Parking Reform Model Legislation

Parking Reform 101

End Costly Parking Mandates to Support Abundant Housing and Economic Vitality

Why eliminate parking mandates?

Parking mandates are pervasive and harmful. Parking reform has become a critical
tool for legalizing and facilitating abundant housing and vibrant urban development. Zoning codes almost always include parking minimums that force developers to build a set number of parking spaces per housing unit or per square foot of commercial development. These mandates significantly increase development costs and create unnecessary barriers to housing production and local entrepreneurship.

Parking mandates are arbitrary and unsupported by evidence. Minimum parking requirements are not based on rigorous scientific analysis and lack substantial support from data on actual parking demand. In surveys of communities separated by just dozens of miles, parking mandates for land uses like funeral homes, bowling alleys, and restaurants can vary by a factor of 2-15 times, illustrating the arbitrariness of these mandates. The result is costly and excessive parking that businesses and residents do not want or need.

Parking mandates restrict freedom of choice. Parking requirements force car-free and car-lite households to subsidize parking spaces they don’t need. Vehicle ownership is higher among wealthier households, meaning lower-income residents effectively pay more for parking they don’t use. Even in counties considered very car dependent—places like Orange County, FL, or Maricopa County, AZ—more than half of renter households have access to one car or no car—57% in both cases. Reducing minimum parking mandates would make housing more affordable and equitable for those who rely on public transit or other means of transportation.

Excessive parking is wasteful. A single parking space, with access aisles, takes up 300- 400 square feet. Municipal policies have arbitrarily required or encouraged the construction of massive quantities of car parking, resulting in at least three parking spaces for each of the 260 million cars in the U.S. This excess of parking lots wastes valuable land and perpetuates car dependency. Surface parking lots alone consume more than 5% of urban land nationwide. Common parking requirements for restaurants and retail lead to parking lots that are 1-3 times the size of the buildings they serve.

What are some of the costs of parking mandates?

High parking costs drive up housing prices: Parking spaces are expensive to build. Surface parking can cost upwards of $5000 per stall, while above-ground structured parking is easily $20,000 to $60,000 or more per stall. These costs are passed on to renters and homeowners, raising monthly housing expenses by $200 to $600 per month. Off-street parking mandates also reduce the number of housing units that can be built on a given site, exacerbating the housing shortage. Eliminating parking minimums would help make housing more affordable and accessible.

Parking mandates stifle entrepreneurship. Small businesses, particularly those in urban areas, struggle with the overhead costs of providing large parking lots. This makes it difficult for them to open or expand and leads to vacancies and demolitions in historically walkable neighborhoods. Parking minimums give national corporations a significant edge over local businesses, as larger companies are better equipped to absorb the costs associated with required parking.

Parking mandates discourage vibrant, walkable communities: In suburban areas, surface parking lots make walkable, human-centered neighborhoods impossible by spreading out development and promoting sprawl. In urban areas, mandatory parking displaces potential housing or community space, while reinforcing the need to drive. Eliminating parking minimums can reduce vehicle trips by 10-30%, easing traffic and lowering emissions.

What are the effects of eliminating parking mandates?

Parking reform is gaining momentum. Since 2017, at least 74 American cities have fully eliminated parking mandates. This trend includes large cities like San Jose, California, and Austin, Texas, as well as a host of mid-size cities like South Bend, Indiana, and small towns like Lansing, Kansas, or Mount Pleasant, Michigan. Since 2021, Parking Reform Network has tracked 65 state bills across the country that have begun addressing parking policy, reducing or eliminating mandates for specific land uses, housing types, or urban areas, paving the way for urban development that is more responsive to present-day needs.
Eliminating parking mandates does not eliminate parking. Instead, it allows developers and businesses to tailor parking supply to actual needs. Research shows that in cities
that have removed or sharply reduced parking minimums (such as Buffalo, Seattle, and Minneapolis), the amount of parking supplied for new apartment buildings has gradually decreased by 10–40%, demonstrating that parking provision can align better with market demand.
Eliminating parking mandates creates new possibilities. In Seattle and Buffalo, over 60% of new homes built since recent parking reforms are in buildings that would have been illegal under the prior parking requirements. A growing list of cities including Fayetteville, Arkansas, and Sandpoint, Idaho, report that the elimination of commercial parking mandates has resulted in new, successful local businesses occupying long-vacant spaces.
Eliminating parking mandates does not prevent residents from finding parking. In addition to the reality that private property owners will often continue to provide off-street parking, municipal governments can also ensure that on-street parking is available and convenient when needed by managing their curbs, using tools including demand-based pricing and permit programs. The relaxation of parking mandates can also encourage the sharing of parking among private landowners, leading to greater efficiency.

---

Off-Street Parking Reform Model Legislation

Section 1. Purpose and Intent

1. To address shortages in housing supply and expand housing options, it is the policy of [state] to reduce or remove parking requirements in order to drive down housing costs, increase housing availability, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Section 2. Definitions

For the purposes of this Section:

1. “Mixed-use development” means a development consisting of residential and nonresidential uses, with the nonresidential uses accounting for less than 50% of the total square footage.

Section 3. Prohibition on Minimum Parking Requirements

1. A municipality may not impose or enforce any minimum off-street parking requirement on any new residential, commercial, or mixed-use development project.
2. A municipality may not condition the approval of any residential, commercial, or mixed-use development project on the project providing any off-street parking.
3. A municipality may not assess any fees to fund off-site off-street parking on any new residential, commercial, or mixed-use development project.
4. This section shall not reduce, eliminate, or preclude the enforcement of any requirement imposed on the design or siting of off-street parking spaces where the applicant voluntarily provides off-street parking.
5. This section shall not reduce, eliminate, or preclude the enforcement of any requirement imposed on any residential, commercial, or mixed-use development project to provide electric vehicle supply equipment-installed parking spaces or parking spaces that are accessible to persons with disabilities where the applicant voluntarily provides off-street parking.

Section 4. Effective Date

1. This act is ordered to take immediate effect.

Options for Compromise

The best approach to minimum off-street parking requirements is to eliminate them altogether. That said, compromises may be necessary to get a bill over the finish line. Assuming you cannot pass the ideal bill, here are a few alternative provisions that you might consider. Ideally, your bill will include them all.

Exempt areas near transit: The most common form of off-street parking reform is to exempt areas within a half-mile of transit. This makes sense: these are the areas where demand for off-street parking is likely to be lowest. The devil is in the details here—be mindful of how you define a “major transit stop.” Check and see if your state already has a definition.

Section 2. Definitions.
…

2) “Major transit stop” means a site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminalserved by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 20 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.
…
Section #. Proximity to Transit.

1. A municipality may not impose or enforce any minimum off-street parking requirement on a residential, commercial, or mixed-use development project if any portion of the lot is located within one-half-mile of a major transit stop.

Exempt walkable areas: In states without much transit, it may make sense to focus on other criteria—such as proximity to schools, daily commercial uses, or employment centers.

Section 2. Definitions.
…

3) “Walkable area” means any Census block group with a score of 10.51 or greater in the National Walkability Index as maintained by the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

4) “Jobs-rich area” means any Census block group with a score of 70 or greater in the Smart Location Calculator as maintained by the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

…

Section #. Walkable and Jobs-Rich Areas.

1. A municipality may not impose or enforce any minimum off-street parking requirement on a residential, commercial, or mixed-use development project if any portion of the lot is located in a walkable area.
2. A municipality may not impose or enforce any minimum off-street parking requirement on a residential, commercial, or mixed-use development project if any portion of the lot is located in a jobs-rich area.

Protect affordable housing: Minimum off-street parking requirements often make affordable housing infeasible. In many cases, the prospective tenants of these units may not even own
a car. Policymakers should guarantee that these projects are exempt from minimum parking requirements regardless of where they are located.

Section 2. Definitions.
…

5) “Affordable housing” means any unit, including those in a mixed-income project, that is deed-restricted to be sold or rented at a price affordable to households earning 80 percent of the area median income or less.

…

Section #. Affordable Housing

1. A municipality may not impose or enforce any minimum off-street parking requirement on any residential dwelling unit that qualifies as affordable housing.

Exempt historic properties and adaptive reuse: Many neighborhoods were built before cars existed. As a result, historic structures often do not have space to accommodate off- street parking. Imposing off-street parking requirements in these cases risks thwarting adaptive reuse and destroying historic resources. This practice should be prohibited.

Section #: Historic Properties and Adaptive Reuse.

1. A municipality may not impose or enforce any minimum off-street parking requirement on a residential, commercial, or mixed-use development project on any lot listed in a local, state, or national historic registry.
2. A municipality may not impose or enforce any minimum off-street parking requirement on a residential, commercial, or mixed-use development project that involves the alteration of any structure that was built over 50 years ago.

Protect ADUs: Minimum off-street parking requirements often make ADUs infeasible. This is especially true of ADUs built in garages—a common form of ADU development. ADUs should be altogether exempt from minimum parking requirements, even when they eliminate existing parking.

Section 2. Definitions.
…
6) “Accessory dwelling unit” means a residential living unit on the same parcel as a primary
residential or commercial use. …

Section #. Accessory Dwelling Units.

1. A municipality may not impose or enforce any minimum off-street parking requirement on any new or existing accessory dwelling unit.
2. When a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished in conjunction with the construction of an accessory dwelling unit or converted to an accessory dwelling unit, a municipality may not require that those off-street parking spaces be replaced.

Establish reasonable criteria for satisfying requirements: Municipalities often refuse
to recognize de facto parking spaces—such as long driveways or EV charging stations. Alternatively, they often impose costly mandates—such as covered parking. To the extent that municipalities are still allowed to impose minimum parking requirements, flexibility should be protected by law.

Section #. Criteria for required parking.

1. In assessing compliance with any minimum off-street parking requirement, a municipality must treat every 20 foot by 9 foot section of pavement accessible via a curb cut as a separate off-street parking space.
2. A municipality may not require covered parking.
3. For the purposes of any minimum off-street parking requirement imposed by a municipality:
   1. Any parking space served by an electric vehicle charging station or any parking space used to site electric vehicle charging equipment must be counted as at least one standard parking space, and
   2. Any van-accessible parking space that is designed to accommodate a person in a wheelchair must be counted as at least two standard parking spaces.

Place an overall limit of one off-street parking space mandated per residential unit:
Municipalities often impose two or more parking spaces per residential unit, or may modify the number of mandated off-street parking spaces on the basis of the number of bedrooms. This should not be permitted. This mandate is especially onerous on low- and moderate-income families, who may require multiple bedrooms yet only have one car.

Section 2. Definitions.
…
7) “Residential dwelling unit” means a building or structure or part of a building or structure
that is used for a home or residents by one or more persons who maintain a household. …

Section #.
1) A municipality may not impose or enforce any minimum off-street parking requirement in excess of one space per residential dwelling unit.

Concessions Best Avoided

The most common way that reform is thwarted is not by altogether killing bills, but by larding them down with a mountain of amendments that collectively leave it toothless. In isolation, they may look fine—but in the aggregate, they may break your bill. Below, we list out some of the common “poison pill” amendments in these laws.

Exempting smaller communities: Opponents of parking reform often demand that smaller municipalities and/or unincorporated areas be exempted from reform. At first blush, the temptation is obvious: who cares about a bunch of small towns? But be careful: this you may end up exempting many suburbs and small towns that lack the local planning capacity to adopt reforms locally and would most benefit from liberalizing reform. This may also set a dangerous precedent for other liberalizing reforms.

Exit valves: Alternatively, opponents may demand some sort of mechanism that will
allow municipalities to reimpose minimum off-street parking requirements—such as after conducting a perfunctory study—either for specific projects or in certain areas. You should avoid this.