Skip to content

Home Publications

Case Studies

Local policies that support missing middle housing and accessory dwelling units

Overview

Policymakers and practitioners increasingly see developing and preserving missing middle housing and accessory dwelling units (ADUs) as an important strategy for addressing the housing affordability crisis. The term “missing middle housing” generally refers to housing types that fall in between detached single-family housing and mid-rise apartment buildings. Missing middle types include duplexes, townhomes, small multifamily units, and cottage courts, which consist of small detached units set around a central open space (the court) on a single lot. 

ADUs are secondary housing units attached or sited next to a primary house. While not always considered to be “missing middle” housing, ADUs function similarly and gently increase density and expand the availability of lower-cost housing types in single-family neighborhoods. Missing middle housing and ADUs tend to be more affordable than single-family homes because the units are typically smaller and multiple units share land and construction costs. Some missing middle types, including cottage courts and small multifamily, may be more affordable to build than single-family homes on a per-unit basis when economies of scale are achieved. 

This brief profiles land use and other policies related to missing middle housing and ADUs in eight localities: Eugene, OR; South Bend, IN; Grand Haven, MI; Greenville, SC; Des Moines, IA; Barnstable, MA; Raleigh, NC; and Santa Cruz, CA. Each of them has taken steps to facilitate an increase in the supply of missing middle housing generally or to encourage the production of missing middle housing legally restricted to low- or moderate-income households (i.e., dedicated affordable housing). 

The profiles in this brief focus on the adoption of more relaxed land use regulations and other tools that could potentially enable the development of missing middle housing and ADUs, including:

  • Allowing ADUs and types of missing middle housing by right and in single-family zones, which reduces permitting time and costs and increases the amount of land available for missing middle housing. 
  • Increasing allowable density by allowing small unit sizes, taller building heights, and reduced setbacks, which can reduce costs by enabling more units to be built on a parcel of land.
  • Reducing or eliminating parking requirements that can add thousands of dollars to the cost of a home.
  • Developing tools and policies that may facilitate or expedite the construction of missing middle housing and ADUs, like pre-approved plans and tax incentives. Pre-approved plans reduce the cost of designing new homes and streamline the permitting of missing middle housing. Tax incentives may spur the development of missing middle housing, especially in areas with limited market demand for such housing, and may reduce a household’s tax burden. 

These types of policy changes are becoming increasingly appealing to localities struggling with housing supply or affordability issues. Recent research has emphasized the importance of enacting more flexible zoning to allow housing types other that single-family homes, which predominate in many cities’ housing supply. Examples from California and Portland, Oregon demonstrate the promise of enabling more housing choices through relaxed regulations: California permitted over 63,000 ADUs between 2018 and 2021 after legalizing them in 2016, and a 2018 survey of ADU owners in Portland, Oregon found that 44 percent rented out their ADUs for below market value. Portland has been working since 1998 to facilitate ADU construction better.  

The research team compiled information for this brief in mid-2023, primarily from land use ordinances and other publicly available resources. Population data are US Census July 2022 estimates.

Types of missing middle housing

Collage of missing middle housing types

Image source: Sightline Institute. (CC BY 2.0)

Key features of missing middle housing and ADU policies in eight localities

Eugene, Oregon

Summary: Key features of missing middle housing and ADU policies in Eugene, Oregon (population 177,923):

  • The city allows all missing middle housing types by right in zones previously limited to single-family housing. 
  • The city allows ADUs by right in all residential zones and offers pre-approved ADU plans.
  • The city waives parking requirements for housing near transit stations and reduces parking for affordable missing middle housing.

South Bend, Indiana

Summary: Key features of missing middle housing policies in South Bend, Indiana (population 103,110):

  • South Bend does not require parking for any land use in any of the city’s zones.
  • The city provides pre-approved plans for some missing middle housing types.
  • The city allows duplexes and ADUs by right in all single-family zones and has relatively small setback requirements in most residential zones.

Grand Haven, Michigan

Summary: Key features of missing middle housing policies in Grand Haven, Michigan (population 10,982):

  • Grand Haven does not allow cottage courts or ADUs by right, but these housing types can be permitted in some areas. The city also allows multifamily buildings in two of its three primarily residential zones and other mixed-use zones. 
  • The city allows parking requirements to be reduced by 20 percent for buildings within 800 feet of public transit.

Greenville, South Carolina

Summary: Key features of missing middle housing policies in Greenville, South Carolina (population 72,310):

  • Greenville’s land use ordinance incorporates form-based code elements, which enables any type of missing middle housing in residential zones that meets building envelope requirements.
  • The ordinance has relatively small setbacks for most housing types, which allows more efficient land use and may make new missing middle housing more feasible.  
  • Parking requirements are reduced for developments with affordable units.

Des Moines, Iowa

Summary: Key features of missing middle housing policies in Des Moines, Iowa (population 211,034):

  • Des Moines is unique among the localities profiled in that it has a tax abatement available for building or improving missing middle housing and ADUs. 
  • ADUs are allowed without owner-occupancy restrictions. 

Barnstable, Massachusetts

Summary: Key features of missing middle housing policies in Barnstable, Massachusetts (population 49,532):

  • Barnstable’s affordability program offers no-interest loans for the construction of ADUs.
  • The city allows affordable multifamily buildings by permit in certain single-family zones.

Raleigh, North Carolina

Summary: Key features of missing middle housing policies in Raleigh, North Carolina (population 476,587):

  • Raleigh allows ADUs and duplexes by right in all single-family zones.
  • The city offers pre-approved plans for ADUs. 

Santa Cruz, California

Summary: Key features of missing middle housing policies in Santa Cruz, California (population 61,800):

  • Santa Cruz may waive ADU development fees if property owners rent the ADU to low- or very low-income tenants.
  • The city does not have parking minimums for ADUs but does have parking requirements for other types of missing middle housing. 
  • Setbacks in areas that allow missing middle housing are smaller than those in areas reserved for single-family homes.