The Housing Supply Frameworks Act directs the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, through the Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research, to develop and publish guidelines and best practices for State and local zoning frameworks aimed at increasing housing production at all income levels. The statute prescribes a two‑year draft and consultation process with a named task force and public notice, a three‑year deadline to finalize guidance, and a five‑year reporting requirement on state and local adoption.
The bill enumerates a broad menu of land‑use reforms—eliminating parking minimums, allowing accessory dwelling units, expanding by‑right duplex/triplex/quadplex development, raising FAR and heights, streamlining reviews, and model State appeals mechanisms—while also requiring HUD to consider impacts on federal grant eligibility, civil rights compliance, affordability preservation, and infrastructure coordination. It authorizes $3 million annually for fiscal years 2026–2030 and abolishes the existing Regulatory Barriers Clearinghouse (42 U.S.C. 12705d).
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires HUD to publish guidelines and best practices for State and local zoning frameworks within three years, after a two‑year period of drafting with public comment and a multi‑stakeholder task force. The guidance must cover specific reforms (parking minimums, ADUs, by‑right small multifamily, FAR/heights, impact fees, transit‑oriented development) and recommend model State enabling legislation and appeals procedures.
Who It Affects
State housing and land‑use agencies, municipal planning departments, local zoning boards, affordable and market‑rate housing developers (including manufactured/modular builders), public housing and transit authorities, community land trusts, and residents in high‑growth or supply‑constrained markets. It also affects federal discretionary grant programs to the extent HUD’s recommendations touch on eligibility considerations.
Why It Matters
This statute creates a federal technical and policy roadmap for local and State zoning reform without rewriting land‑use law directly; its influence will hinge on adoption by States and localities and on whether federal agencies tie discretionary grant processes to alignment with HUD recommendations. It centralizes best practices across a wide menu of regulatory changes that have been implicated in housing undersupply.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill makes HUD the central federal convenor and publisher of model State and local zoning frameworks. It sets a two‑year window for HUD to solicit public comment and assemble a task force drawn from planners, advocates, developers, local officials, academics, and community members; HUD must then finalize and publish guidance within three years.
The statute lists specific reform areas HUD must address and requires HUD to consider a variety of cross‑cutting issues—fair housing, infrastructure, affordability preservation, and how recommended reforms might affect eligibility for federal discretionary grants and tax credits.
Substantively, the guidance is expected to be granular. The bill directs HUD to recommend reductions or eliminations of parking minimums; greater building envelopes through higher FARs and heights and smaller lot and setback requirements; removal of bans on accessory dwelling units; expanded by‑right allowances for small multifamily across metro areas; and procedures to streamline ministerial review and entitlement and design review processes.
HUD must also propose model State legislation and practical tools—such as a State zoning appeals process and suggestions for transit‑oriented development incentives—to help States and localities adopt reforms more quickly and consistently.The Act builds implementation levers into its design without directly preempting state or local land‑use authority. HUD must consider differences between States with strong municipal home‑rule and States operating under the Dillon rule, and it is instructed to offer differentiated best practices for rural, suburban, and urban communities.
Five years after publishing the guidance, HUD must report to Congress on which States and localities adopted recommendations, what changes they made, and which States established a State zoning framework. The bill also abolishes the Regulatory Barriers Clearinghouse and provides an authorization of $3,000,000 per year for fiscal years 2026–2030 to carry out the statute.
The Five Things You Need to Know
HUD must publish final guidelines and best practices within 3 years, after a 2‑year drafting period that includes Federal Register notice and a multi‑stakeholder task force.
The guidance must include a model State zoning appeals process allowing developers to appeal local denials to a State or regional body and permitting exemptions for communities with sufficient affordable housing stock.
HUD is directed to recommend specific regulatory changes: eliminate parking minimums, authorize ADUs, expand by‑right duplex/triplex/quadplex allowances, increase FAR and building heights, and reduce minimum lot sizes and setbacks.
The bill requires HUD to assess how adopting recommendations would affect eligibility for HUD, DOT, and USDA discretionary grants and housing‑related tax credits, making grant alignment an explicit consideration.
The Regulatory Barriers Clearinghouse (42 U.S.C. 12705d) is abolished, and Congress authorizes $3,000,000 per fiscal year for 2026–2030 to implement the Act.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Names the statute the "Housing Supply Frameworks Act." This is purely formal but signals the law's focus on frameworks (plural): both State enabling structures and local zoning codes.
Findings framing federal role
Lists Congress’s rationale—national housing shortage, construction and labor constraints, and regulatory barriers at State and local levels—and frames zoning that restricts opportunities by income as contrary to regional and national interests. Practically, the findings justify HUD’s engagement as technical assistance and standards‑setting rather than a directive to change law at the local level.
Key definitions
Defines terms that control the Act’s reach: 'affordable housing' (30% of gross income), 'Assistant Secretary' (PD&R), 'local zoning framework' (local codes, procedures, policies), and 'State zoning framework' (State legislation or agency procedures). These definitions anchor later obligations and clarify that HUD’s work covers both policy vehicles (legislation, agency procedures) and administrative practices (codes and reviews).
Guidelines and best practices for State and local frameworks
Requires the Assistant Secretary to produce guidance within three years after enactment, following a two‑year consultation that includes Federal Register notice and a task force made up of planners, advocates, developers, community members, housing and transit authorities, local board members, State officials, academics, and home builders. Section 4(c) enumerates concrete topics HUD must address (parking minimums, ADUs, by‑right small multifamily, FAR/heights, ministerial review, impact fees, building codes, transit‑oriented development, community benefit agreements, affordability preservation, data collection, and more) and asks HUD to weigh home‑rule/Dillon rule distinctions and accountability, which will shape whether guidance proposes model statutory text versus administrative templates.
Five‑year reporting to Congress
Mandates a HUD report no later than five years after guidance publication describing which States and localities adopted recommendations, which States created a State zoning framework, and summaries of modifications. That reporting requirement creates an administrative record that Congress and other federal agencies can use to evaluate uptake, but the report focuses on adoption of recommendations rather than measuring housing production or displacement outcomes.
Abolition of Regulatory Barriers Clearinghouse
Repeals section 1205 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 and abolishes the Regulatory Barriers Clearinghouse (42 U.S.C. 12705d). The bill does not explicitly transfer the Clearinghouse’s functions, so HUD will need to manage knowledge resources under the new guidance without that statutory vehicle, which could create a short transition window for continuing repositories of best practices.
Authorization of appropriations
Authorizes $3,000,000 per year for fiscal years 2026 through 2030 to carry out the Act. The authorization is modest relative to nationwide technical assistance, meaning HUD will likely need to prioritize deliverables and rely on interagency coordination or partnerships to implement extensive outreach and support for States and localities.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Housing across all five countries.
Explore Housing in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Cost‑burdened renters and potential homeowners in high‑supply‑constraint markets — the guidance targets regulatory barriers that, if adopted locally or by States, could increase housing unit supply and lower price pressure over time.
- Affordable housing developers, manufactured and modular housing firms — the bill specifically calls out removing obstacles to these housing types and recommends streamlined, by‑right pathways that reduce entitlement risk and development timelines.
- Transit riders and regional planners — HUD must recommend transit‑oriented development incentives and higher allowable densities near transit, which can increase housing near jobs and reduce car dependence.
- Community land trusts and entities focused on long‑term affordability — the guidance requires HUD to consider mechanisms (land banks, CLTs) for preserving affordability and limiting displacement, which could result in stronger federal models and technical assistance.
- State agencies and proactive local governments — jurisdictions seeking templates and model statutes gain a federally curated toolkit and a possible policy roadmap to defend reforms politically and administratively.
Who Bears the Cost
- State and local governments and planning departments — revising codes, training staff, building new permitting systems, and running outreach will require staff time and possibly new budget allocations, particularly for smaller jurisdictions with limited capacity.
- Opposition groups and localities resisting change — communities that rely on exclusionary zoning as a land‑use tool will face political and legal pressure as model reforms become standardized and potentially leveraged in grant criteria.
- HUD and federal program offices — implementing the consultation, task force, outreach, and five‑year reporting within the $3M/year authorization will strain PD&R resources and require coordination across HUD, DOT, and USDA.
- Entities that administered or relied on the Regulatory Barriers Clearinghouse — abolition may shift responsibilities and require state and local actors to identify new clearinghouses or repositories; staff and contractors tied to the Clearinghouse could lose roles.
- Developers and builders in constrained markets could bear transitional costs from altered rules (e.g., different impact fee regimes or new affordability conditions) even if the long‑term effect is reduced entitlement risk.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing national interest in expanding housing supply with respect for State and local control and protection of vulnerable communities: using federal guidance and potential grant leverage to spur reform can speed housing production, but it risks eroding local autonomy, provoking legal and political backlash, and producing displacement or infrastructure strain if reforms are adopted without commensurate investment in affordability preservation and services.
The bill aims to provide a federal playbook without directly preempting local land‑use authority, but it creates ambiguous leverage points. HUD is instructed to consider how recommendations might affect eligibility for discretionary grants and tax credits, which could become an indirect compliance mechanism if agencies choose to favor jurisdictions aligning with HUD guidance.
The statute does not itself condition funds; it merely requires HUD to 'consider' effects, leaving open how agencies will operationalize that analysis and whether grant guidance will follow.
The Act's menu approach also creates trade‑offs between scale and specificity. A comprehensive list of reforms—parking minimums, ADUs, by‑right small multifamily, increased FAR, streamlined reviews, impact fee standardization, and appeals boards—will not have uniform applicability: rural and historic communities or jurisdictions with fragile infrastructure may need custom approaches.
The bill requires HUD to address differentiation, but it does not allocate sufficient funding to underwrite intensive local technical assistance at scale. Finally, abolishing the Regulatory Barriers Clearinghouse removes an existing statutory clearinghouse without explicitly replacing its functions, risking a knowledge‑management gap during transition.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.