This bill tasks the Department of Housing and Urban Development with producing federal guidance states and local governments can use to consider permitting “point‑access block” residential buildings—multiunit structures that rely on a single internal stair to serve all units. The measure is aimed at reconciling two pressures: reducing per‑unit construction cost to expand housing supply in expensive markets while identifying safety and accessibility measures needed for single‑stair designs.
The legislation is procedural and technical rather than prescriptive: it directs HUD to gather examples, consult experts, and produce model code language and best practices. It also creates a vehicle for small‑scale demonstrations through competitive grants and asks HUD to work with the International Code Council, while explicitly leaving state and local building codes intact.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires HUD to assemble model code language, best practices, and technical guidance to assist jurisdictions that want to permit single‑stair (point‑access) residential buildings. It instructs HUD to consider fire protection, costs, accessibility, existing examples, expert input, and alternative compliance methods and to coordinate with the International Code Council.
Who It Affects
State and local building and permitting authorities, fire marshals, developers and builders of mid‑rise multiunit housing, architects and engineers, public housing agencies, Tribes, and organizations eligible for federal demonstration grants. Building code bodies and insurers will also pay close attention to any guidance that could influence local adoption.
Why It Matters
If adopted locally, point‑access guidelines could lower construction costs per unit and enable denser housing in high‑cost jurisdictions; at the same time, they touch core public‑safety choices about stairway egress, sprinkler and detection systems, ventilation, and accessibility. The bill creates a federal convening role without displacing local code authority.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill instructs HUD to develop a package of technical materials local code officials can use when evaluating single‑stair residential buildings. HUD must pull together model code text, explanatory best practices, and technical guidance that jurisdictions could adapt when they consider permitting multiunit buildings that rely on a single internal stair.
The guidance is meant to give local officials a vetted set of design and safety options rather than force uniform national code requirements.
In preparing the materials, HUD must examine a defined set of safety and design factors: active and passive fire protection (sprinklers, smoke detection), ventilation and egress performance, cost impacts on housing affordability, and how to accommodate different household sizes and accessibility needs. The department must review examples from U.S. jurisdictions and international standards, and consult a broad group—developers, architects, fire marshals, researchers, economists, housing authorities, and officials from places that have piloted single‑stair reforms.The bill also creates a competitive grant authority for pilots run by governments, nonprofits, developers, research institutions, or partnerships to demonstrate or validate whether point‑access block housing is safe, feasible, and cost‑effective in practice.
HUD is asked to coordinate with the International Code Council so any learnings can be considered for inclusion in the International Building Code. The statute preserves state and local code authority and defines the key statutory terms—what counts as a point‑access block building and which organizations qualify for grants—so jurisdictions and applicants know the scope of the program.
The Five Things You Need to Know
HUD must issue model code language, best practices, and technical guidance focused on point‑access block residential buildings.
The Secretary has 18 months from enactment to publish the guidelines.
The bill defines a point‑access block building as a Group R‑2 residential structure in which a single internal stairway provides access and egress for all units in buildings no taller than five stories.
HUD may award competitive grants to States, local governments, Tribes, public housing agencies, nonprofits, private developers, design firms, academic institutions, or consortia to run pilot projects that test safety and cost outcomes.
The statute directs HUD to coordinate with the International Code Council and expressly states the guidance will not preempt State or local building codes.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Designates the bill as the 'Point‑Access Housing Guidelines Act of 2025.' This is administrative but signals the bill's narrow technical focus—guidance and pilots rather than new federal code or mandates.
Deadline and directive to issue guidance
Requires the Secretary of HUD to issue model code language, best practices, and technical guidance to help States, Territories, Tribes, and localities facilitate permitting of point‑access block residential buildings. The provision sets a firm 18‑month timeline for HUD to deliver these materials after enactment, creating a predictable schedule for jurisdictions and stakeholders planning pilots or code changes.
Required topics HUD must consider when drafting guidance
Lists seven explicit factors HUD must weigh: fire safety (sprinklers, smoke detection, ventilation, egress performance); construction costs and impacts on affordability; flexibility for diverse household and accessibility needs; examples from jurisdictions and international standards; existing research and model language; consultation with a wide range of experts; and alternative compliance options that rely on additional passive or active safety features. By enumerating these items, the statute channels HUD’s review toward safety, cost, and equity trade‑offs rather than purely technical code drafting.
Coordination with model code body
Directs HUD to coordinate with the International Code Council to encourage inclusion of point‑access provisions in the International Building Code. This creates a pathway for federal findings and pilot results to inform the dominant model code used by most U.S. jurisdictions, but it is limited to advocacy and coordination rather than authority to change the IBC itself.
Pilot grant authority and non‑preemption
Authorizes HUD to award competitive grants to eligible entities for pilot projects that evaluate the safety, feasibility, or cost‑effectiveness of point‑access residential buildings. The bill then explicitly disclaims any preemption of State or local building codes, preserving local discretion to accept, modify, or reject HUD’s guidance and any pilot findings.
Definitions and eligible entities
Defines 'point‑access block building' by reference to Group R‑2 in the International Building Code and limits the design to structures not greater than five stories that use a single internal stairway for access and egress. It also provides a broad definition of 'eligible entity' to include governmental bodies, public housing agencies, nonprofits, private developers, design and engineering firms, academic institutions, and consortia—intentionally wide to encourage multi‑sector pilot partnerships.
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
- High‑cost municipal planning departments and local governments in supply‑constrained markets — they gain vetted model language and technical guidance to consider permitting lower‑cost mid‑rise options without starting from scratch.
- Developers and builders focused on mid‑rise housing — they could reduce per‑unit vertical circulation costs if jurisdictions adopt single‑stair options supported by the guidance.
- Nonprofit housing organizations and public housing agencies — the competitive pilot grants create funding and partnership opportunities to test cost‑saving designs for affordable housing projects.
- Design, engineering, and research firms — they can access grant funding and an expanded market for design services around alternative egress solutions and passive/active safety systems.
- Code bodies and model‑code advocates — coordination with HUD and the ICC opens a route for empirical pilot data to inform future revisions of the International Building Code.
Who Bears the Cost
- Local building departments and fire marshals — they will face the operational burden of evaluating, permitting, and enforcing new single‑stair designs and may need training, revised inspection protocols, and updated guidance.
- Insurance companies and mortgage underwriters — they may need to reassess risk models for buildings that deviate from conventional multi‑stair egress designs, potentially affecting premiums and lending terms.
- Smaller developers or contractors — while single‑stair designs can lower some costs, meeting alternative compliance measures (additional sprinklers, smoke control, structural upgrades) may impose new upfront technical costs.
- HUD and federal resources — administering technical guidance, expert consultations, and a competitive pilot grant program creates agency workload and may require new budgetary allocations to be effective.
- Tenants and residents in pilot or early‑adopting buildings — they carry residual safety risk if alternative systems are inadequately designed, implemented, or maintained, particularly for residents with mobility impairments.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is straightforward: permit single‑stair designs to lower construction costs and expand housing supply, or prioritize conservative egress standards that maintain the redundancy of multiple stairways to minimize evacuation risk—each choice addresses a legitimate public interest but pulls policy in opposite directions.
The bill frames HUD’s role as informational and facilitative, not prescriptive, which reduces immediate federal legal risk but leaves open several implementation challenges. First, the safety evidence base for point‑access, single‑stair buildings is context dependent: building height, occupancy patterns, material performance, and local emergency response capacity all shape risk.
Translating general guidance into local code decisions requires metrics and performance standards that the bill does not specify—HUD will need to decide what level of performance is acceptable and how to measure outcomes in pilots.
Second, alternative compliance paths—relying on additional passive or active systems—create a patchwork risk profile. Pilots may show good results in well‑resourced contexts but produce different outcomes in underfunded jurisdictions or in retrofit scenarios.
Insurance and lender reactions are unpredictable: if financial markets treat single‑stair buildings as higher risk, any construction savings could be offset by higher borrowing costs or insurance premiums. Finally, the statute’s non‑preemption clause preserves local control but also means guidance could be adopted unevenly, limiting the bill’s capacity to reduce regulatory barriers nationwide without parallel state action or IBC changes.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.