Starter home reforms

Updated 2/16 to add Idaho, 2/11 to add Connecticut; 2/5 to add Colorado; and 1/30 to add Hawaii, Kansas, New Mexico, and Rhode Island.

After decades of background study and advocacy – see here for a research compilation – legislators in Maine and Texas passed bills that allow starter homes by putting guardrails on local minimum lot sizes. Without guardrails, localities often require every new house lot to be much bigger than what local families can afford.

California took another approach, allowing small developments of up to 10 starter homes statewide under specific parameters. I don’t know of any data yet, but Californians tell me this is much more successful in generating new home starts than other, higher-profile reforms the state has passed.

With those successes, several more states have serious proposals on the table for 2026. Here’s a brief comparison, emphasizing the lot size that’s required under the law, where the law applies, and whether the law has detailed protections against local poison pills.

The “detailed protections” are important because it’s very easy to shadowban small lot homes via large setbacks, width or depth requirements, and so on.

	Lot area	Applicability	Detailed protections
California law (2021-24)	(a) 600 sq ft (b) 1,200 sq ft	(a) Sites of <5 acres in multifamily zones. (b) Vacant sites of <1.5 acres in single-family zones.	Detailed parameters both protecting and limiting the use of the law. Allows only 10 homes per development.
Maine law (2025)	(a) 5,000 sq ft (b) 20,000 sq ft	(a) access to public water & sewer. (b) all other.	Awaiting implementing regulations
Texas law (2025)	3,000 sq ft	Unplatted sites of 5+ acres in cities>150,000 within counties>300,000	Width, depth, setbacks, height, bulk, parking, open space, etc.
Under consideration:
Massachusetts ballot measure	5,000 sq ft	Access to public water & sewer	Width (50 ft)
Massachusetts YIMBY Act	No minimum lot size	Universal	None
Indiana HB 1001	(a) 1,400  (b) 1,500 (c) 5,445	(a, b, c) Connected to water & sewer. (b) originally townhouses, amended to duplexes (c) single-family	Width, setbacks, FAR, coverage. (a) Towns may opt out.
Florida Starter Homes Act	1,200 sq ft	Public water or sewer	Width, setbacks, coverage, height, FAR, etc.
Maryland Starter & Silver Homes Act	5,000 sq ft	Public water & sewer	Setbacks, coverage, home design, etc.
Kansas By-Right Housing Development Act	3,000 sq ft	Universal for homes up to 3,000 sq ft interior space.	Setbacks (vaguely)
Hawaii SB 2423 / HB 1734	1,200 sq ft	Urban district land subject to some exceptions	Width, depth, setbacks, parking, coverage. Allows neighborhood opt-out.
New Mexico HB 138	No minimum lot size	Universal	None
Rhode Island S 2265	(a) 2,500 sq ft (b) 5,000 sq ft (c) 1 acre	(a) Within 1/4 mile of a transit stop. (a & b) Served by public water & sewer. (c) all other.	None
Colorado HB 26-1114	2,000 sq ft	Wherever infrastructure standards can be met.	None. Local implementation by 2031.
Connecticut SB 151	5,000 sq ft	Public water & sewer	Size, lot coverage, setbacks, design.
Idaho S. 1279	2,100 sq ft and 12 units per acre	Undeveloped 4-acre parcels, subject to topography, enviro, and infrastructural constraints.	Preempts new HOAs. Setbacks, width, depth, fees

Some interpretive points:

• Typical of California lawmaking, its statute is highly complex and covers many scenarios in detail. It has been continually refined with updates to the initial 2021 law.
• The Maine and Texas laws have been enacted. However, they’re still too new to know how they’re working out in practice.
• Texas’ bill is limited to a narrow range of sites in big cities, a compromise that was necessary to pass it.
• Massachusetts’ ballot measure on minimum lot sizes is a key test case for public support for YIMBY policies.
• Indiana’s bill applies a 1,400 sq ft minimum lot size statewide, but allows an opt-out to cities. Those that opt out would default to a 1,500 sq ft minimum for townhouses [amended: duplexes] and 5,445 sq ft (1/8 acre) for detached houses, the latter of which would also allow an accessory dwelling unit.
• The Maryland Starter & Silver Homes Act specifies that town houses are allowed everywhere. I think the authors’ intent is that 3 or 4 town houses could be built on a 5,000 square foot lot via condo regime, but that might require amendment or implementing regulations.
• Connecticut’s bill follows Maryland’s on many points, but its text clearly allows a jurisdiction to limit townhouses to one per 5,000 square feet of land, which is effectively a ban.
• In Colorado (as in Texas), developers often build out utility systems. The law thus doesn’t require a connection to public utilities but allows standard local utility requirements.
• The Idaho bill bans minimum lot sizes above 1,000 sq ft in starter home subdivisions on parcels of 4+ acres, but allows a locality or HOA to require 30 feet of frontage and 70 feet of depth, implying a minimum of 2,100 sq ft. Localities can also limit density to 12 units per acre, which means an average of 3,630 sq ft per lot.
  • The HOA preemption applies only to newly-written HOA deed restrictions so that it isn’t going back and changing existing contracts.
  • I’m skeptical that the HOA preemption can work as written. HOA deeds have so many detailed provisions which a judge may find “reasonable” (e.g. house size, landscaping), the only way to effectively build what they didn’t contemplate is to (a) require that they allow starter home subdivisions and (b) fully void all deed restrictions on a qualifying starter home subdivision.

It may be impossible to legislate minimum lot size guardrails that clever local regulators can’t sneak around. But I’m impressed with the thoughtfulness and quality of these bills. Removing excessive requirements for new homes is a key step to enabling starter homes in more places.

Honorable mention: Illinois, New Jersey, Utah, and Virginia have bills which would gently nudge localities to allow starter homes but without enough compulsion or incentive to be likely to work.