Exclusionary Zoning

Exclusionary zoning refers to land use regulations that discriminate against some types of people, especially those with low incomes. Whereas all zoning exists to exclude specified land uses from certain areas, exclusionary zoning separates particular people from certain areas. Exclusionary zoning works to limit the amount and pace of residential development, thereby rendering housing in a local jurisdiction unaffordable for low-income residents (and even municipal workers such as teachers and firefighters). Zoning codes might also place outright bans on apartment complexes or other types of affordable housing. In the United States, where numerous suburban localities have used exclusionary zoning to stabilize [Page 261]community character and curtail demand for government services, excluding lower-income residents segregates racial and ethnic minorities within metropolitan areas. Whether such class and race effects are intentional or merely the logical result of regulations that control the housing supply is debated.

Exclusionary zoning includes requirements and prohibitions regarding residential development. Typical requirements are for minimum lot sizes, house sizes, or set-backs from the street; rigorous landscaping or building code standards; complex development approval processes; and provision of extensive infrastructure and public amenities. Common prohibitions involve moratoria or caps on multifamily housing, mobile homes, accessory apartments, subsidized housing, or group homes; limits on the number of bedrooms or children in a residence; and growth controls applying citywide or to undeveloped land.

Studies of exclusionary zoning report mixed findings regarding its consequences—local situations differ, and the influence of provisions like large-lot zoning may be inseparable from other factors. However, evidence suggests that exclusion fuels certain problems: first, hampering African Americans, Latinas/os, or Asian Americans who seek denser, less costly housing than is available; second, creating a “spatial mismatch” between the low-skilled service-sector jobs located in suburbs (and exurbs) and the workers tied by housing markets to central cities and older suburbs; and, third, contributing to urban sprawl, traffic congestion, and environmental damage linked to low-density development.

Affordable housing and civil rights advocates have challenged exclusionary practices. Courts and legislatures usually defer to the land use choices of local citizens and their representatives, but New Jersey's Supreme Court ruled in landmark 1975 and 1983 cases that the Township of Mount Laurel and other suburbs were illegally zoning out low-income residents. Controversially, the court ordered offending localities to facilitate production of their “fair share” of affordable housing. This “inclusionary zoning” remedy, also used throughout California, depends on developers agreeing to produce low- and moderate-price housing, which is also controversial. Other models of anti-exclusionary policies are Oregon's comprehensive planning, which encourages land conservation along with affordable housing; “anti-snob zoning” in Massachusetts, which allows developers of affordable housing to appeal denial of development permission; and the Fair Housing Act, which outlaws various types of housing discrimination nationally.