This summer I had the privilege of working on an important area of affordable housing policy involving faith-based organizations with the Church Properties Initiative at the Fitzgerald Institute for Real Estate. I studied local ordinances, state laws, and federal code inspired by the Yes in God’s Backyard (YIGBY) movement, which encourages churches, synagogues, mosques, and other faith-based institutions to use their underutilized land to create dignified, attainable housing for low- and moderate-income households. The policies I researched support this movement by easing restrictions and creating incentives. The goal of the YIGBY cause is to help ensure that everyone can have a place to call home, and that religious organizations are free to steward their land in accord with their missions of service. 

Jurisdictions across the United States are actively exploring YIGBY policies. At the time of my research, I identified twenty-three different policies, of which there were thirteen state laws, eight city ordinances, and two federal laws. Seven of these twenty-three either failed or remained stuck in committee. While all of these policies have the goal of opening up faith-based land for much-needed housing development, they take different approaches to making this happen.

The policies can be divided into five categories based on the tools they authorize and the specific development pathways they create. The first category I noted, “Regulatory Streamlining and Legal Protections,” includes policies that remove procedural barriers by replacing discretionary hearings with ministerial review and by strengthening the legal position of faith institutions when they seek approval. Another category, “Development Capacity Bonuses,” indicates policies that increase what can physically be built on religious land by allowing additional density, height, or floor area so that affordable housing becomes financially feasible. A third kind of policy, those I term “Parking Relief,” addresses the parking rules that often freeze church lots in place despite their potential for housing. The fourth category, "Tax, Financial, and Technical Assistance," groups together policies that provide incentives or directly help congregations overcome start-up costs or gaps in expertise by providing capital, guidance, or support staff. A final category, "Special Product and Use Models," refers to unique programs tailored to very specific forms of housing that do not fit broad zoning reforms. Together these categories provide the framework for understanding the diverse strategies that jurisdictions are using to empower faith-based organizations in the work of affordable housing. 

The most common reform across states and cities, illustrated by ten separate policies, has been to make the development approval process faster and more predictable for faith-based housing. This is the core of the Regulatory Streamlining and Legal Protections category. At their foundation, these policies create by-right approval for housing or impose zoning overrides that prevent local governments from blocking projects through discretionary processes. In practice, a by-right system means that a qualifying project must be approved so long as it meets objective standards. The context these policies share is the reality that discretionary zoning and local hearings tend to stifle new development in existing neighborhoods. When a church or synagogue offers its land to address the housing crisis, the law should not put unnecessary barriers in front of them.

Virginia’s SB 233 is one of the clearest examples of regulatory streamlining because it requires localities to allow housing on faith-owned land by right even when zoning does not permit it. SB 233 allows up to 40 units per acre, one additional story beyond what would otherwise be allowed, or 15 feet of additional height, and requires affordability for at least 99 years. Oregon’s SB 8 also functions as a zoning override by removing the need for zoning changes or conditional use permits when a religious organization builds affordable housing on its land. It doubles density on small parcels, increases it by 125% to 150% on larger parcels, allows two or three additional floors, and mandates affordability for 60 years. New York’s pending bills, Assembly Bill A3647A and Senate Bill S3397B, also establish by-right approval for faith-based housing and then pair that pathway with height and density increases. They adjust formulas depending on whether the project is in a smaller city or in New York City, ranging from 30 to 50 units per acre in smaller jurisdictions to floor area ratios of 2.2 to 3 in New York City, with affordability tied to the life of the building. Other jurisdictions, like Montgomery County in Maryland, retain a hearing process but simplify it so the outcome is more predictable through Zoning Text Amendment 24-01, which requires 30% to 50% of units to be affordable for at least 30 years.

Federal law provides houses of worship with another layer of protection, similar in spirit to some of the Regulatory Streamlining bills. The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act has been a law for decades now working to prevent the government from placing heavy burdens on religious institutions’ use of land for religious exercise unless they can prove there is no less restrictive way to meet a compelling government interest. Church Properties Initiative Faculty Co-Director Rev. Patrick E. Reidy, C.S.C., has argued that religious exercise happens not only in formal worship but also in the act of housing those in need. Some states have gone further. Texas’s proposed HB 3172 would have created one of the strongest protective frameworks by giving faith institutions the right to sue cities and collect damages if they were denied approval, while also setting a minimum height of 40 feet and three stories and prohibiting parking mandates. The primary purpose of these policies is to create a clear and nondiscretionary approval pathway for faith based housing.

With that pathway established, a second group of reforms turns to a different question, namely how much housing can be built once a project is allowed to move forward. Almost as widespread as Regulatory Streamlining bills are are laws that raise the ceiling on how much housing can be built on religious land. This is the foundation of the Development Capacity Bonuses category. This category includes eight policies that expand allowable density, height, or floor area for projects on faith-based land. The problem these policies are intended to solve is evident. Current zoning in most neighborhoods is too restrictive to make affordable housing viable, especially for projects with deeper affordability or nonprofit developers. States and cities have therefore introduced a range of bonus systems that allow projects to be constructed higher, denser, and broader than they otherwise could.

Washington’s HB 1377 increases allowable density for faith-based projects and requires affordability for 50 years for households earning up to 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI). Oregon’s SB 8 appears here as well, since its statewide density bonus raises allowable units and floors for religious parcels. New York’s A3647A and S3397B also belong in this group because they set specific height and density levels that exceed what many local zoning districts allow. Seattle’s Ordinance 120081 grants additional floor area and height when affordable units and family-sized units are included and requires affordability for 50 years at an average of 60% AMI. Bainbridge Island’s Ordinance 2022-02 offers a fixed density multiplier of two and a half times the base zoning for faith-owned parcels and ties it to a 99-year affordability covenant with a cap on unit sizes of 1400 square feet. California’s SB 4 also fits this category by allowing increased density on faith-owned land through objective standards.

Another cluster of reforms belongs to the Tax, Financial, and Technical Assistance category. Four policies in this group provide support not through zoning changes but through capital and expertise. These measures recognize that most congregations are not professional developers, and that even when the law allows a project, start-up costs or technical hurdles can be prohibitive. Oregon’s HB 2008 addressed this with a property tax exemption lasting at least 60 years and requiring that at least half of the units serve households at or below 60% AMI. Atlanta’s Faith-Based Development Initiative created forgivable loans for predevelopment expenses like surveys and architectural plans, along with training and peer mentoring, with each project eligible for up to $25,000 from a $500,000 pool. San Antonio’s Mission-Driven Development pilot offered free access to architects, zoning experts, and financing consultants backed by city funds. At the federal level, Senator Sherrod Brown’s proposed Yes in God’s Backyard Act aims to extend this model nationwide with federal technical assistance and competitive grants.

The Parking Relief category is a smaller but important category that includes three policies that address parking requirements, which often block housing altogether. Churches and synagogues often own lots that sit empty most of the week, yet local codes still require every space to be preserved. To change this, some states and cities have eased the rules. California’s AB 1851 set a statewide limit by allowing faith groups who develop housing on parking lots to replace only half of their parking spaces and waiving the requirement entirely near transit. Portland adopted a similar reduction and paired it with staff guidance through an eleven-step process for religious developers. San Diego took the most direct route by amending its zoning code to allow affordable housing on church parking lots outright. 

A final set of reforms introduces unique models that do not align with the broader categories. This is the Special Product and Use Models category. These programs respond to very specific local needs and show how tailored a YIGBY policy can be. Minnesota’s Sacred Communities and Micro-Unit Dwellings initiative, enacted in 2023 through Senate File 3035, is the clearest example. It was designed for faith groups that want to build micro-units for people who are homeless or extremely low-income. The statute places clear boundaries on the design of these units by limiting them to a maximum size of 400 square feet and by requiring essentials in the homes like smoke and carbon monoxide detectors and access to water and electricity. Additionally, religious organizations must maintain insurance, follow landlord-tenant law, complete annual eligibility certification, and set aside between one third and 40% of units for designated volunteers who live on site and assist with the community. The law also requires annual reporting, and it directs municipalities to allow these communities either as permitted or conditional uses. Unlike broader reforms, this law provides a focused and highly structured pathway for a single type of project. 

All of these policies come in different forms, scopes, and perspectives, but they share a hope that the affordable housing crisis in America can one day come to an end, with faith-based organizations playing a key role as stewards of land oriented toward the common good.