1. Lengthy and expensive permitting processes
In many places, getting permission to build housing is like running a bureaucratic marathon—slow, expensive, and frustrating. Developers often wait months (or even years) for permits, with every delay adding more cost to the final product. Those costs eventually get passed on to renters and buyers, pushing prices higher. And if the project is affordable housing? Expect even more red tape.
The reasoning behind long permitting processes is often well-intentioned: safety, environmental review, public feedback. But in practice, it can become a tool for delay or even obstruction. Some cities have realized this and are working to streamline the process, but many haven’t caught up. Meanwhile, housing demand keeps outpacing supply.
2. Zoning laws that favor single-family homes
Zoning laws were originally meant to keep communities organized and healthy, but many cities doubled down on single-family zoning. That means you can build one house per lot—and nothing else—across huge swaths of American neighborhoods. This dramatically limits housing supply, especially as populations grow and land becomes more expensive. It’s like trying to solve a crowding problem by only allowing people to live in tents, one per acre.
What makes this worse is that many of these zoning codes were put in place decades ago and haven’t evolved. So even when people want to build duplexes or small apartment buildings, local rules often say no. This puts a hard cap on how many people can live in a city, even if the demand is skyrocketing. It also tends to keep neighborhoods wealthy and exclusive by limiting new, affordable housing options.
3. NIMBYism backed by official policy
NIMBY—“Not In My Backyard”—isn’t just a neighborhood attitude; it’s often backed by official policies that allow a small group of residents to stall or kill housing projects. Public comment periods, zoning board appeals, and local referenda give NIMBYs outsized power. One angry neighborhood meeting can tank hundreds of new units. Cities may say they want more housing, but they often empower the people who oppose it most.
The issue isn’t public input itself, which is important, but how much weight it carries. When a loud minority can override years of planning, it discourages developers and drives up risk. That makes fewer projects pencil out financially. And again, the projects that get hit hardest tend to be affordable or multifamily housing.
4. Parking requirements that inflate costs
Many cities still require new housing developments to include a minimum number of parking spaces per unit. This may not sound like a big deal, but parking is expensive to build—sometimes up to $50,000 per space in a garage. That cost adds up fast, especially in dense urban areas where land is scarce. And not everyone even owns a car anymore.
Ironically, these parking mandates often make walkable, transit-oriented development less feasible. If a builder wants to create compact, affordable apartments near a subway line, they still have to carve out room for parking lots or structures. That either shrinks the size of the building or makes it too costly to pursue. Many cities are starting to relax these rules, but it’s still a big problem in plenty of places.
5. Bans or restrictions on accessory dwelling units (ADUs)
Accessory dwelling units—think backyard cottages or basement apartments—are a low-impact way to increase housing. But for years, many cities banned them outright or made them nearly impossible to build. Some required extra parking, special permits, or even forced the homeowner to live on-site full-time. All of this made a simple studio apartment way harder than it needed to be.
This is especially frustrating because ADUs can help aging parents stay close, give homeowners extra income, or provide housing for college students. They don’t require big infrastructure changes, and they blend into existing neighborhoods. But local laws often stood in their way, driven by fears of change or lowered property values. Only recently have more cities started to legalize and support them.
6. Rent control that froze the market
Rent control is a deeply controversial topic, and while it helps some tenants in the short term, it can have long-term side effects. In cities with strict rent caps, landlords sometimes avoid maintaining or upgrading units. And developers may steer clear of building new apartments altogether, fearing they won’t make back their investment. That leaves fewer options and can lead to a worse overall housing stock.
It’s not that price protections are always bad—they can prevent displacement in hot markets. But when done without nuance, rent control can freeze the market and scare off new construction. Some cities have tried newer models like rent stabilization or means-tested support. Still, the fear of regulation can make developers look elsewhere.
7. Anti-growth ballot initiatives
Some of the most housing-scarce cities in the U.S. have passed ballot measures that explicitly limit new development. These often come from residents worried about traffic, views, or preserving “neighborhood character.” But in effect, they stop housing from being built—even when the need is critical. In places like San Francisco, this has led to fierce legal and political battles.
Ballot-box zoning can sound democratic, but it tends to favor older, wealthier homeowners who turn out for local elections. These measures don’t just block high-rises; they often freeze entire planning processes. That makes it harder to respond to changing demographics or economic shifts. And it leaves younger residents and renters out in the cold.
8. Outdated building codes that don’t reflect modern needs
Building codes are essential for safety, but many local governments have been slow to update them. Some still require costly materials or outdated designs that no longer serve today’s needs. For example, codes might limit the use of modular construction or new energy-efficient technologies. These rules make innovation harder and drive up costs.
The irony is that newer construction methods could make housing both cheaper and more sustainable. But developers often have to fight city hall just to use them. A more flexible, evidence-based approach could help modernize housing production. Instead, we’re stuck building 21st-century homes under 20th-century rules.
9. Historic preservation taken to extremes
Preserving historic architecture can be a wonderful thing—but sometimes it goes too far. In many cities, “historic districts” have expanded beyond truly notable landmarks to include ordinary buildings. That can make redevelopment nearly impossible, even for structures that are falling apart. Housing projects have been delayed or scrapped just to save a nondescript 1940s garage.
The process to get these designations lifted is often long and political. Neighbors may oppose any change under the banner of preservation, regardless of the actual historical value. In some cases, entire neighborhoods have been locked in amber. That’s great for nostalgia, but not so great for building homes.
10. Misuse of environmental review processes
Environmental review laws like CEQA in California were meant to protect the planet, not block housing. But over time, they’ve been used—sometimes cynically—to stall or stop development. Opponents of new housing can file endless lawsuits claiming a project will harm the environment, even if it’s an infill apartment near a bus line. The process drags on, and the costs explode.
It’s a strange twist: laws designed to fight suburban sprawl end up preventing dense, walkable housing. And often, wealthy neighborhoods use environmental rules as a smokescreen for NIMBYism. Reforming these laws without gutting their original intent is tricky, but necessary. Otherwise, we’ll keep weaponizing green laws against green solutions.
11. Refusing to upzone near transit
One of the smartest ways to reduce housing pressure is to build near public transportation. Yet many cities have refused to increase zoning around transit hubs. That means precious land near subways, light rail, or bus rapid transit remains underused—sometimes zoned for just one house per lot. It’s a wasted opportunity in places where people actually want to live.
Not building near transit also makes it harder to reduce car dependence and cut emissions. When people have to drive because housing near transit is unaffordable or unavailable, everyone loses. Upzoning around stations is low-hanging fruit, but politics often get in the way. Residents fear taller buildings, even when the alternative is rising rents and longer commutes.
12. Failing to legalize multifamily housing
In some parts of the U.S., it’s still technically illegal to build apartment buildings—even small ones. Zoning codes in suburbs and even cities have frozen out anything other than detached single-family homes. This creates artificial scarcity, especially for people who can’t afford or don’t want a big house. And it cuts off supply in the very places where demand is highest.
It’s not just about big towers—legalizing triplexes, fourplexes, and courtyard apartments could make a huge difference. But local governments often resist, citing parking, traffic, or character concerns. Meanwhile, people are forced into long commutes or overcrowded rentals. Multifamily housing isn’t a silver bullet, but it’s a crucial piece of the puzzle.
13. Incentivizing luxury over affordability
Tax incentives and zoning bonuses often go to big, shiny luxury developments. These projects are easier to finance and come with high returns, so cities roll out the red carpet. But that means affordable or middle-income housing gets left behind. The incentives just aren’t strong enough to make those projects pencil out.
Some cities rely on “trickle-down housing”—the idea that if you build enough luxury units, eventually prices will drop. But that process takes time and doesn’t help the people who need housing now. Meanwhile, working-class renters are squeezed out. Real affordability needs direct support, not just market hopes.
14. Disbanding or underfunding housing authorities
Public housing has been politically unpopular for decades, and many local governments simply let their housing authorities wither. Maintenance backlogs pile up, new construction stalls, and low-income families wait years for help. In some cities, the waiting list for public housing has been closed for over a decade. It’s a system in name only.
This isn’t just a funding issue—it’s about political will. When housing authorities don’t have the staff or resources to do their jobs, they can’t be proactive. That leads to crises like unsafe conditions, evictions, or outright demolitions. And once those units are gone, they’re rarely replaced.
15. Prioritizing homeowners over renters
In many American cities, policies are shaped with homeowners in mind—because they vote, they organize, and they show up at city council meetings. As a result, renters often get the short end of the stick. Rent stabilization, tenant protections, and eviction reforms are seen as controversial, even in cities where renters make up the majority. Meanwhile, homeowners get tax breaks and political deference.
This imbalance warps housing policy. Cities hesitate to allow dense development in homeowner neighborhoods, even if it would benefit renters across the city. The end result is a system that caters to the housed and ignores the housing-insecure. Until renters are treated as equal stakeholders, the crisis will continue.
This post 15 Ways Local Governments Accidentally (or Not) Made the Housing Crisis Worse was first published on American Charm.
