged from that work, and they complicate the optimism that often surrounds this topic.
First, the good news: Zoning reform has gone mainstream. What began with a handful of early adopters — including Minneapolis in 2018, Oregon in 2019 and California in the early 2020s — has spread to the Mountain West, Midwest, South and smaller metro areas that rarely made housing headlines a decade ago. State and local governments across the political spectrum, from Montana to Maine, have adopted binding changes to how housing gets permitted and built. The policy conversation has shifted from whether to reform to how.
But national momentum masks significant unevenness on the ground. Reform varies widely depending on the state, local market conditions and whether legislatures pre-empt local rules or leave them largely intact. There is no single national model. Jurisdictions are starting from very different places, with different tools, politics and definitions of what “reform” means.
A second pattern: Small, technical changes often matter the most. Relatively modest reforms that show up consistently in the NAHB tracker — allowing accessory dwelling units “by right” rather than requiring discretionary review, eliminating parking minimums, and easing lot‑size and setback requirements often deliver the greatest impact, removing barriers that have long blocked modest, lower‑risk housing from being built. Steady, incremental reform tends to outperform sweeping gestures.
Third (and perhaps most overlooked): Process reform matters just as much as land use reform. Many of the most consequential policies aren’t about what types of housing are permitted. They’re about how approvals work: whether projects are allowed by right, whether timelines are clear and enforceable, whether design standards are objective or subjective. Delays and unpredictability add cost and risk before a single shovel hits the ground. For builders and developers, administrative certainty isn’t a luxury; it’s often the deciding factor.
Florida’s Live Local Act, Texas’ permitting “shot‑clock” legislation and Washington state’s streamlined design review all reflect this insight. The frontier of zoning reform has shifted from simply “allowing more housing” to ensuring that it’s actually feasible to build.
Fourth: State law can pour the foundation, but local governments still decide what actually gets built. State legislatures are increasingly shaping zoning reform, requiring transit‑oriented development, setting minimum review timelines and mandating ADU allowances. But local governments remain responsible for writing code language, training staff and making day‑to‑day decisions that determine whether reforms unlock housing or quietly stall.
For practitioners and public officials, the implications are practical. Watching what other jurisdictions have done — and learning from their trial and error, not just their headlines — is more valuable than replicating any single high‑profile reform. Effective change tends to come in bundles layered over multiple years: new housing types, adjusted standards, streamlined approvals, revisited fee structures.
Zoning is also only one piece of the puzzle. Market conditions, construction costs, financing, infrastructure and labor all shape whether housing gets built. Zoning controls the regulatory framework that can either stymie or streamline those forces.
After reviewing hundreds of policies, one conclusion stands out: Zoning reform is real, widespread and necessary — but not sufficient on its own. The question is no longer whether a jurisdiction has reformed its zoning code. It’s whether those reforms are actually producing more housing.
Deborah Myerson is the founder and principal of Myerson Consulting, based in Bloomington, Ind.
Governing's opinion columns reflect the views of their authors and not necessarily those of Governing's editors or management.
Related Articles
