HB 1757
SignedHouse
Residential use/existing
Modifying regulations for existing buildings used for residential purposes.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
HB 1757 prevents cities and code cities from imposing certain restrictions when adding housing units inside existing buildings—like limiting density, requiring extra parking, or applying new design rules—making it easier to convert underused structures (e.g., offices, warehouses, older homes) into housing. It sets a statewide deadline of June 30, 2026, for local governments to update their rules or face automatic state preemption.
- Cities and code cities must adopt new rules by June 30, 2026, allowing more housing in existing buildings—failure to do so means state law automatically applies.
- Cities cannot restrict housing density in existing buildings by more than 50% above the underlying zone’s allowance, if the units fit within the building’s current footprint and meet safety codes.
- Cities cannot require new parking for housing added inside existing buildings, though they may keep existing parking for nonresidential uses or pre-existing residential requirements.
- Cities cannot impose extra permitting, design, or exterior appearance rules on residential conversions beyond what applies to standard residential development—except for health/safety or historic preservation.
- Cities cannot require unchanged parts of a building to meet current energy codes just because new units are added, unless the new units exceed 2,500 sq ft or 25% of total building area—with exceptions for homes and accessory buildings.
- Cities cannot deny permits for housing in existing buildings due to parking, height, or setbacks unless they prove the nonconformity causes a 'significant detriment' to the neighborhood.
- Cities cannot require new transportation or environmental studies solely because housing is added inside an existing building.
Who is affected
- Local governments (code cities and cities) — Local governments (code cities and cities) must update their zoning and development rules by June 30, 2026, or have state law override conflicting local rules. They lose authority to impose certain restrictions on adding housing in existing buildings.
- Property owners and developers — Property owners and developers can add more housing units inside existing buildings without facing some common local barriers like extra parking mandates, strict design rules, or new permitting processes—making it easier and cheaper to create new units.
- Home seekers and renters — Low- and middle-income households may benefit from increased housing supply and potentially lower rents, as the bill makes it easier to add units like ADUs (accessory dwelling units) or convert underused spaces (e.g., office buildings) into housing.
- Building owners of older or underutilized structures — Building owners of older structures may face fewer hurdles to convert unused space (like upper floors or basements) into residential units, but must still meet health and safety codes.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
By mandating that localities allow up to 50% more housing density in existing buildings, the bill directly increases supply potential in walkable, transit-accessible areas—where demand is highest—making it more likely that low- and middle-income households can find affordable units near jobs and services.
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(a) and Sec. 2(2)(a)Eliminating parking mandates for residential additions removes a major cost barrier for developers and property owners—especially in urban cores where parking is expensive and often underused—making it easier and cheaper to add small, affordable units like ADUs or micro-units.
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(b) and Sec. 2(2)(b)Limiting exterior design restrictions to health/safety and historic preservation—rather than subjective aesthetic standards—reduces regulatory friction for conversions, enabling faster, lower-cost housing creation, especially for mom-and-pop landlords and small property owners seeking to add income.
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(e) and Sec. 2(2)(e)The energy code exemption for small-scale conversions (≤2,500 sq ft or 25% of building area) and for accessory buildings lowers upfront costs for homeowners adding ADUs—making it more feasible for seniors, fixed-income households, and low-to-moderate-income owners to create rental units or multigenerational housing.
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(g) and Sec. 2(2)(g)Requiring written findings for permit denials based on nonconformities creates a higher evidentiary bar for localities, reducing arbitrary or NIMBY-driven denials and making it easier for qualified applicants—especially those with limited legal resources—to obtain approvals for housing conversions.
HousingLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(h) and Sec. 2(2)(h)
Potential Concerns (5)
The bill allows existing building portions to avoid full energy code compliance when adding housing units—unless the new units exceed 2,500 sq ft or 25% of building area—potentially increasing long-term energy consumption and emissions from older, less-efficient buildings.
EnvironmentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(g) and Sec. 2(2)(g)By prohibiting local governments from requiring change-of-use permits for residential conversions, the bill reduces local authority to review and coordinate infrastructure readiness (e.g., water, sewer, fire safety) for new residential occupancy, potentially straining public systems in high-demand areas.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(c) and Sec. 2(2)(c)The prohibition on denying housing in ground-floor commercial areas along major pedestrian corridors—unless units violate building codes—may increase fire and life safety risks in older buildings not originally designed for residential occupancy, especially where egress, fire separation, or emergency access is compromised.
Public SafetyLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(f) and Sec. 2(2)(f)The requirement that localities prove a 'significant detriment' to deny permits based on nonconformities (e.g., parking, height, setbacks) shifts the burden of proof and may limit local governments’ ability to enforce context-sensitive design standards—even where traffic, neighborhood character, or infrastructure capacity would be degraded.
Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(h) and Sec. 2(2)(h)Exempting residential conversions in existing buildings from transportation and environmental studies may prevent identification of cumulative impacts—e.g., increased traffic, stormwater runoff, or heat island effects—in neighborhoods already under stress, especially in older, dense corridors.
EnvironmentLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(i) and Sec. 2(2)(i)
Who Is Most Affected
Low- and middle-income renters and homebuyers benefit most: increased supply in high-demand areas can ease bidding wars and reduce rent growth, especially for units created via ADUs or office-to-residential conversions. However, benefits depend on actual construction—some developers may prioritize market-rate units.
Small property owners (e.g., homeowners with ADUs, owners of older mixed-use buildings) gain streamlined pathways to add income-generating units without costly parking or design upgrades. Large developers benefit less unless converting large-scale underutilized buildings.
Local governments lose regulatory flexibility over land use and may face enforcement challenges in implementing state preemption. However, they gain predictability and reduced legal exposure by adopting uniform standards.
Existing building owners of older structures (e.g., warehouses, offices, historic buildings not designated landmarks) gain conversion opportunities. However, those in historic districts or with complex structural constraints may face higher compliance costs.
Tenants in converted buildings may benefit from new units, but if conversions displace existing nonresidential tenants (e.g., small businesses, community centers), displacement and gentrification risks increase—especially in neighborhoods already under pressure.