But the evidence suggests these reforms have not worked. In new research for my organization, I find that states with equal-treatment laws do not, on average, have higher shares of manufactured housing than states without them, after controlling for income, population density and climate. A 2024 Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies report found a similar pattern in the data (although the authors question whether the relationship is causal). Policymakers enacting new equal-treatment laws or enforcing existing ones need to reckon with the fact that these laws have delivered little so far.
Manufactured homes of all types are the largest source of unsubsidized affordable housing in the United States, serving roughly 7 million households, more than every Department of Housing and Urban Development-subsidized program combined. A typical manufactured home on a quarter-acre lot costs about 30 percent less than a site-built equivalent, cutting a monthly mortgage payment by $585 in 2025 dollars. It is a particularly important route to homeownership for lower-income families and for Hispanic and Native American households, who use it at higher rates than white Americans. Yet production remains more than 70 percent below its 1998 levels.
Even in the states most favorable to manufactured housing, shares exceed predictions by only a few percentage points. Four of the seven states where shares most exceed predictions — Maine, Michigan, Oregon and Washington — have equal-treatment laws. But so do three of the six states with the largest shortfalls: Iowa, Kansas and Nebraska. Whatever separates receptive states from unreceptive ones, the presence of a state statute is not it.
Why not? State zoning laws are attempts to override local governments, and cities have many tools to resist. Where a state lifts one restriction, a locality can substitute another. “Look-alike” ordinances requiring new homes to match the neighborhood are hard to meet for manufactured homes with steel siding and shallow roof pitches. Vague aesthetic standards give review committees leeway to reject them outright.
And some localities simply ignore state law: A 2024 survey of upstate New York metros found, for example, that at least 80 percent of local governments restrict manufactured homes to “leasehold” communities, where the underlying land is rented, or ban them outright, despite a state equal-treatment statute. Governors are often reluctant to sanction recalcitrant mayors. Using results from one recent study, I estimate that an equal-treatment law raises the probability of a locality permitting manufactured housing only from 59 percent to 66 percent.
Patterns of local resistance echo those seen with other state attempts to boost housing supply. When California barred localities from prohibiting accessory dwelling units in 2016, for example, cities responded with “poison pills” such as onerous parking and setback requirements. The state needed several more rounds of legislation, between 2019 and 2022, before ADU permits surged.
Even if every state closed every loophole, zoning is only half the problem. Just 31 percent of manufactured homes are purchased with a traditional mortgage. Another 20 percent rely on “home-only” loans largely excluded from receiving government backing through Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or the Federal Housing Administration. These loans carry interest rates averaging 3.6 percentage points above prime. That market is also concentrated: Three firms, two of them owned by Berkshire Hathaway, control 76 percent of it. The remaining homebuyers rely on cash purchases or non-traditional loans that lack mortgages’ consumer protections. Zoning reform can’t unlock demand that’s been choked off by unavailable financing.
The lesson for policymakers is twofold. First, passing a law is not the same as enforcing one. States serious about expanding manufactured housing need to police poison-pill ordinances, monitor local compliance and follow California's example of iterative legislation. Second, zoning reform needs a federal partner. Expanding government-backed mortgage access for manufactured homes, particularly those on leased land, is the missing piece. Without it, even the best-drafted state law will run into a financing wall.
State governments cannot revive the manufactured housing market on their own. But writing better laws and ensuring they are followed would be a good place to start.
Scott Susin is the founder of the Center for Mortgage Access and a former economist at the Federal Housing Finance Agency and the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Governing's opinion columns reflect the views of their authors and not necessarily those of Governing's editors or management.
Related Articles
