Family zoning limits the kinds of houses that can be constructed in a specific area. Family zones, where only single-family homes may be constructed, may be established by local governments. This makes it impossible to construct apartments, duplexes, or townhouses. Additionally, it precludes homeowners from creating smaller apartments or half-houses out of their existing properties.
A local authority establishes what counts as a single “family” in the zoning ordinance. Various local governments may have different ideas of what a family is. Nevertheless, the courts have set restrictions on how specifically the phrase may be defined.
For instance, the Supreme Court declared illegal a definition of family that was so restrictive that it excluded certain blood relatives yet accepted one that was confined to two unrelated people.
Single-Family Zoning: What Is It?
A legal designation known as single-family zoning limits the types of residential structures that may be constructed on a piece of land. Due to these limits, only single-family detached homes may be constructed; duplexes or condominiums, which are typical in places with higher densities of construction, are not permitted.
In the 20th century, single-family zoning became prevalent. Researchers have asserted that it has played a crucial role in maintaining segregation in many American communities, coupled with racially restricted covenants and redlining. It’s crucial to comprehend the widening racial wealth divide since housing accounts for the majority of household wealth in America—up to two-thirds, according to some estimates.
Single-Family Zoning in the Past
Zoning for single-family homes emerged as a land development practice and a tool for city planning. It was ethnically exclusive from the start, a feature that grew increasingly pronounced over time.
Around 1916, zoning—local regulations that limit how the land can be developed and used—was first implemented in American cities (although Los Angeles has examples of zoning-style rules that predate this by a few years).
According to William A. Fischel’s book Zoning Rules, that year saw the adoption of zoning laws by several American communities, notably New York City, which decided to pass significant municipal legislation and became the first to do so. Regulation of Land Use Economics.
According to Fischel, the widespread use of inexpensive freight trains and jitney buses in the 1910s paved the stage for the quick adoption of zoning regulations that would come later.
According to Fischel, zoning actively shapes American cities.
Fischel also contends that zoning is generally a “bottom-up institution,” in contrast to several common assessments of zoning procedures. In this story, elected public officials—rather than progressive central planners—were responsible for the growth of zoning. Several reports cited land development in California around the beginning of the 20th century as a primary reason for single-family zoning.
The Connection to California
Mason-McDuffie Co., headed by environmentalist Duncan McDuffie, who was instrumental in creating the California State Parks system and served as president of the Sierra Club at one point, played a significant part in establishing segregationist laws and the use of single-family zoning, particularly in East Berkeley.
Blacks and Asians were prohibited from settling in the areas it built due to language in the contracts that required racial exclusivity. Although racially discriminatory covenants were widespread then, McDuffie’s work is typically credited with sparking the rise of single-family zoning.
The Berkeley City Council enacted zoning legislation in 1916, several months ahead of New York’s regulations, largely because of McDuffie’s lobbying efforts. According to Marc A. Weiss’ writing, it was based on a regulation that was identical to and affirmed by courts in Los Angeles. Weiss notes that the Berkeley legislation was noteworthy because it distinguished between single-family homes and other types of residential uses.
According to Maya Tulip Lorey, the goal of McDuffie’s enterprise was to create “private residential parks” in Berkeley that would provide a boundary between their communities’ safe, constantly increasing real estate investments and the harsh, unsettling, unattractive cities. The properties’ prices, restrictions on building multifamily homes on the property, and prohibitions on establishing businesses within these communities—all of which were aimed primarily at Asian and Black communities—were all part of the package that made these so alluring.
Ensuring Racial Equality
McDuffie’s strategy for the neighborhoods his business built included gradual, stable development that was aided by racial sameness, which attracted wealthy White buyers. In order to protect his community development projects from potential demographic shifts in the neighborhoods surrounding those projects, McDuffie eventually persuaded the local government to modify the land-use regulations in Berkeley.
It didn’t take long for it to become clear. According to Lorey, the standard Mason-McDuffie Co. contract stated that only those with “pure Caucasian blood” were allowed to reside on the property as of 1929. This blatantly racist covenant was widespread and, it seems, normal back then. Lorey demonstrates that by 1935, the covenant was mentioned in promotional materials alongside objective information like taxes and the neighborhood.
Plans to Address Inequality Caused by Single-Family Zoning
The UC Berkeley Othering and Belonging Institute have proposed that the purpose of racial integration policies is to protect integration where it currently exists and to incentivize it where it does not analyze racial segregation in the San Francisco Bay Area.
The research states that integrationist policies and single-family zoning, which is “a direct hindrance to the development of cheap housing,” must be repealed to achieve these two objectives. Numerous additional studies have advocated for adopting laws that overturn restrictive land-use regulations to expand multifamily housing.
There have been conflicting outcomes from applying “inclusionary zoning,” a regulatory instrument that mandates developers to provide subsidies for a portion of lower-than-market prices. In the Baltimore-Washington corridor, for example, this type of zoning increased market-rate pricing when it was mandatory. In contrast, the program’s optional variants proved ineffective as a mechanism for generating affordable housing, according to a George Mason University study from 2021.
What Motivates Local Governments to Establish Family Zones?
A municipal authority may decide to establish a family zone for several reasons, such as:
- Reduced noise and traffic
- Reduce parking issues
- Population control
- Encourage dependable and long-term habitation
- Prevent additional issues brought on by communal living
Are Family Zoning Regulations Valid?
According to the Supreme Court, family-friendly zoning laws are legitimate. Local governments are able to enact family zoning since its objectives are logically connected to public welfare, health, and safety. Furthermore, the Court considers these laws to be forms of social and economic control that the U.S. Constitution reserves for State and local governments.
Legislative Remedy
A number of states and towns have recently approved laws that aim to do away with single-family zoning. Minneapolis, for instance, approved multiplexes in 2019 in areas of the city where single-family zoning restrictions had previously prohibited them. In 2019, the Oregon legislature approved a bill that permitted building non-single-family homes on residential properties.
Should I Hire a Lawyer for My Family’s Zoning Issue?
You can cope with any current or future family zoning issue with the assistance of an experienced real estate lawyer. A new or modified family zoning regulation may impact you as a present or potential landowner, developer, landlord, or renter.
Your lawyer can help you understand how this may affect you. Your lawyer can also assist you in understanding a zoning code that has an impact on you.
