Do Restrictive Land Use Regulations Make Housing More Expensive Everywhere?

Abstract

This study makes three contributions to the debate over the effect of local land use regulations on housing prices and affordability. First, it is more geographically extensive than previous studies, encompassing 336 of the nation's 384 metropolitan areas. Second, it looks at multiple measures of regulatory stringency, not just one. Most prior studies have focused either on a single regulatory measure or index across multiple metropolitan areas, or multiple regulatory measures in a single region. Third, this paper considers the connection between regulatory stringency and housing values as a function of employment growth and per-worker payroll levels. We find that restrictive land use regulations do indeed have a pervasive effect on local home values and rents, and that these effects are magnified in faster-growing and more prosperous economies. We also find more restrictive land use regulations are not associated with faster rates of recent home value or rent growth, and that their effects on housing construction levels—that is, the degree to which they constrain supply—is uneven among different housing markets.