Why Does California Make It Illegal to Build New Homes?

California zoning laws!

California in 2024 is like that friend who complains about how expensive everything is but still refuses to get a job. You’d think a state with a massive housing crisis would be building apartments left and right, right? Nope. California looked at all its empty lots and sky-high rents and said, “You know what we need? More cul-de-sacs.”

Let’s get into why California has decided that six-plexes (you know, the nice, sensible apartment buildings) are public enemy number one. Spoiler alert: it’s mostly because people who already own homes are allergic to change.

The Single-Family Housing Cartel

Most of California is zoned for single-family homes, which means if you want to build anything with more than one kitchen, you’d better bring a lawyer, a therapist, and probably a priest. This zoning makes it illegal to build apartments or townhomes in huge parts of the state. Why? Because in the ‘70s and ‘80s, people thought apartments were like vampires: if you let one in, your whole neighborhood would get ruined.

Homeowners are the ones who love these rules. They’ll tell you it’s about “protecting neighborhood character,” but what they really mean is, “We don’t want anything to change because our house value might not grow as fast.” It’s like saying, “I love my favorite burger joint so much I’m going to burn down every other restaurant in town.”

But Wait, What About ADUs?

Now, some of you might say, “Hey, California’s letting people build accessory dwelling units (ADUs)—those tiny little backyard houses.” And yeah, they are. But let’s be honest: ADUs are like when your parents let you sleep on the pull-out couch instead of the floor. Technically, it’s an improvement, but it’s not exactly solving the problem.

ADUs are mostly a handout for homeowners. They get to add a little rental income while the rest of us are out here wondering if we’ll ever afford a one-bedroom that doesn’t come with a raccoon roommate.

What California should be doing is building six-plexes—affordable, efficient, small apartment buildings. But nope, those are illegal in most places. You can build a pool shaped like a guitar, but if you try to build six homes on one lot, everyone loses their minds.

The Suburb-to-City Development Pattern Is Broken

Here’s the wild part: the way cities are supposed to grow—denser housing closer to jobs, with transit to connect it all—has been completely abandoned. Instead, California picked the most environmentally damaging and expensive way to grow: suburban sprawl.

Picture a city like a pizza. Normally, the slices get thicker and cheesier as you get closer to the center. But in California, they decided to make the crust enormous and stretch the cheese out so thin it’s practically invisible. That’s suburban sprawl. It’s all roads and parking lots, with no sidewalks, no bike lanes, and no mass transit.

And the kicker? All that sprawl makes traffic worse, pollution worse, and housing more expensive. It’s like ordering a salad and somehow still gaining five pounds.

Why Renters and First-Time Buyers Get Ignored

Here’s a fun fact: most Californians are renters. But do renters get a say in housing policy? Nope. Why? Because homeowners vote more, and politicians know who butters their bread (spoiler: it’s not renters).

Then there are first-time homebuyers. You know, the people who just want to buy a little starter home without selling a kidney. They get ignored too. The system is rigged to benefit people who already own property. It’s like showing up to a poker game and realizing everyone else brought marked cards.

Environmental Hypocrisy at Its Finest

California loves to brag about being a leader in environmental policy. And sure, they’re great at banning plastic straws and mandating electric cars. But when it comes to housing? They’re out here forcing people to drive an hour to work because there’s nowhere affordable to live near the city.

The real environmental disaster isn’t your gas stove; it’s single-family zoning. Sprawl eats up farmland, destroys habitats, and locks us into a car-dependent nightmare. And don’t even get me started on CEQA—the California Environmental Quality Act—which gets used to block environmentally friendly housing projects all the time. It’s like calling the fire department and having them show up with a flamethrower.

What Needs to Change?

Alright, let’s talk solutions.

1. Legalize Multi-Family Housing Everywhere

Make it legal to build six-plexes and other multi-unit housing across the state. Stop treating apartments like they’re some kind of urban plague.

2. Build Transit-Oriented Communities

Invest in fast, reliable mass transit and pair it with dense, walkable neighborhoods. If we can build high-speed rail to nowhere, we can figure this out.

3. Fix CEQA

CEQA needs to stop being used as a weapon to block housing. Let’s keep it for actual environmental protection, not just NIMBY shenanigans.

4. Shift Power to Renters and First-Time Buyers

We need policies that prioritize the majority—renters and first-time buyers—over a small group of vocal homeowners.

5. Stop Suburban Sprawl

California’s love affair with sprawl has to end. It’s expensive, unsustainable, and just plain dumb.

California’s housing crisis isn’t just about supply and demand; it’s about power. Homeowners have it, renters don’t, and until that changes, we’ll keep getting the same broken policies.

So the next time someone tells you six-plexes are a bad idea, just remind them: California’s already tried every other way, and all it got us was $4,000 studio apartments and five-hour commutes. Maybe it’s time to try something new.

See you next time, folks. And remember, six-plexes don’t bite, but your housing policy probably does.

California’s exclusionary zoning in 2024 reflects entrenched political, economic, and cultural dynamics that prioritize protecting the suburban, car-centric status quo over addressing the urgent needs of renters, first-time homeowners, and the environment. Despite growing awareness of the housing crisis and climate change, systemic barriers and vested interests keep California locked into one of the most environmentally and socially damaging development patterns in the country.

1. Why Is California Focused on Banning New Homes?

Exclusionary Zoning Rules:

• Single-family zoning dominates most residential areas, banning multi-unit housing like six-plexes in favor of sprawling, low-density neighborhoods.

• Height restrictions, parking requirements, and onerous design reviews further limit dense, sustainable housing.

NIMBYism (Not In My Backyard):

• Homeowners, the dominant voting bloc, oppose new development to “protect neighborhood character” or prevent potential drops in property values.

• This fear leads to weaponized environmental laws like the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which is used to delay or kill housing projects—even when they’re environmentally friendly.

Economic Incentives for Suburban Sprawl:

• Proposition 13 caps property taxes, reducing revenue incentives for cities to embrace housing. Instead, cities prioritize retail and commercial development (sales tax revenue) over dense housing.

• Suburban sprawl increases car dependency, benefiting industries tied to auto sales, oil, and road construction while discouraging transit-oriented growth.

Political Fragmentation:

• Local governments retain near-total control over zoning, making statewide reform difficult. Wealthy suburbs often resist state mandates for increased housing density.

2. How the Suburb-to-City Development Model Broke

Car Dependency Over Transit:

• California built its suburbs around highways and freeways rather than robust mass transit. This made sprawling, car-dependent development the default pattern, with little incentive to create walkable, dense communities.

Environmental Contradictions:

• Suburban sprawl contributes to traffic, greenhouse gas emissions, and excessive land consumption, yet housing laws perpetuate this model.

• CEQA, originally intended to protect the environment, ironically prevents infill development that could reduce emissions by enabling transit and walkable neighborhoods.

Failure to Build Fast and Frequent Transit:

• While transit-oriented development (TOD) is theoretically supported, California’s transit systems are underfunded and unreliable, making TOD politically and financially challenging to implement.

• Suburban voters often oppose transit expansion, fearing increased density and changes to their communities.

3. Why Are Renters and First-Time Homeowners Ignored?

Renters Lack Political Power:

• Renters are less likely to vote or organize compared to homeowners. Politicians cater to the interests of homeowners, who dominate local decision-making.

Wealth Inequality and Generational Divides:

• Homeownership has become a marker of wealth, and policies protect existing homeowners at the expense of younger, lower-income Californians.

• ADUs, while a step forward, primarily benefit wealthy homeowners who can afford to build them. They reinforce the status quo rather than offering transformative change.

Market Capture by Speculators:

• Housing markets are increasingly driven by investors and speculators, pricing out first-time buyers. Exclusionary zoning perpetuates scarcity, driving up rents and home prices.

4. Environmental Costs of California’s Development Pattern

Suburban Sprawl:

• Sprawl requires massive amounts of land, water, and energy while contributing to habitat destruction and biodiversity loss.

• Low-density housing locks people into car dependency, which drives emissions and worsens traffic congestion.

Unsustainable Transportation:

• California’s focus on highways over transit ensures continued reliance on cars, increasing emissions and reducing the feasibility of walkable, bikeable communities.

Missed Opportunities for Walkable Housing:

• Dense, mixed-use developments near transit hubs could reduce emissions, improve quality of life, and make housing more affordable, but zoning laws make this illegal in most of California.

5. What Needs to Change?

Legalize Multi-Family Housing Statewide:

• Replace single-family zoning with “universal upzoning” that allows six-plexes and other multi-unit developments across all neighborhoods.

Expand and Invest in Transit:

• Prioritize fast, reliable transit systems to connect dense housing to job centers and reduce car dependency.

• Pair transit expansion with zoning reform to create truly walkable, transit-oriented neighborhoods.

Reform CEQA:

• Prevent CEQA from being weaponized to block environmentally friendly infill housing while maintaining protections for genuinely at-risk areas.

Tax Reform for Cities:

• Replace Proposition 13 with a more equitable tax system that incentivizes cities to build housing instead of sprawling commercial developments.

Empower Renters and First-Time Buyers:

• Strengthen tenants’ rights and provide financial incentives for first-time buyers to reduce barriers to homeownership.

• Limit speculative landlording and institutional investors in the housing market.

California’s current housing policies reflect a prioritization of past wealth and car-centric infrastructure over future sustainability and equity. The state’s focus on suburban sprawl locks it into an unsustainable path, ignoring the urgent needs of renters, first-time buyers, and the environment. Fixing this broken system requires bold statewide action to legalize dense housing, invest in transit, and shift power away from NIMBY homeowners toward the broader public good.