Most of the communities in the Wasatch Region were zoned decades ago to allow only a few types of homes to be built. These rules have left too many of our neighbors with few options to find a home where they want to live. Smaller, more affordable homes are often impossible to build due to burdensome regulations like minimum lot sizes, inflexible parking requirements, and design standards left over from a different era. The result is a fast-growing region that is not building nearly enough of the homes people can actually afford. 

Modernizing land-use rules to expand what can be built and where is one of the most important tools that local and state governments can use to meet the need for new homes without using taxpayer money. Upzoning gives property owners more options for how they use their property, allowing a wider variety of home options—like duplexes, townhomes, and backyard cottages, creating flexibility for local builders and property owners to build home types that meet the needs of all of our neighbors. 

The actions in this policy area focus on creating more housing choices and making the Wasatch Region more affordable, with concrete actions for Utah cities and state lawmakers grounded in national best practices and Utah-specific research. The strategies below focus on: re-legalizing missing middle housing, enabling infill on smaller lots, supporting adaptive reuse, building homes near jobs and transit, expanding co-living options, and reforming building codes to unlock more housing types. 

Strategy 1: Promote Missing Middle Housing Options

The Wasatch Region is growing fast, but we’re not building enough homes that people can truly afford. Rents and purchase prices keep rising, and in many communities, the only homes getting built are large apartment complexes or single-detached homes. What’s missing is the middle: smaller-scale homes that fit comfortably into existing neighborhoods. 

Architect and urban designer Daniel Parolek coined the term “Missing Middle” to describe this set of residential building types that provide the size and affordability options that people of all ages and incomes very much need but often cannot find today: duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, cottage clusters, or townhomes. Across most of the United States, including Utah, these homes have become an endangered species due to exclusionary and unnecessary zoning rules. These home types used to be legal and can still be found in many of our most beloved, older neighborhoods, but became largely illegal to build in the early-to-mid 20th century, as cities sought to segregate people by race and class. 

If you want to build anything other than a single-family home on a large lot, you’re probably going to need a variance, a rezoning, or a long, expensive approval process. That’s a huge barrier for small-scale developers, homeowners, and local builders who might otherwise be able to add housing in a way that fits the neighborhood.

Where we live shapes our lives and our long-term success—from the length and cost of our commutes to where children go to school. Middle home choices in neighborhoods close to jobs, schools, transit, parks, and businesses expand opportunity for all. Re-legalizing middle housing as an option would put many young people on a better track to build their American dreams and keep many seniors from losing what they’ve built. 

The U.S. Census shows that, across the country, the median monthly cost of a single-detached house—legal to build on essentially any residential lot in the country—is 17-18% higher than a home in a 2-to-9-unit middle housing complex, which is banned by zoning in the vast majority of American residential land. 

• In Utah, the median sales price of condos, townhomes, and twin homes was approximately $150,000 less than that of a single-family home, according to a recent report by the Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute.

• In addition, extensive research from places that have legalized missing middle housing, such as Durham, Portland, Arizona, Houston, and Minneapolis, has shown that housing prices drop as more homes come onto the market. After reforms were implemented in Austin, TX, rents saw the greatest decline (11%) in older non-luxury apartments that cater to lower-income renters. 

Policy Goals to Achieve Strategy: 

• Audit zoning codes to identify barriers to missing middle housing, including duplexes, fourplexes, and ADUs, such as minimum setbacks, minimum lot size and lot width regulations, maximum building height, and maximum lot coverage. Examples: Utah Missing Middle Housing Toolkit Opportunity Sites, SLC’s RMF-35 and RMF-45 Zone Updates, Cincinnati's Connected Communities Policy, Alexandria’s Zoning for Housing Reforms. 

• Amend codes to allow duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes by right in all detached single-family zones. Once this zoning change is made, homeowners can move forward with conversions without requiring special approvals or variances. This flexibility empowers homeowners to maximize their property potential, generate additional income, and offer more affordable housing options within their community.

  • Examples of statewide bills: Montana’s SB 323 (2023), requires cities over 5,000 to allow duplexes by right in all single-family zones, eliminating parking minimums for these housing types. Arizona’s HB 2721 (2024), requires cities over 75,000 residents to allow middle housing including duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, courtyard apartments, townhomes, and cottage clusters as a permitted use on single-family lots within one mile of their downtowns. Examples of local reforms: Durham’s Expanding Housing Choices, Portland’s Residential Infill Project, Burlington’s BTV Neighborhood Code. 

• Allow cottage courts and small-lot single-family homes by right wherever single-family homes are currently permitted. 

• Create a missing middle overlay zone that layers expanded housing types onto existing single-family districts without rezoning the underlying parcel. Example: Midvale’s Duplex (Two Unit) Overlay Zone. 

• Adjust the maximum density standards to accommodate missing middle housing types; consider regulating by Floor Area Ratio (FAR) or by building footprint dimensions, not density. Example: Sacramento, CA passed the Missing Middle Housing Interim Ordinance which applies to its most prevalent residential zones. This ordinance eliminated maximum density, but still regulates minimum density and maximum FAR. The sliding scale FAR created an environment that incentivized developers to build missing middle housing types. With this system, the allowed FAR adjusted based on the number of units; it reduced the allowed floor area that a single-family product could achieve and granted more floor area for each additional unit. The additional FAR helped make missing middle projects more attractive while keeping the units at an attainable price point.

• Remove or substantially reduce parking minimums for missing middle housing, particularly near transit corridors. Washington's HB 1110 (2023) bars cities from imposing parking requirements on any middle-housing unit (duplex through sixplex) located within a half-mile of major transit stops, and caps parking mandates at one space per unit elsewhere for smaller cities. Municipal examples: Minneapolis, Lexington, Raleigh, Kansas City. For more examples see Parking Reform Network’s Reform Map (showcasing over 4,500 cities worldwide that have implemented parking reform). 

• Develop a pre-approved design plan program offering a menu of vetted, code-compliant building plans for missing middle typologies, cutting design and permitting costs and timelines for homeowners and small-scale builders. Examples: Salt Lake City’s pre-approved plans for detached accessory dwelling units, Kalamazoo, MI, South Bend, IN, Claremore, OK, Rogers, AR. 

Strategy 2: Legalize Infill Homes on Smaller Lots 

Infill development means building new homes on vacant or underutilized land within existing neighborhoods—building “in” rather than “out.” It makes better use of the space we already have. 

Infill allows us to create more home options near where people work and shop, reducing sprawl into farmlands, protecting our valuable open lands and providing homes at more attainable price points. Infill development means new homes can plug into—and pay into—existing infrastructure systems, like roads and water lines, instead of needing new infrastructure construction, which helps keep city services affordable for everyone. New development on vacant parcels increases a city's tax base, meaning more resources and amenities for residents. Infill development also significantly benefits the environment, promoting more walkable, connected neighborhoods and shorter commutes, thereby reducing emissions by decreasing vehicle miles traveled. 

With Salt Lake County potentially approaching its buildout capacity under current zoning patterns by 2042, infill is not optional. It is the primary way Utah’s established cities grow to meet demand without sprawling into foothills, farmland, and open space. Minimum lot size requirements are one of the most direct barriers to infill. In Utah’s population centers, a half-acre of land commonly exceeds $300,000—making homes on large lots impossible to build affordably without subsidy.  Envision Utah’s research demonstrates that shifting from a 10,000 sq. ft. lot to a 5,000 sq. ft. lot can reduce total home prices by 22%. 

Houston's experience is instructive: in 1998, the city reduced its minimum lot size from 5,000 to 1,400 square feet in its urban core, then extended the reform citywide in 2013. The result was more than 80,000 new townhouses built over 25 years, at prices roughly 40% below comparable homes on larger lots. Seattle’s light-touch density approach and Durham’s Expanding Housing Choices program offer additional case studies of how incremental small-lot reform generates meaningful new supply without dramatic neighborhood disruption.

Policies to Consider: 

• Reduce minimum lot sizes and lot width requirements to allow small-lot single-family, townhome, and cottage court development. 

• Eliminate or substantially reduce parking minimums for infill projects within walking distance of transit. The Utah Foundation notes that existing parking requirements are a key barrier to infill feasibility, particularly on surface parking lots that represent prime opportunity sites. 

• Create streamlined or by-right permitting pathways for qualifying infill projects to reduce cost and uncertainty. 

• Inventory publicly owned and underutilized parcels as infill development opportunities and actively market them to developers. For examples of this policy see WALC’s strategies to utilize public land in support of housing affordability goals

• Adopt form-based codes or overlay districts to encourage compatible infill in established neighborhoods. Example: WFRC Form Based Code Tool. 

Strategy 3: Support Adaptive Reuse Projects 

Adaptive reuse converts vacant or underutilized commercial, office, institutional, and industrial buildings into housing. It is often faster, cheaper, and less disruptive than new ground-up construction, and it preserves community character while bringing housing into locations already served by jobs, services, and transit. The Wasatch Region has meaningful opportunities: post-pandemic office vacancies, aging retail centers, underused institutional buildings, and faith-owned land all represent potential housing sites. 

Policies to Consider: 

• Coordinate with state economic development agencies to identify and market adaptive reuse sites.

• Streamline permitting and reduce approval timelines for residential conversion of commercial and office buildings. Example: Boston’s Downtown Office to Residential Conversion Pilot Program. 

• Allow residential use on upper and ground floors of commercial buildings by right.

• Adopt YIGBY (“Yes in God’s Backyard) policies enabling faith-based and nonprofit organizations to build housing on underutilized land they own.

Strategy 4: Build Homes Near Jobs and Transit

Housing and jobs work best when planned together. Homes located far from employment and services drive up commute times and costs, require expensive transportation infrastructure, accelerate sprawl onto farmland and open lands, and reduce workers’ quality of life. When homes are close to jobs, schools, transit, and daily services, households spend less on transportation and more on everything else, strengthening local economies and reducing regional congestion.

Vacant lots and underutilized buildings along commercial corridors and near employment centers represent one of the region's best opportunities to expand housing supply quickly and affordably. But current zoning in most Utah cities prohibits residential use in commercial or employment zones without a discretionary rezoning, a costly and time-consuming process that deters even willing developers.

Transit-oriented development (TOD), compact, mixed-use development within walking distance of transit stations, is among the most evidence-supported strategies for housing supply, affordability, and reduced vehicle miles traveled. Allowing housing on land owned by religious and charitable organizations (often called “Yes in God’s Backyard,” or YIGBY) can also enable housing in connected places where existing regulations currently disallow it. 

Policies to Consider: 

• Allow residential and mixed-use projects by right in commercial and light industrial zones. Examples: Texas’s SB 840 (2025): this pro-housing, pro-existing infrastructure efficiency reform has moved more multifamily development out of neighborhoods and into commercial zones—placing more homes for people near jobs and vibrant “Main Streets.”

• Leverage transit-oriented development. 

• Rezone and master plan underutilized shopping centers and corridors to allow more housing. 

• Adopt form-based codes in commercial and mixed-use zones to guide development compatible with surrounding neighborhoods. Examples: Midvale Main Street Small Area Plan Form Based Code, South Salt Lake East Streetcar Neighborhood Form-Based Code, Clearfield City Downtown Form Based Code. 

Strategy 5: Relegalize Co-Living 

Single-room occupancy (SRO) housing, boarding houses, rooming houses, co-living buildings, and spare bedrooms rented out in private homes, was once a standard part of the American housing market. It provided the first rung on the housing ladder for young workers, students, people new to a city, and those transitioning out of instability. Think of these units as smaller, simpler apartments: an individual rents a private room but shares kitchens and bathrooms with neighbors. SRO housing can range from a guest bedroom rented out of a large single-family home, to a dorm-style boarding house that provides a cheap housing option for single adults, to repurposed office buildings with private rooms and shared amenities.

Beginning in the mid-20th century, local governments deliberately eliminated SROs through exclusionary zoning, minimum room-size mandates, mandatory full-kitchen requirements, and occupancy rules that effectively required all household members to be related. The result: fewer affordable options, higher rents, and a direct contribution to the modern homelessness crisis.

SROs provide a number of unique benefits:

• SROs are often the cheapest non-subsidized housing you can find. Median rents for SROs were historically hundreds of dollars lower than apartments of even modest size.

• They work for a surprising variety of people: students, young workers, folks in between jobs, single adults, and anyone who just doesn’t need a giant apartment.

• They can unlock existing housing capacity by using spare rooms and underused buildings without spending billions in subsidies.

Policies to Consider: 

• Re-legalize SRO and co-living housing statewide. 

• Remove minimum room-size, full-kitchen, and related requirements that make co-living legally or financially impossible.

• Allow co-living as a use by right in residential, commercial, and mixed-use zones. 

• Allow conversion of existing buildings, including single-family homes and commercial structures, to co-living uses.

Strategy 6: Reform Building Codes 

Single-Stair Reform: Under the International Building Code (IBC) adopted by Utah, apartment buildings above three stories require two staircases. This seemingly technical rule has significant economic consequences. Double-stair requirements push developers toward larger floor plates, which need larger lots. Most small urban infill lots throughout the Wasatch Front are too small to support a compliant two-stair building. The result: multifamily housing economics favor large buildings on large lots, crowding out the mid-scale, neighborhood-compatible apartments that cities actually need most. Single-stair reform would allow buildings of four to six stories to be served by one staircase under specified conditions, unlocking mid-rise development on the small and medium infill lots that are abundant in Salt Lake City and elsewhere.

Policies to Consider: 

• Pass state legislation directing Utah’s building code council to evaluate and adopt single-stair provisions for buildings up to four to six stories, drawing on Idaho’s 2026 model. Other examples: Colorado, Montana, New Hampshire, and Texas. 

• Expand the International Residential Code to explicitly cover 6- and 8-unit buildings, building on Utah HB 175 (2025). This can create small-scale infill without triggering IBC overhead, and sidesteps the dual stairway issue entirely for most missing middle contexts.

Scissor Stair Reform: Scissor stairs (two interlocking staircases sharing a single fire-rated shaft) offer a middle path between single-stair and full double-loaded-corridor construction, useful for buildings that fall in the size gap where a four-unit-per-floor single-stair cap is too small but a full double-stair corridor building is oversized for the lot. Washington became the first state to legalize scissor stairs statewide via House Bill 2228, building on its 2023 single-stair reform and 2024 extension of residential code to middle housing.

Elevator Reform: Elevator reform updates outdated building codes and regulations to allow smaller, more cost-effective, and flexible elevator systems in mid-rise (four- to six-story) buildings. By reducing construction costs, it makes missing middle housing financially feasible on smaller projects and supports greater housing production. Washington passed the first meaningful reform to lower the cost and size of elevators, which will grow their numbers in new apartment and condo buildings.