‘End single-family zoning’ is bad political messaging

The language used to discuss these policy changes is still evolving. Media, academics, and advocacy groups on both sides of the debate frequently use the phrase “end single-family zoning”—a statement that implies radical change, either for good or ill. But good-faith supporters of abundant housing should drop this phrase from their talking points for two reasons. First, “end single-family zoning” is sloppy, imprecise language that doesn’t help policymakers think through the details of their policy choices. Moreover, the vagueness and negative framing can unnecessarily confuse and scare voters.

To amend single-family zoning, local governments must decide which additional housing types to legalize

The phrase “end single-family zoning” fundamentally misunderstands how zoning laws work. The basic structure of zoning laws divides each city, town, or county into a set of districts or “zones,” and specifies the type of structures and activities that are allowed within each zone. Most communities designate some zones solely for residential uses, setting aside other zones for offices, retail, or industrial uses. Within each zoning district, the law specifies which structure types are allowed and not allowed. Figure 1 shows a simple illustration of how zoning laws enumerate housing types; each column represents a sample zoning district, with the rows indicating allowed or prohibited housing types.

Single-family-exclusive zones allow only detached residences for one household—all other structures are prohibited (Column 1). Single-family-exclusive zones are the dominant land use in most communities, accounting for roughly 75% of residential land. But many other residential zones allow a mixture of housing types, ranging from single-family detached homes to townhouses to multifamily buildings. The districts represented by Columns 2 through 6 could all be described as “not single-family-exclusive zoning,” but in practice, a district that allows only detached homes and ADUs (Column 2) will look and feel quite different than a district that allows everything from detached homes to high-rise apartment buildings (Column 5).

Put simply, local governments can “end” single-family zoning in a variety of different ways—and which types of housing they choose to legalize is an important policy decision. “Legalize ADUs and duplexes” may not have the same rhetorical punch, but it’s a more precise and accurate way of describing a policy proposal.

The government is not plotting to expropriate and demolish single-family homes

Besides obscuring what housing types will be added, the phrase “end single-family zoning” can mislead casual observers into believing that proposed zoning changes will make single-family homes illegal. After all, “end single-family zoning” and “end single-family housing” sound quite similar, especially to the majority of people, who are not experts on the nuts-and-bolts of land use regulation.

In practice, zoning reforms that legalize ADUs, townhouses, duplexes, and apartments typically do not place new restrictions on single-family detached homes. Most residential zones that permit higher-density forms of housing also explicitly allow single-family detached homes. The zones that prohibit development of new single-family homes tend to be commercial or industrial areas (where non-residential land uses create negative spillovers on nearby homes), and a few zones reserved for high-density housing (Column 6). Moreover, zoning changes primarily impact future development; existing buildings that no longer meet zoning or building code requirements are typically “grandfathered in,” meaning that current property owners can continue to use the buildings.

But these technical aspects of zoning are not transparent to voters and elected officials. Using clear, precise language will help good-faith participants better understand the public debate about zoning reforms. And the negative framing of “end single-family zoning” provides easy opportunities for committed NIMBYs (“Not In My Backyard”)—or more politely, “neighborhood defenders”—to claim that zoning changes will cause wholesale demolitions of existing homes or even “abolish the suburbs.”

Precise, moderate language can help set reasonable expectations

Zoning reforms are not an end unto themselves; the goal is for communities to develop more abundant and affordable housing. Revising zoning laws to legalize a more diverse range of homes—particularly smaller homes that use less land—is one step in a broader policy agenda. Local and state governments that want to boost housing supply also need to rethink related regulations, including discretionary review processes, building codes, parking requirements, and impact fees. Land use patterns change slowly over many years; both advocates and opponents of zoning reform should temper their expectations of an overnight revolution.