From starter homes to parking reform, MAP’s model legislation toolkit gives legislators and advocates everything they need to act.
Parking Mandate Reform
The People Over Parking Act
This bill gives property owners and businesses the freedom to decide how much parking they want to build.
Parking Mandate Reform
About the bill
"Why have all this wasted space?”
— Mark Brody, Republican State Representative, Anson County, North Carolina (2025)
What this bill does
This bill allows homebuilders, property owners, and businesses to decide how much off-street parking they need. The bill ends government parking mandates, and gives property owners the right to build as much or as little parking as they think is necessary for the success of their projects. It also removes the requirement some local jurisdictions impose to pay for off-street parking as a condition of permitting approval. Local jurisdictions retain the right to enforce rules related to health, safety, accessibility, and electric vehicle charging requirements.
Why it's needed
Parking mandates can add over $40,000 to the cost of each home in a multi-family housing project. They also force property owners and businesses to dedicate scarce land for parking that could go for higher-value uses such as additional retail space, homes, and public parks. In extreme cases, parking mandates make development infeasible. This bill removes parking mandates and lets property owners, builders, and businesses decide how much parking they need.
Frequently asked questions
What does this bill actually do?
This bill prohibits cities from enacting parking mandates that force property owners to build parking spaces on their property.
- Bans parking mandates statewide. Cities cannot require any development, whether residential, commercial, or mixed-use, to include parking spaces as a condition of administrative approvals.
- Gives builders flexibility. Developers can still build parking based on the needs of their projects. Cities can still regulate the design, safety, and accessibility of parking that is voluntarily provided.
Who would benefit from eliminating parking mandates?
Parking mandates increase housing costs by increasing the cost to develop each home; a single parking space can add over $40,000 to the cost per home. In buildings without parking mandates, renters aren’t required to pay for parking that they may not need. Small businesses gain flexibility to increase revenues and productive use of their space. Homeowners and developers can convert excess parking into homes, yards, or storefronts. The bill allows builders to build as much or as little parking as they think is necessary for their projects to succeed.
Does this mean local jurisdictions can’t regulate parking?
Local jurisdictions would still be able to set rules for parking spaces, but would not be able to mandate a number of parking spaces in new developments. Property owners only need to provide as much total parking as they want to, though a local jurisdiction may regulate its design, siting, accessibility, or the inclusion of electric vehicle infrastructure. Communities concerned about how to manage parking needs should consider implementing Curb Management Parking Benefit Districts.
The Legislation
Full model legislation text
Clean version
Annotated
Section 1. Title.
(a) This Act shall be known and may be cited as the “The People Over Parking Act.”
This section establishes the bill’s title. Our model legislation was informed by the following passed policy:
Section 2. Purpose and Intent.
(a) The purpose of this Act is to remove off-street parking mandates in order to lower development costs, expand housing and other development opportunities, and improve the feasibility of Adaptive Reuse and infill development.
(b) This Act is intended to establish statewide standards prohibiting the imposition or enforcement of off-street parking mandates for all development, including new construction, additions, alterations, Adaptive Reuse, redevelopment, and changes of use on existing developed parcels.
(c) This Act shall apply as a matter of statewide concern.
This section, the purpose and intent, defines the reasons why your state is pursuing legislation to eliminate parking mandates using a statewide preemption of local authorities. As parking mandates drive up development costs, limit housing, and increase emissions, decisions about whether to provide parking should be left to property owners and project applicants rather than imposed through local parking mandates. California AB 2097 found that parking mandates increase housing costs, limit the number of homes that can be built, produce excess parking, and increase greenhouse gas emissions. Colorado HB24-1304 similarly found that excess parking raises housing costs, limits compact development, and creates effects that extend beyond the jurisdiction imposing the requirement. There are many reasons to want to eliminate parking mandates, so this section should be modified to lead with the values that resonate most in your state.
Section 3. Definitions.
For purposes of this Act:
(a) “Accessory Dwelling Unit” means a residential living unit located on the same parcel as a primary residential or commercial use.
(b) “Adaptive Reuse” means the alteration or conversion of an existing building, or portion of an existing building, to a new use or occupancy, including residential, commercial, or mixed-use, whether by rehabilitation, interior reconfiguration, change of use, or change of occupancy classification, without requiring demolition and replacement of the entire structure.
(c) “Affordable Housing” means any dwelling unit, including a dwelling unit in a mixed-income project, that is deed-restricted to be sold or rented at a price affordable to households earning eighty percent (80%) of area median income or less.
(d) “Development” means any new construction, addition, alteration, expansion, Adaptive Reuse, rehabilitation, redevelopment, or change of use of a building, structure, site, or parcel, whether residential, commercial, mixed-use, industrial, civic, institutional, or other lawful use.
(e) “Existing Developed Parcel” means a parcel containing an existing building, structure, or other lawful improvement.
(f) “Historic Property” means any building, structure, or site listed on a federal, state, or local historic register, or designated as a historic resource under local ordinance, or within a designated historic district.
(g) “Off-Street Parking Mandate” means any local law, ordinance, regulation, policy, standard, condition, fee, or practice that requires a minimum number of Off-Street Parking spaces to be provided, retained, replaced, or funded as a condition of Development approval, continued use, modification, addition, Adaptive Reuse, redevelopment, or change of use.
(h) “Local Authority” means a city, town, village, county, parish, borough, or other political subdivision with authority to regulate land use, development, or Off-Street Parking.
(i) “Off-Street Parking” means an area or space for the parking of a motor vehicle that is located outside the public right-of-way.
(j) “Residential Dwelling Unit” means a building or structure, or portion thereof, used as a residence by one or more persons maintaining a household.
This section creates definitions to be used in the text. . California AB 2097 and Illinois’s People Over Parking Act define parking mandates primarily as laws or policies requiring a minimum number of spaces. Colorado HB24-1304 similarly defines a parking requirement as a local-law requirement that parking spaces be made available in connection with real property. This model bill goes further by covering conditions, fees, replacement requirements, retention requirements, and administrative practices that have the same practical effect as a formal parking ratio. It also extends the definition of Development beyond new residential and commercial construction to additions, rehabilitation, adaptive reuse, changes of use, civic and institutional projects, and other lawful uses.
Section 4. Statewide Prohibition on Off-Street Parking Mandates.
(a) A Local Authority shall not impose or enforce any Off-Street Parking Mandate on any newly built Development.
(b) A Local Authority shall not condition the approval of any Development on the provision of Off-Street Parking.
(c) A Local Authority shall not assess any fee to fund off-site Off-Street Parking as a condition of approval of any Development.
(d) A Local Authority shall not require the addition of new Off-Street Parking spaces, or the retention or replacement of existing Off-Street Parking spaces, as a condition of the modification, addition, Adaptive Reuse, redevelopment, or change of use of any structure on an Existing Developed Parcel.
(e) A Local Authority shall not impose or enforce any Off-Street Parking Mandate on any new or existing Accessory Dwelling Unit.
(f) When a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished in conjunction with the construction of an Accessory Dwelling Unit, or converted to an Accessory Dwelling Unit, a Local Authority shall not require the replacement of those Off-Street Parking spaces.
(g) A Local Authority shall not impose or enforce any Off-Street Parking Mandate on any Residential Dwelling Unit that qualifies as Affordable Housing.
(h) A Local Authority shall not impose or enforce any Off-Street Parking Mandate on any Development involving Adaptive Reuse of an existing structure.
(i) A Local Authority shall not impose or enforce any Off-Street Parking Mandate on any Development located on a lot containing a Historic Property.
(j) Nothing in this Act shall reduce, eliminate, or preclude the enforcement of requirements governing the design, layout, access, surfacing, striping, drainage, landscaping, lighting, electric vehicle infrastructure, or accessibility of Off-Street Parking where the applicant voluntarily provides Off-Street Parking.
(k) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit an applicant from voluntarily providing Off-Street Parking.
This section, based on Colorado HB24-1304, and Illinois’ People Over Parking Act, eliminates parking requirements statewide and limits local authorities from utilizing fees or conditioning approvals for development or changes of use on the inclusion of off-street parking.
This section preserves localities’ ability to set generally applicable design, accessibility, drainage, lighting, landscaping, and electric-vehicle requirements, for parking spaces but it does not allow those rules to be used to require parking in the first place.
The Accessory Dwelling Unit replacement-parking rule follows California Government Code § 66314, which provides that when a garage, carport, covered parking structure, or uncovered parking space is demolished or converted in connection with an ADU, the local agency may not require replacement of those spaces. The affordable-housing and change-of-use protections are also consistent with Washington’s SB 5184, which prohibits parking mandates for affordable housing, residences under 1,200 square feet, and buildings undergoing specified changes of use.
Section 5. Statewide Effect and Local Preemption.
(a) This Act shall apply uniformly throughout the state.
(b) A Local Authority shall not adopt or enforce any ordinance, regulation, policy, condition, guideline, fee, or practice that conflicts with this Act.
(c) Any local requirement inconsistent with this Act is preempted and shall not be enforced.
This section makes the Act uniform statewide and preempts conflicting local requirements, including ordinances, conditions, fees, guidelines, and administrative practices.
Section 6. Implementation.
(a) Each Local Authority shall, within [twelve (12)] months after the effective date of this Act, amend its zoning ordinance, parking ordinance, development code, subdivision regulations, and any other applicable land use regulations as necessary to conform to this Act.
(b) A Local Authority’s failure to adopt conforming amendments shall not relieve the Local Authority of its obligation to comply with this Act, and applicants may rely directly on the provisions of this Act.
This section gives local authorities a fixed period to remove conflicting provisions from their zoning codes, parking ordinances, subdivision regulations, and other development rules. The second paragraph makes the Act self-executing, as failure to update a local code does not delay the statewide prohibition or prevent an applicant from relying directly on state law.
Section 7. Severability.
If any provision of this Act, or its application to any person or circumstance, is found to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, such provision shall be severable, and the remaining provisions shall remain in full force and effect.
This is a standard severability clause. It ensures that if one provision or application of the Act is held invalid, the remaining statewide prohibition on parking mandates, definitions, preemption provisions, and implementation requirements continue in effect to the extent they can operate independently.
Section 8. Effective Date.
This Act shall take effect [____ months] following enactment.
This is a standard effective-date clause. It allows the Legislature to provide a short implementation period while maintaining a separate twelve-month deadline for local authorities to remove conflicting provisions from their codes. Because Section 6 is self-executing, the effective date determines when applicants may rely on the Act.
Optional Appendix A. Transit Proximity Alternative.
(a) A Local Authority shall not impose or enforce any Off-Street Parking Mandate on a Development if any portion of the lot is located within:
(1) one-half (1/2) mile of a Qualifying Transit Corridor served by Rail Transit, ferry service, Bus Rapid Transit, or other fixed-guideway transit service; or
(2) one-quarter (1/4) mile of a Qualifying Transit Corridor served by fixed-route bus service.
(b) For purposes of this appendix, distance shall be measured in a straight line from any point on the lot to the nearest point on the Qualifying Transit Corridor.
(c) A Local Authority shall not deny eligibility under this appendix based on the relocation, consolidation, addition, or removal of an individual bus stop, ferry stop, or station entrance, so long as the lot remains within the required distance of a Qualifying Transit Corridor.
(d) Nothing in this appendix prohibits a state or Local Authority from applying a greater distance, additional qualifying transit modes, or more permissive parking relief than required by this appendix.
Definitions:
(a) “Qualifying Transit Corridor” means a corridor, route, line, guideway, water route, or other fixed alignment used for public transportation service, including:
(1) Rail Transit;
(2) Ferry Service;
(3) Bus Rapid Transit; and
(4) fixed-route bus service with a scheduled frequency of service interval of twenty (20) minutes or less during the morning peak period from 5:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and the afternoon peak period from 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.
(b) “Bus Rapid Transit” means a fixed-route bus transit service, including any bus rapid transit system described in 49 U.S.C. § 5302(3), that operates in dedicated rights-of-way or dedicated bus lanes and provides defined stations and other features identified by state rule.
(c) “Ferry Service” means public passenger ferry service operating on a regular fixed route.
(d) “Rail Transit” means heavy rail, light rail, commuter rail, streetcar, monorail, or other passenger rail service operating on a fixed guideway.
This appendix provides a narrower elimination of parking mandates based on distance to frequent transit for states that are not prepared to eliminate them statewide. This model bill follows Illinois’ People over Parking Act, California’s AB 2097, and Colorado’s HB24-1304’s lead, but applies the standards based on proximity to transit corridors, rather than transit stops. Transit bus stops can change location over time and defining proximity to a station, which can have multiple entrances, can be confusing or hard to implement.
Optional Appendix B. Walkable and Jobs-Rich Areas Alternative.
(a) A Local Authority shall not impose or enforce any Off-Street Parking Mandate on a Development if any portion of the lot is located in a Walkable Area.
(b) A Local Authority shall not impose or enforce any Off-Street Parking Mandate on a Development if any portion of the lot is located in a Jobs-Rich Area.
Definitions:
“Walkable Area” means any Census block group with a score of 10.51 or greater or a Census block group adjacent to two or more Census block groups with a score of 10.51 or greater, in the National Walkability Index maintained by the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
“Jobs-Rich Area” means any Census block group with a score of 70 or greater in the Smart Location Calculator maintained by the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
This appendix provides a data-based alternative for identifying places where parking mandates are less justified, even in places with less transit. EPA’s National Walkability Index assigns US Census block groups scores from 1 to 20 and classifies scores of 10.51 through 15.25 as “above average walkable.”
EPA’s Smart Location Calculator assigns places a location-efficiency score from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating greater location efficiency. Before using this appendix in your legislation, “ground truth” the tools and evaluate scores in neighborhoods you are familiar with and that you feel this policy should affect. If the right areas are receiving scores too low to come into effect, adjust the thresholds for a score that works for your state or consider an alternative objective, data-informed measure.
Optional Appendix C. Small-Lot and Small-Unit Protections.
(a) A Local Authority shall not impose or enforce any Off-Street Parking Mandate as a condition of Development or change of use on parcels with an area equal to or less than eleven thousand (11,000) square feet.
(b) A Local Authority shall not impose or enforce any Off-Street Parking Mandate on Residential Dwelling Units of one thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet or smaller.
(c) A Local Authority shall not impose or enforce any Off-Street Parking Mandate on commercial spaces of five thousand (5,000) square feet or smaller.
This appendix protects projects for which even a modest parking mandate can consume a disproportionate share of the site or building. Washington’s SB 5184 provides the clearest precedent: it prohibits parking mandates for residences under 1,200 square feet, commercial spaces under 3,000 square feet, affordable housing, certain mixed-use ground-floor spaces, and buildings undergoing specified changes of use. This model bill uses Washington’s 1,200-square-foot residential threshold, increases the commercial threshold to 5,000 square feet, and adds a separate exemption for parcels of 11,000 square feet or less.
Optional Appendix D. Criteria for Counting and Satisfying Parking Requirements.
(a) In assessing compliance with any Off-Street Parking Mandate otherwise allowed by state law, a Local Authority shall treat every twenty (20) foot by nine (9) foot section of pavement accessible via a curb cut as a separate Off-Street Parking space.
(b) A Local Authority shall not require covered Off-Street Parking.
(c) For purposes of any Off-Street Parking Mandate otherwise allowed by state law:
(1) any parking space served by electric vehicle charging equipment, or used to site such equipment, shall count as at least one standard parking space;
(2) any van-accessible parking space designed to accommodate a person using a wheelchair shall count as at least two standard parking spaces; and
(3) tandem parking shall count toward meeting parking requirements at a rate of one space for every twenty (20) linear feet, subject only to necessary turning-radius provisions.
Definitions:
“Tandem Parking” means two or more Off-Street Parking spaces arranged in a line such that a motor vehicle occupying one space must be moved in order to allow a motor vehicle to enter or exit another space.
This appendix can serve as a fallback for states that retain some parking mandates but want to simplify and ease statewide rules for counting spaces. This text draws from California’s ADU law supports the treatment of tandem parking as usable parking and allows ADU parking to be provided in tandem. California AB 2097 also preserves accessibility and electric-vehicle requirements for parking that is provided.
Optional Appendix E. Parking Requirement Maximums in Lieu of Full Elimination.
(a) A Local Authority shall not impose or enforce any Off-Street Parking Mandate in excess of one (1) space per Residential Dwelling Unit.
(b) A Local Authority shall not impose or enforce any Off-Street Parking Mandate in excess of one (1) space per one thousand (1,000) square feet of commercial floor area.
This appendix provides a compromise for states that are not prepared to fully eliminate parking mandates. Instead of eliminating full mandates, this would set a cap for how much parking localities can require. For comparison, Washington’s SB 5184 currently caps parking mandates at one-half space per multifamily dwelling, one space per single-family home, and two spaces per 1,000 square feet of commercial space. Colorado HB24-1304 allows no more than one space per dwelling unit when a local government uses the law’s limited findings-based exception for larger or regulated-affordable housing projects.
Lessons from other states
Since 2019, over a dozen states across the political spectrum from North Carolina (2026) to Montana (2025) have enacted legislation reducing or eliminating parking mandates. While MAP’s model legislation focuses on state-level policy to end parking mandates, cities and counties have independently adopted legislation ending their parking mandates. There is strong and growing momentum behind these policies.
However, not all parking reforms are equal. Some bills’ impact has been weakened by provisions inserted into the bill designed to diminish the power of the legislation that affect where parking requirements are actually eliminated. Buffalo’s provisions required certain development proposals to complete a transportation demand management plan that could reimpose a minimum number of parking spaces. Statewide prohibitions on parking mandates should be considered the gold standard, but when dealing with compromise, make sure to test for how narrow or broad definitions like “near transit” would be under proposed language.
The Parking Reform Network maintains a detailed map and tracker for off-street parking reform legislation and other useful resources, like their Parking Reform Policy Cookbook.
- Parking Reform Primer, Southwestern Energy Efficiency Project
- Climate Strategies that Work: Parking Reform, U.S. Department of Transportation
- The Impacts of Minimum Parking Requirements: A Research Synthesis, UCLA Institute of Transportation Studies. Schwartz, Ellen; Manville, Michael; Millard-Ball, Adam.
North Carolina — enacted 2026
North Carolina enacted HB 369, the Parking Lot Reform and Modernization Act in 2026, with the law coming into effect January 1, 2027. The law is one of the most aggressive in the country, and the coalition that helped passed the bill emphasized its broad benefits: from increasing freedom and choice for businesses to improving environmental outcomes by mitigating sprawl. The bill isn’t perfect, as coastal counties were exempt due to concerns about parking availability at vacation rentals.
"If it gives communities and property owners more flexibility while protecting our environment, that's a win for everyone."
— Representative Deb Butler (D-New Hanover), Port City Daily, July 2026
"We think House Bill 369 is going to be one of the most critical bills for land use."
— Eric Zaverl, Sustain Charlotte, WCCB/Sustain Charlotte, March 2025
“This is without a doubt the biggest thing that could have happened for downtowns with walkable neighborhoods in the state of North Carolina”
–– Trey Robertson, Non-Partisan Council Member-at-Large, Statesville, North Carolina (2026)
- NC Leaders Back Parking Reform to Cut Housing Costs, Thwart Pollution, Port City Daily (2026)
- North Carolina Bill to Eliminate Parking Minimums Passes House Unanimously, Axios Charlotte (2025)
Virginia — enacted 2026
Virginia enacted House Bill 888 in 2026, prohibiting Local Authorities with populations larger than 600,000 from requiring off-street parking as a condition of zoning approval for residential or mixed-use development above 0.5 spaces per multifamily or mixed-use project, or one (1) space per single-family or duplex unit, within a half-mile of a mass transit facility. Localities of over 20,000 residents are required to establish an administrative review process, with clear procedures and eligibility criteria, by which permit applicants may request reductions in parking requirements by at least 20%.
An earlier version, House Bill 262, would have prohibited parking mandates statewide without exception.
- Virginia Limits Local Parking Minimums to Support Housing Affordability, Venable LLP (2026)
- Virginia Caps Parking Requirements Near Transit, McGuireWoods (2026)
Illinois — enacted 2024
Illinois enacted Senate Bill 2111 with the People Over Parking Act, as part of a legislative omnibus to balance transportation budgets and reform governance for 63 transit agencies across the state. The law prohibits parking mandates within half a mile of a public transit station and one-eighth of a mile from any street with bus service running every 15 minutes during peak hours.
“It may not make everybody happy. In fact, there will be a lot of people who will not be completely happy with this final product. But what matters is we can create a system that works." — Representative Kam Buckner (D-Chicago), Streetsblog Chicago, August 2025
- Illinois Passes Sweeping Transit Reform Including Parking Overhaul, Streetsblog Chicago (2025)
- People Over Parking Act, Evanston Roundtable (2025)
California – enacted 2022
California’s AB 2097 is one the nation’s first state-wide parking mandate reform bills. Rather than working statewide at all locations, the bill targeted areas within a half-mile of major transit stops. In a study evaluating the impact of the bill, researchers noted the major discretion granted to localities, who retained the ability to set their own requirements on what parking developers choose to provide. While developers still must build conscientious of people’s parking needs, AB 2097 is enabling new homes that might not otherwise have been built today.
“California has a severe housing shortage, not a parking shortage.”
– Brian Hanlon, CEO, California YIMBY 2022
“Mandatory parking requirements worsen California’s severe housing shortage by raising the cost of housing production. On average, a garage costs $24,000 to $34,000 per space to build, and an underground parking space costs $50,000 to $65,000 to build. These costs get passed onto individuals and families, even if they don’t own or cannot drive a car”
– Representative Laura Friedman (D-Glendale), MyBurbank, 2022
- Assemblymember Friedman’s AB 2097 to Eliminate Parking Minimums Near Transit Becomes Law, MyBurbank (2022)
- How California cities respond to state-level parking reform, UCLA Institute of Transportation Studies (2025)
Montana – enacted 2025
Montana’s House Bill 492, introduced by Rep. Katie Zolnikov, R-Billings, exempts any home smaller than 1,200 square feet in Montana’s largest cities from minimum parking requirements, starting in October 2026. In smaller cities, it limits parking requirements to one parking space per home. The exemption also applies to small detached homes, all deed-restricted affordable housing, assisted living homes, and daycares. As the Sightline Institute explains, the bill will override parking requirements in many of Montana’s growing cities, such as Bozeman and Missoula, which currently require one or two off-street parking spaces for every new home.
"Montana is facing a crisis-level shortage of housing. Families, young workers and retirees alike are struggling to find homes that they can afford."
— Representative Katie Zolnikov (R-Billings), Montana Right Now, March 2025
- Montana's Housing Miracle Strikes Twice, Sightline Institute (2025)
- Bill Would Weaken Cities' Ability to Require Minimum Parking Spaces, Montana Right Now (2025)
Issue tags
More model legislation