Eliminating Parking Mandates to Tackle the Housing Crisis

Parking reforms can ease some of the cost burdens that currently discourage wider scale development of multifamily projects.

Across the United States, a growing number of cities are reconsidering an outdated element of their zoning codes: mandatory parking requirements. These provisions, which include requirements for off-street parking and rigid parking ratios regardless of local demand, are a major constraint on multifamily housing production.

For cities struggling with housing affordability, broad-based parking mandates are increasingly at odds with modern land use goals. A growing body of legal scholarship, case studies and municipal legislation points to the reduction or elimination of parking requirements as an effective tool to facilitate multifamily development and alleviate housing shortages, particularly in high-demand urban markets.

A Legal and Policy Shift Rooted in Zoning Reform

Most parking requirements, typically articulated as on-site minimum amounts associated with new developments, are embedded in local zoning codes and considered foundational components of orderly land development regulations. Cities originally introduced these requirements to manage traffic and land use during the mid-20th century automobile boom. Critics increasingly argue they lack a rational basis in modern urban environments where walkability and transit access are prioritized.

Although courts continue to uphold broad municipal discretion in zoning, scholars and housing advocates question whether rigid parking requirements impose disproportionate burdens on the right to build housing, especially as exclusionary zoning and housing underproduction face growing scrutiny.

As of August, more than 3,700 cities in 22 countries had enacted reforms to eliminate or reduce parking requirements, with over 100 cities removing all parking minimums, according to the Parking Reform Network. The organization's Mandates Map shows the breadth of this trend, including reforms supporting multifamily housing.  

Nationally, structured parking costs approximately $30,000 to $40,000 per space. This figure includes the concrete and construction expenses associated with building garages or decks. Developers typically recoup these costs not through separate parking fees but by incorporating them into the rents charged to tenants. As a result, mandatory parking minimums often translate into higher monthly rents. In many cases, this can push projected rents above what the local market can support, causing developers to abandon otherwise viable multifamily proposals due to economic infeasibility, especially in transit-available areas where developers seek to maximize unit count and land efficiency.

Regulatory Reform in Action

The national movement to reduce or eliminate parking requirements has taken shape in a variety of cities, each implementing reforms that reflect local contexts.

Minneapolis eliminated minimum parking requirements in 2019 as part of the city's Minneapolis 2040 plan, a broad land use and zoning modernization strategy aimed at addressing housing inequity and enabling diverse housing types. The plan has offered evidence that comprehensive zoning reforms, including the elimination of parking minimums, can produce significant affordability outcomes. While national rents increased by 22% from 2019 to 2024, rents in Minneapolis declined by 4% during the same period, according to NBC News.

Although lower rents are not necessarily viewed as beneficial from a developer's perspective, the elimination of costly parking mandates reduces development expenses and makes more projects financially viable. This encourages development that might not otherwise occur, particularly in urban areas with high land and construction costs. By easing the cost of development and expanding the supply of affordable housing, these reforms create a clear societal benefit, aiding cities and developers alike. Minneapolis was among the first major cities to identify the legal and economic barriers posed by parking mandates, respond with a comprehensive plan to eliminate them, and implement those changes at scale.

Austin adopted Ordinance C20-2023-010 in 2023, repealing parking minimums for all land uses citywide. Austin's leaders cited the city's affordability crisis and their hope to expand public transit as justification for reform. According to The Texas Tribune, the city emphasized that eliminating parking mandates would encourage more compact, transit-friendly development and more efficient land use. Early signs point to real momentum in the form of increased interest in multifamily development and shifting rental dynamics. According to Redfin, Austin's median asking rent has decreased 9.6% year over year, the steepest drop of any major U.S. metro area among the 44 core-based statistical areas analyzed.

Austin's experience reinforces the idea that eliminating costly parking mandates can reduce development expenses enough to make multifamily projects possible, even in the face of moderating rents. The link between parking reform and falling rental rates lies in the reduced cost of construction. When cities remove expensive parking requirements, development becomes more financially feasible, which increases housing supply and helps ease upward pressure on rents. This trade-off reflects a broader benefit: greater access to attainable housing without sacrificing development momentum.

Other notable cities that have eliminated, reduced or otherwise modified parking minimums include Gainesville, Florida; downtown Fort Lauderdale, Florida; Raleigh, North Carolina; Portland, Oregon; and San Jose, California.

The Trade-off Between Parking Access and Housing Necessity

From a national housing policy perspective, parking reform is necessary to meet the massive demand for affordable places to live.

In Hollywood, Florida, for example, a recent affordable housing development conducted a leasing lottery for its 113 units and received nearly 20,000 applications. That level of demand highlights the vast disconnect between existing supply and actual housing need — a disconnect that becomes harder to justify when zoning codes continue to mandate valuable land for underutilized parking.

This tension between regulatory tradition and contemporary need is driving the current trend of parking reform. Critics often raise concerns that the elimination or reduction of parking minimums will result in parking spillover, reduced access for customers and increased street congestion. These concerns are valid but solvable. Cities are complementing parking reforms with strategies such as dynamic pricing, residential permit programs, and investments in transit and micromobility infrastructure, such as bike lanes, scooter networks, and bike-share and e-scooter networks, to mitigate impacts without restricting development capacity.

It is important to understand that parking reform does not equate to a parking ban. Developers, particularly those building in markets where car ownership remains high, often include parking voluntarily. The distinction is that the legal obligation of parking minimums has been lifted, allowing market signals (rather than blanket zoning formulas) to drive project design. Under this scenario, developers, who are well positioned to assess site-specific parking needs, can pursue more context-sensitive strategies to meet demand without incurring the potentially exorbitant capital costs of new construction.  

Through its form-based Miami 21 Zoning Code, Miami has adopted this tailored approach to parking reform. Developers building near transit corridors or pursuing small infill projects may obtain waivers from parking requirements, offering greater flexibility without necessitating full repeal of the city's parking regulations.

When required to build parking for tenants who are less likely to own cars, developers may abandon multifamily or affordable housing proposals altogether, resulting in wasted capital and lost housing opportunity. For a multifamily project with minimal land, structured parking costs can easily add millions of dollars to the construction budget. In capital-constrained deals, especially affordable housing financed with public subsidies, these extra parking costs can tip the scales and bring projects to a halt.

As cities look to solve their housing shortfalls, it is becoming clearer that parking mandates are not benign. They are land use decisions with measurable impacts on housing supply, construction cost, density and urban equity.

Understanding the Legal Momentum Behind the Trend

Zoning codes are evolving in recognition that rigid parking minimums have outlived their original planning justifications. In practice, they act as exclusionary tools that limit density, constrain infill and inflate construction costs, often scrapping important projects. Legal reforms around the country demonstrate that parking reform is being adopted as a tool to modernize land use and zoning regulation.

This legal recalibration is often integrated into larger efforts to update comprehensive plans, satisfy state housing requirements, or address constitutional and statutory challenges to exclusionary zoning practices. Attorneys advising municipalities and private clients alike should be aware that parking reform is becoming a key element of zoning modernization, not an outlier.

What the Trend Means for the Future of Development

Parking reform is reshaping the development landscape in real time. These policy shifts are not simply about eliminating cost burdens; they are about unlocking new sites, restructuring deal viability and enabling housing at a scale that was previously out of reach.

Cities undertaking parking reforms can expect increasing interest from developers who were previously deterred by structural and legal barriers. Removing parking mandates opens up small, irregular or transit-adjacent parcels for viable multifamily use, as developers are freed from costly and spatially burdensome parking mandates. For example, according to a 2025 report by the U.S. Department of Transportation that draws on research from the Sightline Institute, removing parking minimums in Colorado would lead to 71% more homes in transit-oriented areas and 41% more homes overall in the urban areas studied. That kind of increase clearly reflects how reducing parking mandates can unlock new development opportunities and spur meaningful engagement from the development community. This shift signals a growing alignment between local policy reform and private sector willingness to build when costly regulatory barriers are removed.

Looking Ahead

The elimination of mandatory parking requirements represents an actionable reform targeting one of the most persistent and underappreciated constraints in urban land use policy.

Such reforms are intended to recalibrate outdated regulations that often stand in the way of new housing. Reducing these requirements lets cities enable more housing, more efficiently, in more places.

For municipalities and developers looking to make progress on housing goals without overhauling entire zoning regimes, parking reform offers a legally grounded, public-facing step forward. And for the legal and development professionals advising them, understanding this trend is essential, not optional.  

Matthew Scott is a partner at Greenspoon Marder LLP who focuses his practice on land use and zoning matters in Broward and Palm Beach counties, Florida. Jared Weingard is a third-year student at the University of Florida Levin College of Law and worked as a 2025 summer associate at Greenspoon Marder LLP.

• Magazine Article
• Development/Ownership
• Multifamily Property
• Parking
• Zoning