{"id":1635,"date":"2026-07-13T15:33:15","date_gmt":"2026-07-13T22:33:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.metroabundance.org\/?post_type=legislation&p=1635"},"modified":"2026-07-27T18:24:21","modified_gmt":"2026-07-28T01:24:21","slug":"golden-girls-occupancy-reform","status":"publish","type":"legislation","link":"https:\/\/www.metroabundance.org\/legislations\/golden-girls-occupancy-reform\/","title":{"rendered":"\u201cGolden Girls\u201d Occupancy Reform"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

About the bill<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

\u201cLocal governments can no longer set an across-the-board cap on how many unrelated people can live together. Instead, they’ll have to justify any restriction, such as for health or fire safety concerns, before they enact a roommate limit.\u201d<\/p>\u2014 Colorado Public Radio<\/a> on Colorado\u2019s \u201cGolden Girls\u201d Bill (HB24-1007) (Mar. 19, 2024)<\/cite><\/blockquote><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

What this bill does<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Many local jurisdictions prohibit unrelated residents from living together, blocking seniors, students, unmarried couples, or other roommates from sharing a home. This bill establishes a statewide standard that allows unrelated individuals to live in the same home. Local jurisdictions retain the ability to set occupancy limits based on objective health and safety standards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why it’s needed<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Americans should have the freedom to choose who they live with. But many jurisdictions prohibit this, and only allow individuals with genetic or familial relationships to live in the same home. A Pacific Legal Foundation analysis of Kansas cities<\/a> found that local jurisdictions with the strictest unrelated-roommate bans have more than three times the share of vacant bedrooms as cities with no such restrictions; a national review of 56 major cities by the American Enterprise Institute<\/a> found that 46 cities still cap occupancy by relationship status despite widespread household vacancy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Frequently asked questions<\/h4>\n\n\n
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\tWhat does this bill actually do?\n\t\t\t\t\t <\/svg>\n\t\t\t\t\t <\/svg>\n\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

This bill establishes a statewide standard allowing unrelated people to share a home together. Occupancy limits must be grounded in objective health and safety standards, not family status. Households will have enforceable protections under the law. Existing local ordinances that conflict with the law are rendered moot, and Local Authorities have 180 days to bring their codes into compliance.<\/p>\n

This model bill was based on Colorado HB24-1007 (2024) and Iowa House File 134 (2017), both of which restrict local jurisdictions from limiting occupancy based on family status while preserving legitimate health and safety standards.<\/p>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\tWould my state benefit from passing a \u201cGolden Girls\u201d bill?\n\t\t\t\t\t <\/svg>\n\t\t\t\t\t <\/svg>\n\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Many local jurisdictions have outdated laws that restrict how many unrelated people can live together. A small but growing number have established a statewide standard: Colorado, Iowa, New Hampshire, Oregon, Texas, and Washington have preempted local occupancy limits by statute.<\/p>\n

The courts in California, Michigan, New Jersey, and New York have already struck down occupancy bans, and the constitutionality of similar rules may be questionable on equal protection grounds in other states. A uniform statewide standard would also protect local jurisdictions from costly legal challenges.<\/p>\n

The need is greatest in college towns and high-cost metros where living with roommates can often be the only viable alternative to homelessness. Communities already have tools to address concerns about noise or nuisance. Noise ordinances, nuisance laws, and property exist for that purpose. Occupancy limits based on family status are a blunt instrument that leaves vacant rooms empty and limits one of the most affordable housing options available.<\/p>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\tWhy can’t local jurisdictions fix this themselves?\n\t\t\t\t\t <\/svg>\n\t\t\t\t\t <\/svg>\n\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Many local jurisdictions adopted ordinances restricting how many unrelated people can live together decades ago. Revisiting outdated occupancy bans in every local jurisdiction would take substantial effort and the state can play a helpful role in establishing a statewide standard. <\/p>\n

Take Boulder, Colorado. The University of Colorado Boulder, one of the nation’s most prestigious state research universities, sits in a city where occupancy limits made an already severe housing shortage worse. Students facing sky-high rents would often camp overnight just to apply for campus housing<\/a> or face longer commutes<\/a>. When residents tried to repeal the city’s occupancy limits at the ballot in 2021, the measure failed\u2014in part because the people most squeezed by the rules had already been priced out of the city and couldn’t vote. It took the state of Colorado stepping in three years later to preempt<\/a> the local bans.<\/p>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t<\/div>\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n

The Legislation<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Full model legislation text<\/h4>\n\n\n
\n\t\n\t\t\t
\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
Clean version<\/div>\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
Annotated version<\/div>\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t

Section 1. Title.<\/strong><\/p>\n

(a) This Act shall be known and may be cited as “The Golden Girls Act”.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

The title follows Ontario Bill 69, the Golden Girls Act, 2019, which was introduced to clarify that local planning rules distinguishing between related and unrelated occupants could not be used to prevent unrelated seniors from sharing a home. Pennsylvania HB 2109 uses the similar title \u201cThe Golden Girls Law\u201d for a broader occupancy-preemption proposal; as of July 17, 2026, it had passed the Pennsylvania House and was pending in the Senate. This model uses the same recognizable framing but is broader than the Ontario bill because it protects households of any age rather than only seniors.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t

Section 2. Purpose and Intent.<\/strong><\/p>\n

(a) The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:<\/p>\n

(1) Artificial limits on the number of unrelated people who may reside together in a single dwelling unit discriminate against nontraditional households, infringe on personal freedoms, and undermine housing access.<\/p>\n

(2) Local ordinances that regulate occupancy based on familial or non-familial status have been used to exclude low-income individuals, seniors, students, and other lawful renters.<\/p>\n

(3) State law should ensure that housing regulations are based on objective health and safety standards, such as square footage and building capacity, rather than relationship status.<\/p>\n

(4) The purpose of this Act is to eliminate occupancy restrictions based on the relationship of household members and ensure that local ordinances regulating occupancy do so solely on the basis of health and safety standards.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

This section states the bill\u2019s core policy choice: local occupancy rules should address actual overcrowding and safety conditions, not whether the people sharing a home are related. Colorado HB24-1007, enacted in 2024, prohibits local governments from limiting the number of people who may live together based on familial relationship while preserving limits based on demonstrated health and safety standards. Iowa House File 134 similarly prohibits cities from regulating occupancy of residential rental property based on familial or nonfamilial relationships. New Hampshire HB 457, enacted in 2025, prohibits zoning discrimination based on familial, nonfamilial, or marital status while preserving enforcement of the state building and fire codes.<\/p>\n

Washington SB 6302 supplied much of the original policy framing for this model. The Senate version would have prohibited local limits on unrelated occupants while preserving building-code occupant-load limits, and the legislative record identified the effect of relationship-based restrictions on students, lower-cost shared housing, and the use of existing bedrooms.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t

Section 3. Definitions.<\/strong><\/p>\n

(a) “Dwelling unit” means any building or portion thereof that contains living facilities, including provisions for sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation, intended for occupancy by one or more persons.<\/p>\n

(b) “Household” or “occupancy” means the group of individuals residing in a dwelling unit, regardless of relationship, familial status, legal partnership, or other personal association.<\/p>\n

(c) \u201cLocal Authority\u201d means a city, county, city and county, or other local jurisdiction, including a charter city or charter county, with authority to adopt or enforce land use, zoning, housing, building, property maintenance, nuisance, or occupancy standards applicable to dwelling units.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

This section defines the bill broadly enough to reach the local \u201cfamily\u201d definitions and roommate caps that relationship-based occupancy rules commonly use. The terms \u201cHousehold\u201d and \u201cDwelling Unit\u201d follow the structure of Washington SB 6302, which addressed limits on unrelated persons occupying a household or dwelling unit. This model deliberately applies to any dwelling unit and defines the household without regard to blood relationship, marriage, adoption, legal partnership, or another personal association.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t

Section 4. Prohibition on Occupancy Limits Based on Relationship Status.<\/strong><\/p>\n

(a) A Local Authority shall not adopt or enforce any ordinance, regulation, or policy that limits or restricts the number of persons who may occupy a dwelling unit based on whether such persons are related or unrelated by blood, marriage, adoption, or any other legal or familial relationship.<\/p>\n

(b) Local Authorities may establish maximum occupancy limits based solely on objective health and safety standards, such as building code requirements for habitable space, plumbing fixtures, or fire safety, provided such limits are uniformly applied to all residents regardless of relationship.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

This section prohibits a Local Authority from using relationship status to decide how many people may share a home, while preserving neutral limits based on building capacity, habitable space, plumbing, fire safety, and other objective health and safety standards. That structure follows Colorado HB24-1007 and New Hampshire HB 457, both of which separate prohibited relationship-based rules from lawful health and safety regulation. Iowa House File 134 establishes the same basic prohibition but does not state the health and safety rule in the same detail.<\/p>\n

This model differs from New Hampshire\u2019s approach because it does not establish a statewide minimum of two occupants per bedroom. Instead, it leaves the precise occupancy calculation to generally applicable health and safety codes. It is also somewhat narrower than Colorado\u2019s law, which separately permits occupancy limits required by affordable-housing program guidelines. This model omits that exception so program-specific eligibility rules cannot become a general basis for regulating unrelated households.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t

Section 5. Preemption of Local Ordinances.<\/strong><\/p>\n

(a) Any local ordinance, policy, or regulation in effect as of the effective date of this Act that conflicts with this Act is hereby preempted and shall be unenforceable.<\/p>\n

(b) Local Authorities shall revise any local ordinance or zoning code provision that conflicts with this Act within 180 days of the effective date.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

This section gives the state prohibition immediate controlling effect and makes conflicting local ordinances unenforceable. That follows Iowa House File 134, which bars cities from adopting or enforcing relationship-based rental occupancy restrictions, Colorado HB24-1007, which directly limits county and municipal authority, and New Hampshire HB 457, which prohibits both adoption and enforcement of discriminatory zoning rules.<\/p>\n

The 180-day code-amendment deadline is an implementation choice added by this model. It gives local governments time to remove obsolete family definitions and occupancy provisions from their codes, but it is not a grace period during which those rules remain enforceable. California land use law uses a comparable 180-day period in another context when a zoning ordinance must be brought into conformity with a controlling general plan, providing a familiar model for a fixed local code-update deadline.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t

Section 6. Enforcement and Remedies.<\/strong><\/p>\n

(a) A person who is denied housing or subjected to enforcement based on a prohibited occupancy restriction shall have a private right of action against the Local Authority for declaratory and injunctive relief.<\/p>\n

(b) Courts may award attorney’s fees and costs to a prevailing plaintiff in any action brought pursuant to this section.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

This section adds an enforcement mechanism that is stronger than the leading enacted occupancy-preemption laws, which generally prohibit local regulation but do not expressly create a private right of action in the same provision. A person denied housing or subjected to unlawful enforcement may seek a court order declaring the rule invalid and stopping its enforcement.<\/p>\n

The private-enforcement structure follows the broader approach used in California\u2019s Housing Accountability Act, which allows applicants, prospective residents, and housing organizations to sue and provides attorney\u2019s fees and costs when a plaintiff successfully enforces the statute. This model limits standing to a person directly denied housing or subjected to enforcement and gives the court discretion over fees rather than making an award mandatory.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t

Section 7. Severability.<\/strong><\/p>\n

If any provision of this Act or its application is held invalid, the remainder of the Act shall not be affected and shall continue in full force and effect.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

This Section ensures that if one provision or application of the Act is held invalid, the prohibition on relationship-based occupancy limits and the remaining enforcement and preemption provisions continue in effect wherever they can operate independently.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t

Section 8. Effective Date.<\/strong><\/p>\n

This act is ordered to take effect on January 1st of the subsequent year of when the act is established.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t

Copy Bill Text<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n