“Zoning” refers to the system of land use regulations currently employed by local governments to control the development and use of property within their jurisdictions. It divides a city into different zones or districts, each with specific regulations regarding the type of activities or buildings that are allowed. The primary objective of zoning is to organize urban growth and separate incompatible land uses. However, the effects of past systemic segregation and exclusion in housing due to zoning policies has come under intense critique in recent times, where marginalized communities remain largely excluded from areas with more access to opportunities such as high performing schools and jobs, and lower exposure to environmental hazards.
Zoning was introduced in the early 20th century as a response to the rapid urbanization and industrialization that characterized American cities. The rapid growth of cities led to overcrowding, environmental pollution, and a mix of incompatible land uses — such as toxic industrial uses in residential neighborhoods. In 1904, Los Angeles adopted an ordinance that established the nation's first land use restrictions — prohibiting industrial uses in residential districts. Four years later, the City enacted its first zoning ordinance and divided Los Angeles into industrial and residential districts. Given the social conditions of the time, however, zoning also developed as a way of segregating rich and poor, black and white.
Single-family zoning, which restricts land use to only single-family residences, was implemented in the 1920s and 1930s. It was legalized by the famous “Euclid” case where the Supreme Court upheld not only “segregation of residential, business, and industrial buildings” but also the segregation of different housing types. Single-family zoning became a tool for widespread housing discrimination.
In Los Angeles, single-family zoning was instrumental in promoting residential segregation and exclusion. The intent was often to exclude lower-income and minority communities, particularly people of color, from wealthier white neighborhoods. It contributed to overcrowding and poverty in the excluded communities, while promoting generational wealth among the privileged. As documented in the impactful book, The Color of Law, “influential zoning experts made no effort to conceal their expectation that zoning was an effective means of racial exclusion.”
The practice of single-family zoning, coupled with racially discriminatory practices like redlining and racially restrictive covenants, contributed significantly to segregation in Los Angeles. It created racially homogeneous neighborhoods and entrenched social divisions that persist today. By limiting the types of housing available in particular areas, single-family zoning contributed to maintaining and deepening racial and economic segregation in Los Angeles.
According to the Historical Housing and Land Use Study prepared by Architectural Resources Group (ARG) and released by Los Angeles City Planning, extensive downzoning over the past century has drastically reduced its housing capacity from 10 million people in 1960 to 4.3 million in 2010.
“Downzoning” refers to the process of decreasing the allowable size and/or density of development in certain areas; in other words, reducing the amount of homes that can be built. Downzoning can take many forms, such as density and heights limits, and reductions in Floor Area Ratio (FAR), among others. An example of downzoning in Los Angeles is the effect of Proposition U, passed in 1986, where the allowable size of new buildings in many areas of the city were cut in half. While these policies may have been intended to “preserve the character” of neighborhoods, these planning practices have created unequal access to housing and other resources, such as transit, jobs, and good schools.
In addition to these exclusionary zoning policies, homeowners associations were able to exert considerable influence in preventing new housing in LA during the 1990s by being heavily involved in the community planning process.
As detailed by the Historical Housing and Land Use Study, “all of these factors have contributed to a repressed housing capacity which has produced minimal housing development over the last 40 years. As a result, Los Angeles is experiencing its most significant housing crisis, one that has culminated in unaffordable housing costs and epidemic levels of homelessness..”
Single-family zoning significantly reduces the housing supply, resulting in the value of existing properties rising, leading to higher rents and increased home prices. This poses significant challenges for lower-income residents already struggling with housing costs. Additionally, landlords may capitalize on the higher demand by raising rents, making it increasingly difficult for lower-income individuals to find affordable rental options and increasing the risk of displacement, landlord harassment, and homelessness. Single-family zoning also restricts the development of public/social housing projects, permanent supportive housing, and any other type of lower cost housing that is essential to addressing the needs of our most vulnerable residents.
While there are other factors that restrict density in certain areas of the City (for example,fire zones), there are a significant number of higher resource areas near transit that continue to exclude people due to single-family zoning in place today. Some clear examples of this can be seen in neighborhoods like Rancho Park, Cheviot Hills, Northridge, Westwood, Hancock Park, and Windsor Square. These neighborhoods are near transit, world class universities, and concentrated job centers, making it crucial that we enact fair land use policies to allow for more people to have access to these resources.
If we want to confront these challenges, it is imperative to reexamine and reform zoning policies to promote inclusivity and accessibility. We must embrace equitable land use policies to dismantle the barriers that prevent us from Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) in addition to providing meaningful protections to those most affected by new development. Without these changes, it is impossible for our city to tackle the housing crisis in an impactful way.