Learn to build a world where everyone belongs. Take free classes at OBI University.   Start Now

As part of our Single-Family Zoning analysis for the San Francisco Bay Area, Greater LA Region, Sacramento Region and San Diego, we identified the distribution of single-family zoning in each city, unincorporated area and broader region. On those pages, we shared our findings regarding the observed relationship between single-family zoning and socio-demographic indicators, including racial demographics, intergenerational mobility and levels of racial residential segregation. We also identified cities in each region that could benefit from zoning reforms allowing equitable development and mitigating harms of single-family-only zoning.

The Zoning Reform Tracker

The Othering & Belonging Institute is proud to launch the Zoning Reform Tracker and share information on municipal zoning reform efforts across the United States.1 The Zoning Reform Tracker is meant to serve as a hub for documenting zoning reform efforts in the country.2 It is our belief that anti-density zoning ordinances play a powerful role not only in propagating race- and class-based exclusion, but in shaping life outcomes for children in communities, and therefore in furthering patterns of negative intergenerational stratification.3 Restrictive zoning is a powerful mechanism for hoarding resources, with great implications for racial residential segregation,4 and the former will not fundamentally change without reforming or overriding zoning regulations at the municipal level.5

In the first version of the Zoning Reform Tracker, we focus specifically on municipal zoning reform efforts. Throughout this project, we use the phrase zoning reform effort or initiative, because some of the events we track are not merely successful adoptions of zoning reforms, but are their ongoing status, as well as their denials, failures, false starts, and informal legislative tablings.

There are two components to the Zoning Reform Tracker: the database, and the webmap. The database is a sortable list of municipalities which have had some character of a zoning reform initiative, and inclusive therein are columns that describe various components of a given reform initiative. The database is then our most detailed collection or representation of zoning reform efforts across the United States. The webmap, on the other hand, is an interactive national map that marks the points of each reform initiative, and allows the user to explore the question of location, in terms of zoning reform initiatives occurring at the municipal level across the United States.

In separate documentation on the navigation menu on the right-hand side of this page, we have subpages that explain the variables used in our tracker, including one which specifically establishes an overview of the variables, as well as others which focus on the zoning reform mechanism, phase, and type. The latter three are the most important classes of how we group zoning reform efforts, and they constitute the triad of typologies which are important for our organization and representation of reform.

We created this tracker because, to the best of knowledge, there is no other single repository tracking such reform.6 The tracker attempts to be comprehensive, and so we will periodically add reform efforts as we become aware of them. Please fill out this Google Form if you feel we are missing something or our information is inaccurate.7 As we update these tracking tools with new data or information, we’ll reflect those changes in our database and webmap, as well as in the supportive documentation.8

Comprehensively, we believe that this is an important tracker that can not only inform the public, but can also provide support for advocacy efforts across the United States.9

Interactive Webmap

Click here to expand the webmap for full-screen viewing. For more information on the webmap fields, look towards the supportive documents at the right hand side of this page. And for an extensive look at the data represented herein, look towards the database below, which has additional fields not represented in the webmap above.

Sortable Database

The sortable database below presents all of the fields that we record in our tracker; please note that you can scroll to the right to see several other columns that aren’t initially visible. Furthermore, you can click and select any of the filter tabs below to narrow your search: either by the name of a jurisdiction or by the subclass of one of our typologies. You can also combine a jurisdiction filter and a typology filter to get more specific results. To reset the results just go back to 'Any' for each filter, or refresh the page.

 

Jurisdiction
Typology
Time

 

Database Last Updated: February 28, 2025


If there are any questions associated with this work, or if you believe that we have missed significant or crucial reform efforts, then let us know through this Google Form, and we may add them to our database and webmap. Other inquiries can be directed to sgambhir@berkeley.edu.

We would like to thank Shiho Suzuki for the most recent update of the database.

  • 1The current version of the Zoning Reform Tracker (with the database updated on February 28, 2025) focuses on municipal zoning reform efforts across the United States, and specifically records 162 reform efforts across 109 unique municipal jurisdictions. Concerning the question of timeline: our tracker data covers a span of 17 years, with the earliest zoning reform initiative we track occurring in 2007, and with the latest reform initiatives leading up to 2023. Here are the most important descriptive summary statistics from our tracker, in its current version: A) the predominant reform mechanism across the tracker is the municipal ordinance (n=109); B) the predominant reform phase across the tracker is approved reform (n=148); the predominant reform type represented in the tracker is accessory dwelling unit (ADU) reform (n=81). The top states most represented in our tracker, insofar as we record the number of approved or ongoing municipal reform initiatives within each state, are as follows: Washington (16); California (14); North Carolina (10); Minnesota (9); Massachusetts (7); Texas (7); and Virginia (7). The topmost counties with three or more reforms, insofar as we record the number of approved or ongoing municipal reform initiatives within each county, are as follows: King County, WA (7); Hennepin County, MN (6); Alameda County, CA (4); Anchorage County, AK (4); Kent County, MI (4); Middlesex County, MA (4); Salt Lake County, UT (4); Wake County, NC (4); Cook County, IL (3); Fulton County, GA (3); Pima County, AZ (3); San Diego, CA (3); Travis County, TX (3). These figures do not necessarily represent the quality of the reforms enacted therein, and their effectiveness. They are merely the tabulations derived from a spatial analysis of approved and ongoing reforms from our tracker. Moreover, the sometimes arbitrary nature of entry of particularly substantial and distinct reform efforts may work to remove the series of continual reforms which sometimes characterize reform efforts on the ground. We have sought to balance both particular representation with overrepresentation.
  • 2 The design and framework of our tracker was greatly inspired by the National Low-Income Housing Coalition’s (NLIHC) tenant protections database, which has been incisive for tracking legislation, ordinances, court orders and other policy related to tenant protections in the United States, throughout the global pandemic. For more information on this resource, see: National Low Income Housing Coalition, “E.R.A.S.E. Project - Tenant Protections Resource” (Referenced on March 15, 2023), https://nlihc.org/tenant-protections
  • 3 See Stephen Menendian, Samir Gambhir, and Chih-Wei Hsu, “Single-Family Zoning in Greater Los Angeles” (Berkeley, CA: Othering & Belonging Institute, March 2, 2022), https://belonging.berkeley.edu/single-family-zoning-greater-los-angeles; and particularly the section entitled “Single-Family Zoning and Economic Mobility (Opportunity),” and the following visualization: “Figure 8. Income by Parents’ Income Percentile By Percentage of Restricted Single Family Zoning.” While this analysis was not a kind of causal methodology, or even a multiple regression, which might be seen and valued in such fields as economics, policy analysis and sociology, this finding is still strongly suggestive of the link between single-family zoning and patterns of negative stratification. Namely, the largest implication of our analysis is that single-family zoning has been used as a racially restrictive governing tactic to limit opportunity for some, and to accumulate it with great returns, for others.
  • 4 While OBI believes that zoning reform is an important route for altering, or at least for not preempting alteration, of the structural dispersion of resource and opportunity between communities, we believe that zoning reform should be part of a broader political program for economic justice, environmental justice and housing justice. Other means of tackling the housing crisis nexus should include: the decommodification of housing, the regulation of rents, the national codification of a renters’ right to counsel, the national codification of strong renters’ protections generally, the guarantee of safe and habitable housing for all, the direction of funding streams to facilitate the building of tenant power over political decision-making, and the institutional reconfiguration of eviction court to be more amenable to tenants’ rights and dignity.
  • 5 We will list in this note some further references for the transformative housing policy levers mentioned above. For decommodified and social housing, see Karen Chapple, Jackelyn Hwang, Jae Sik Jeon, Iris Zhang, Julia Greenberg, and Bina P. Shrimali, “Housing Market Interventions and Residential Mobility in the San Francisco Bay Area,” Community Development Working Paper (Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, March, 2022), https://www.frbsf.org/community-development/publications/working-papers/2022/march/housing-market-interventions-and-residential-mobility-san-francisco-bay-area/ and separately, see Francesca Zepeda, Nicole Montojo and Leo Goldberg, “Community Land Trusts as Stewards of Public Land: A Guide for Local Governments in California” (Berkeley, CA: Othering & Belonging Institute, September 16, 2022), https://belonging.berkeley.edu/community-land-trusts-stewards-public-land; for the regulation of rent and the impacts of rental inflation and wage stagnance, see Homes Guarantee, “Federal Actions to Regulate Rents”, (2022), https://peoplesaction.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Federal-Actions-to-Regulate-Rents_V3a.pdf; for right to counsel, or a codified renters’ right to legal representation in the case of tenancy-associated problems and eviction, see ACLU, NCCRC, “No Eviction Without Representation: Evictions’ Disproportionate Harms & the Promise of Right to Counsel” (American Civil Liberties Union, National Coalition for a Civil Right to Counsel, May 11, 2022), https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/no_eviction_without_representation_research_brief_0.pdf; for tenant protections, generally, see Aimee Inglis, “Tenant Protections Are a Cornerstone to Solving the Housing Crisis” (Shelterforce, February 13, 2017), https://shelterforce.org/2017/02/13/tenant-protections-are-a-cornerstone-to-solving-the-housing-crisis/; for healthy housing, which denotes housing that is habitable, safe, and free from mold, lead, and other environmental contaminants, see U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, “Healthy Homes for Healthy Families'' (n.d.), https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/healthy_homes/healthyhomes; for tenant power building, see TakeRoot Justice and RTCNYC, “Organizing is Different Now: How the Right to Counsel Strengthens the Tenant Movement in New York City” (TakeRoot Justice, The Right to Counsel NYC Coalition, March 2022), https://assets.nationbuilder.com/righttocounselnyc/pages/1334/attachments/original/1647562375/Organizing_is_Different_Now_FINAL.pdf?1647562375; for work which demonstrates the central role of juridical processes in eviction, and the import of resisting those processes by transforming the court’s role in instituting displacement, see KC Tenants, “Could We End Evictions?” (Hammer & Hope, No. 1, Winter 2023), https://hammerandhope.org/article/issue-1-article-3
  • 6 Our statement concerning the unique nature of this project is certainly true for municipal zoning reform efforts, but the same cannot be said about the tracking of state housing reform efforts across the United States. In regard to this latter research, we would point the reader towards the extensive consolidation of state reforms carried out by the Terner Center, the Urban Institute and the Housing Crisis Research Collaborative. A brief note is that while the policy scope of the Terner Center et al.’s state reforms database is quite broad, and extends beyond zoning (e.g. covering the policy goals of general production, affordable housing, fair housing and smart-growth), the work contained in the Zoning Reform Tracker is both more focused specifically, for better or for worse, on single-family zoning reform and, in its first version, on reform efforts at the municipal level. The argument of the Terner Center et al.’s paper is that state reforms must be enacted to override housing policy stagnance, and the often exclusionary politics which are characteristic of housing policy at the local level (from Beverly Hills to Long Island – examples from California and New York, respectively). While we ultimately and strongly agree with this argument, we also believe that reform efforts that occur at the local or municipal level are often determinative, or at least, in some cases, precedent establishing, for future policy advances which have occurred at the state level. For the report, see Shazia Manji, Truman Braslaw, Chae Kim, Elizabeth Kneebone, Carolina Reid, and Yonah Freemark, “Incentivizing Housing Production: State Laws from Across the Country to Encourage or Require Municipal Action” (Terner Center for Housing Innovation, Urban Institute, Housing Crisis Research Collaborative, February 2023), https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/State-Land-Use-Report-Final-1.pdf
  • 7 We intend for the tracker to be a comprehensive hub for documenting zoning reform efforts across the United States, and we believe that it represents a significant contribution to our knowledge of zoning reform – at the same time, we must mention that in its first version there may be gaps in our recording of reform efforts across the United States, due to both the manifold number of municipalities across the country (around 30,000 in total), and also our reliance on media representations of local reforms efforts for our registration of them. An optimal infrastructure might look like creating a system which pulls zoning reform initiatives directly from municipalities’ legislative information systems if they meet our criteria for a zoning reform initiative; in this way we could regularly track both approved, ongoing and denied/rejected reforms in an evenly representative way, without a reliance on media publications, which, as of now, serve as the primary source which we use to point us in the direction of a possible reform effort. Even in the case that this system were to exist, it would likely still be non-representative: it is not the case that all jurisdictions in the country each host a legislative information system, and further have the quality of a system which would be adequate for the detail of our work. To conclude, it is ultimately the difference in digital access to previous ordinances and plan updates across municipalities, as well as the irregular media coverage across municipalities of different populations and sizes, which may affect the comprehensivity and representativeness of our tracker. This problem may be less prevalent at the level of the state, but it surely exists there as well. Because of this, we have decided on a hybrid independent-research-and-crowdsource model for the continual expansion of our tracker. Such a model will rely on both our independent tracking of reform efforts, as well as the local knowledge of users across their own communities (such local users might include general residents, housing policy researchers, and local planning department staff). We hope that with this model, we can cover missed ground and make our work as comprehensive and as representative as possible.
  • 8We are planning on pushing updates to the tracker on a periodical basis.
  • 9 We fully support and consent that the data in our tracker be used for research by housing policy researchers, research institutions, government agencies, PhD students, and other stakeholders. It is only right that a project that the public contributes to would commensurately allow for the free sharing, research and general use of its contents by the public itself; moreover, we greatly look forward to the research that may arise from the contents of the tracker. Our only condition for using our data is that you cite our project in your research (see the text below for a project citation). If there are any questions or need for more information, then feel free to contact us. Project Citation: Ipso Cantong, Stephen Menendian, and Samir Gambhir, “Zoning Reform Tracker” (Berkeley, CA: Othering & Belonging Institute, 2023), Database Last Updated: [MONTH DD, YYYY], https://belonging.berkeley.edu/zoning-reform-tracker