As local governments seek solutions to the ongoing housing affordability crisis, recent changes to federal manufactured housing regulations may make the lower-cost housing option more attainable, experts say.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s move earlier this month to begin updating manufactured housing regulatory and efficiency standards was driven by the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, which removed a longstanding requirement of a permanent chassis for manufactured homes.
The recent HUD proposals were an “unquestionably” positive development, John Lindley, president and CEO of the Michigan Manufactured Housing Association, told Smart Cities Dive. But there’s still a long road ahead, he said.
“So much still needs to be done to implement the plan, through rule-making, engineering, etc.,” Lindley said in an email. “That said, the innovation that chassis-free construction will allow is likely to substantially transform the industry and will bring more attainable housing options nationwide.”
“It doesn’t make sense … to require that chassis,” Arica Young, director of housing access and affordability at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, told Smart Cities Dive, noting that less than 10% of manufactured homes are ever moved.
“But that means we do have to make changes to the actual building code for manufactured housing,” she added.
Advocates say removing the chassis requirement could lead to major cost savings. Young said the extent of such savings is unclear.
“I’ve heard figures all over, everything from $5,000 to $500,” she said. “And then there’s the question of, would that necessarily get passed on to the homeowner, or is that something that would be retained [by the manufacturer]? … But there will be some sort of cost savings, we know that.”
One of the most impactful aspects of HUD’s manufactured housing plan is its move to create a performance-based building code for multiunit manufactured housing, Young said.
“I think that’s a game-changer,” she said. “That’s probably one of the most exciting parts of that plan today. We need all topologies of housing.”
But questions regarding implementation, construction and design linger.
“There's still confusion about, frankly, the most appropriate foundations” for manufactured housing, Young said, “and I would love to see more clarity about that, more performance-based clarity on foundations.”
Neither Lindley nor Young believes the regulatory updates raise safety issues for the housing.
“HUD and the Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee work closely with the industry and ensure the safe and quality construction of homes in compliance with rigorous codes,” Lindley said. “That won’t change.”
Cities and states will have a lot to do to prepare for manufactured housing infrastructure, including addressing water utilities’ access and electrical grid issues, Young said.
“Those are things the cities and states need to also think about because once you get these homes in place, it happens really fast,” Young said. “So that means you've got to be ready as the city, to be nimble and have an understanding that the process of using manufactured housing or factory-built housing is unique and is very different from site-built.”
States also need to begin to address manufactured housing financing to ensure they’re accessible to individuals and to answer questions surrounding titling, including personal property versus real property, Young said.
Ultimately, the changes represent an opportunity to increase housing supply, something the country sorely needs, Young and Lindley said.
“Housing affordability issues are largely a supply-side problem — we need more housing,” Lindley said. “This reform removes barriers to innovation and use of quality, lower-cost, energy efficient manufactured homes.”
