No Parking Any Time: State Legislation Preempting Local Minimum Parking Requirements

by Andrew Pyles, Associate Member, University of Cincinnati Law Review Vol. 94

I. Introduction

Over the past century, American cities have been shaped by land-use regulations that mandate what can be built on a given lot, how it can be used, and what it must look like.¹ Of all these regulations, minimum parking requirements have had the most noticeable impact on how cities look and function today.² Minimum parking requirements are local laws that require developers to dedicate a certain amount of off-street parking to various land uses. However, these laws have resulted in an overabundance of parking across the country: there are between three and eight parking spots for every car in America,³ and many central neighborhoods of large cities have one-third of their land or more dedicated to parking.⁴ This is valuable land that could be used, instead, to tackle the nation’s growing housing crisis,⁵ or to create more walkable and livable cities.⁶

This Article examines recent state-level efforts to enact parking reform, with a focus on Illinois’ new transit legislation. Part II provides background on state preemption and minimum parking requirements, the constraints they place on cities and developers, and how some states, like Illinois, have begun to tackle this problem. Part III considers whether state legislation is the right approach for reforming local parking policy. Finally, Part IV concludes by arguing that state laws restricting minimum parking requirements can be a catalyst for cities in many states to reshape their streets and spur the development of affordable housing, especially when the legislation is clear and leaves few avenues for municipalities to avoid enforcement.

II. Background

In 1923, Columbus, Ohio, became the first American city to require an apartment building to provide off-street parking.⁷ The idea being that if a new development brought more cars to a neighborhood, it should also provide somewhere to put them. Over the following decades, that logic took hold across the country, and minimum parking requirements were widely instituted to accommodate increased car traffic and to prevent parking spillovers onto city streets.⁸ Cities began writing minimum parking requirements into their zoning codes, dividing communities into districts designated for different uses.⁹ Each district develops its own rules, governing things like density, dimensions, and the number of off-street parking spots. They required all new buildings to provide ample on-site parking for visitors, with the amount ultimately determined by expected peak demand.¹⁰

Three years later, the United States Supreme Court in Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. held that zoning laws were within the state’s police power, and specifically noted that apartment buildings could bring “parked automobiles [to] larger portions of the streets, detracting from their safety.”¹¹ Thus, parking requirements were, in theory, a solution to a tragedy of the commons arising from limited street parking on public roads. Minimum parking requirements require new developments to include a minimum amount of off-street parking.¹² These requirements are built into zoning ordinances, which divide communities into districts designated for different uses.¹³ Each district develops its own rules, governing things like density, dimensions, and the number of off-street parking spots. Without them, new developments would bring more cars to the area without adding any place to put them, shifting the burden of providing space for cars to the neighborhood or the surrounding areas.¹⁴ This approach spread quickly. By 1969, nearly all municipalities with populations above 25,000 had minimum parking requirements in place, typically scaled to the expected number of visitors during peak hours.¹⁵

Land-use laws, like those discussed in this article, determine how individual plots of land will be used and what that use may entail, including which facilities and characteristics a building or use must have.¹⁶ Many local governments have sought to take minimum parking requirements off of the books, given that these laws result in the inefficient use of land and impair the development of housing.¹⁷ In some areas, state governments have gotten involved in the removal of these laws.

A. State Preemption of Local Laws

By law, municipalities are generally regarded as “creatures of the state,” meaning they derive their lawmaking authority from state constitutions, charters, or legislation.¹⁸ The Tenth Amendment reserves general “police powers” to the states,¹⁹ including the power to regulate land-use. While states generally delegate land-use authority to municipalities, they retain the power to restrict it.²⁰

The extent of local authority depends largely on whether the state follows Dillon’s Rule or grants home rule authority to cities.²¹ Under Dillon’s Rule, municipalities can only act on powers expressly delegated by the state, or those that are “necessarily or fairly implied incident to [those] powers[.]”²² By contrast, home rule authority grants municipalities broader authority to govern themselves, though states can still modify or restrict authority through constitutional amendments or legislation.

State Preemption occurs when a state restricts the authority of a lower level of government, such as a city council.²³ In states that follow Dillon’s Rule, local governments have no recourse from state preemption on any issue.²⁴ However, even when municipalities enjoy home rule authority, states may still preempt local land-use decisions,²⁵ or where there is a clear and specific legislative intent to do so.²⁶

B. Negative Externalities Resulting from Minimum Parking Requirements

The suburban boom of the 1960s brought rapid development outside cities, and with it came an increased need for parking.²⁷ For example, in Park Forest, Illinois, a privately developed community, rental townhomes were built around the included parking on the lots and the local shopping center was “surrounded on three sides by a sea of parking spaces.”²⁸

Today, the legacy of minimum parking requirements and suburbanization continues to influence the look of the built environment and the behavior of those who reside within it.²⁹ Some cities now devote one-third of their land area to parking lots. Des Moines, Iowa, for example, has seven parking spaces per city resident.³⁰ However, the impact of parking extends beyond aesthetics. Excessive parking, as required by many parking minimum laws, can contribute to urban heat islands, increase flood risks, and undermine the walkability of towns.³¹ The bigger issue, though, is that parking competes directly with land for other uses, such as businesses and housing, thereby raising development costs and reducing density.³²

These parking spaces also come at a significant cost. When it comes to apartment buildings, fulfilling the amount of required parking can add roughly $50,000 to $100,000 per unit.³³ These costs then get passed on to renters: bundled garage parking increases rent by approximately 17 percent.³⁴ In both residential and commercial settings, parking requirements often require developers to provide more parking than the market demands.³⁵ Thus, constructing new buildings makes less financial sense when local laws require a vast amount of parking, which further raises the price of rent.³⁶ Minimum parking requirements require more parking than the market demands. The result is less housing, more expensive development, and empty asphalt that sits in the middle of American cities.³⁷

In response, some cities have removed parking requirements in certain regions.³⁸ As of March 2026, 2,941 jurisdictions across the United States have adopted some form of parking minimum reform, with 112 eliminating minimums entirely.³⁹ Cities like Cincinnati, Ohio, have passed zoning reforms eliminating parking requirements in transit corridors.⁴⁰ California’s local parking reforms, which tied reductions in parking requirements to proximity to transit, became an early blueprint for legislators who pursued statewide parking preemption.⁴¹

C. State Legislation in California and Illinois

In 2022, California enacted Assembly Bill 2097 (the California Act), prohibiting public agencies from imposing parking requirements on any development project that is located within a half-mile of any planned or existing major transit stop, which is defined as a rail or bus rapid transit station, ferry terminal, or intersection of two or more high frequency bus routes.⁴² However, the California Act carves out an exception for public agencies that establish written findings that an inability to impose parking requirements will have a substantially negative impact on certain types of affordable housing.⁴³

In 2025, Illinois enacted Senate Bill 2111 (the Illinois Act), establishing the Northern Illinois Transit Authority to oversee the Chicago region’s public transit agencies and providing $1.5 billion in annual funding to state transit systems.⁴⁴ Within the Illinois Act was a provision entitled the “People Over Parking Act,” which eliminated minimum parking requirements for new developments within a half-mile of train or major bus stations, or within one-eighth mile of a transit corridor.⁴⁵ The Illinois Act also explicitly preempted all local governments from imposing such requirements, including municipalities with home-rule authority.⁴⁶ By instituting these laws, California and Illinois set sweeping legislation that impacts municipalities across the state, regardless of whether those local governments have already engaged in parking reforms.

III. Discussion

The California Act and the Illinois Act limit local autonomy, but these developments at the state level can benefit cities in achieving parking reform, especially when the enacting legislation is clear and direct. Section A will explain how state legislation forbidding local minimum parking requirements are a positive development for cities, and Section B will explain why the Illinois Act may be more effective in reversing the harms of these local laws.

A. State Laws Preempting Minimum Parking Requirements Can Benefit Cities

Historically, local governments have regulated land-use, and there are legitimate reasons for that. In some cases, state or federal intervention in local affairs can do more harm than good for the local community.⁴⁷ However, in the case of parking minimum laws, state preemption laws may benefit communities and present opportunities to address housing shortages in both urban and suburban areas.⁴⁸

State governments are in an ideal position to implement parking reforms, largely because their jurisdiction is much broader than that of local governments and much more powerful than that of regional planning commissions. While municipalities must internalize the negative consequences of their decisions and may face resistance from local residents and businesses, states can intervene and impose sweeping regulations that bind all stakeholders.⁴⁹ Parking requirements are built into modern cities, and because local opposition to parking reforms that restrict free parking may have short-term economic consequences, state governments are more insulated from small-scale opposition to such reforms.

Further, states can address regions that extend beyond municipal boundaries. In the case of transit corridors, bus and train routes often reach beyond the central city and help to connect municipalities on the outer ring. State governments are better positioned to address minimum parking requirements along those corridors, even if they lie outside of an urban core.

However, a successful state preemption law requires that municipalities not be entirely opposed to the plan.⁵⁰ State laws preempting minimum parking requirements that specifically target transit corridors are subject to municipalities finding and utilizing “escape hatches”.⁵¹ Researchers at UCLA have found that when a state law, such as the California Act, is vague and broad in its scope, municipalities may exploit those ambiguities to continue imposing parking requirements, while others may simply flout the law’s provisions. An ideal case scenario was identified in which some cities used the state law as a springboard to adopt parking reforms that go beyond the letter of the law.⁵² For example, after the California Act was passed, cities like Culver City, Mountain View, Sacramento, and San Jose further eliminated parking requirements past the state law’s ban on them within a half-mile of public transit.⁵³

B. The Illinois Act More Effectively Models Legislation Preempting Local Parking Requirements

Compared to the California Act, the Illinois Act may be more effective at reversing local parking requirements. The California Act’s many exceptions to its rule give municipalities not only an incentive to justify parking requirements but also present an opportunity to evade the law altogether when such justification is lacking.⁵⁴

The Illinois Act, in contrast, is extremely simple in its function. It provides only one exception, which applies when a developer voluntarily provides parking.⁵⁵ The Illinois Act’s definitions of “public transportation corridors” and “public transportation hubs” may fall into the same vagueness traps that the researchers at UCLA found in California.⁵⁶ However, given that Chicagoland’s commuter rail system includes nearly 243 stations,⁵⁷ many areas in the region are directly impacted by the Illinois Act. Further, the Illinois Act does not provide the workarounds that the California Act does,⁵⁸ as the only excused projects from the Illinois Act are hotels and other transient lodging.⁵⁹

In this way, Illinois provides a model for how state preemption legislation in land-use can be successful. The Illinois Act identifies specific points of interest, such as rail transit stations, where state legislation may be necessary to improve housing and transportation outcomes. State legislation that is too broad or too vague risks noncompliance from municipalities that oppose parking reform and from those who believe the legislation strays too far into an area historically governed by local governments.

Future legislation should model the Illinois Act and target specific areas where parking requirements severely hamper walkability and the development of affordable housing. While both state laws target major public transportation corridors, the harms these requirements have caused over the past century are not directly linked to public transportation, contrary to what the Illinois and California Acts would suggest. Cities with minimal or no public transportation are not affected by either law and are thus not encouraged to create more livable communities or undo the effects of the parking requirements by creating more housing. States across the country may determine that similar legislation to the Illinois Act can apply with equal force to urban areas near public parks or employment centers. These states must avoid falling into the trap of creating exceptions that not only allow municipalities to evade enforcement of the law but also dilute its purpose.

IV. Conclusion

The two state laws in California and Illinois represent a meaningful step forward for reversing the harmful effects of minimum parking requirements. Creating more livable and affordable areas is a goal that both states and municipalities should share, but decision-makers across the country remain divided on whether eliminating parking requirements is the way to accomplish that goal.⁶⁰ For now, state legislation like the Illinois Act is best used as a tool for local governments to springboard and encourage changes to their zoning codes to remove parking requirements in other contexts.

Cover Photo by Kindel Media on Pexels

Andrew Pyles

References

1
The Basics of Land Use and Zoning Law, Tulane Law: Blog (Aug. 26, 2021) https://online.law.tulane.edu/blog/land-use-and-zoning-law [https://perma.cc/52MY-42EG].
2
See Angie Schmitt, Visualising America’s Absurd Parking Requirements, StreetsBlog USA (May 22, 2023) https://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/05/22/americas-absurdis-parking-policies-visualized [https://perma.cc/T28P-XYKD].
3
Nathaniel Meyersohn, This Little-Known Rule Shapes Parking in America. Cities are Reversing it, CNN (May 21, 2023) https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/20/business/parking-minimums-cars-transportation-urban-planning [https://perma.cc/2R3B-HGK4].
4
Marie Patino, MapLab: How Much Space Does Your City Dedicate to Parking? Bloomberg (Mar. 29, 2023) https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2023-03-29/maplab-parking-occupies-vast-swaths-of-space-in-city-centers [https://perma.cc/8S4G-ADZ6].
5
Makinizi Hoover, The State of Housing in America, U.S. Chamber of Com. (Mar. 3, 2026) https://www.uschamber.com/economy/the-state-of-housing-in-america [https://perma.cc/983T-T6DL].
6
Ryan Martyn, Wasted Space: Using Parking Lots & Vacant Land to Improve Neighborhood Completeness, Hatfield Graduate J. Pub. Aff., June 12, 2024, at 1 (“In cities and districts that have removed parking requirements, parking lots and vacant land become resources for infill development that can help create the right balance on density, land use[,] and infrastructure necessary to improve neighborhood completeness throughout the city.)
7
Catie Gould, Why Communities Are Eliminating Off-Street Parking Requirements—and What Comes Next, Lincoln Inst. Land. Pol. (Oct. 12, 2022) https://www.lincolninst.edu/publications/articles/2022-10-shifting-gears-eliminating-off-street-parking-requirements[https://perma.cc/L5KP-V5VQ].
8
Donald C. Shoup, The High Cost of Free Parking 2 (Am. Plan. Ass’n 2005).
9
Elements of a Zoning Ordinance, U. Wis. Madison Div. Ext.: Land Use Training & Resources, https://fyi.extension.wisc.edu/landusetraining/elements-of-a-zoning-ordinance [https://perma.cc/7Q7T-WRLR] (last visited Mar. 26, 2026); see also Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 392, 394 (1926).
10
Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. at 392, 394.
11
Id.
12
E.g. Mokena, Ill., Code of Ordinances § 9-16A-2 (Am. Legal Publ’g, through Ord. 2025-O-026)(The duty to provide and maintain off street parking shall be the joint and shared responsibility of the operator and/or owner of the use and/or land for which off street parking is required to be provided and maintained.”); The Code of Ordinances proceeds to provide specific requirements for different uses such as single-family residential and outdoor recreational facilities. Id. § 9-16A-7.
13
Elements of a Zoning Ordinance, supra note 9; see also Ambler Realty, 272 U.S. at 394.
14
Shoup, supra note 8, at 8.
15
Martha C. White, What Happens When There Are Fewer Spaces to Park?, N.Y Times (Jan. 12, 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/12/business/city-parking-rules.html [https://perma.cc/HH6A-XER2]; see also Shoup, supra note 8, at 76 (Donald Shoup, in his book The High Cost of Free Parking, notes that cities require parking for at least 662 different land uses, including junkyards, horse stables, and gas storage plants).
16
See Lucas Melo, Land Use Regulations: Racial Oppression by Another Name, The Morningside Rev. (Nov. 3, 2020), https://journals.library.columbia.edu/index.php/TMR/article/view/1143 [https://perma.cc/K938-ZHH6].
17
See infra, Section B.
18
Jesse J. Richardson, Jr., The Law Behind Planning and Zoning, Purdue Agric. Econ. Rep., Dec. 2009, at 9.
19
U.S. Const. amend. X; United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 567 (1995) (recognizing that states retain a general police power).
20
Richardson, Jr., supra note 18.
21
Id. at 9-10.
22
Id. at 9.
23
David J. Toscano, State Preemption and the Fracturing of America, Harv. Adv. Leadership Initiative Soc. Impact Rev. (Nov. 8, 2022), https://www.sir.advancedleadership.harvard.edu/articles/state-preemption-and-the-fracturing-of-america [https://perma.cc/L2CX-SXNT].
24
Kenneth Alan Stahl, Home Rule and State Preemption of Local Land Use Control, A.B.A.: Urb. Law., https://www.americanbar.org/groups/state_local_government/resources/urban-lawyer/50-2/home-rule-state-preemption-local-land-use-control [https://perma.cc/29GF-69FL].
25
Id. (arguing that home rule municipalities are not immunized from state preemption of local land-use laws because land-use involves statewide interests).
26
Toscano, supra note 23. (For example, David Toscano notes that state statutes have invalidated, for example, local minimum wage laws, and preempted localities from regulating the use of plastic bags.).
27
City and Suburb: Chicago and Park Forest, Illinois, 1950s, Nat’l Museum Am. Hist.,https://americanhistory.si.edu/explore/exhibitions/america-on-the-move/online/city-and-suburb [https://perma.cc/D5PY-NUPN] (last visited Mar. 26, 2026).
28
Id.
29
How Big are Big-Box Stores? Inst. Loc. Self-Reliance (Dec. 23, 2008) https://ilsr.org/article/independent-business/how-big-are-bigbox-stores/ [https://perma.cc/ST6Z-GN5U] (detailing the size of large big-box stores called “Supercenters” that range from 180,000 to 250,000 square feet and the size of the parking lots that extend to “several times the size of the store itself”).
30
Developments in the Law–State Preemption of Local Zoning Laws as Intersectional Climate Policy, 135 Harv. L. Rev. 1592, 1592 (2022).
31
Ellen Schwartz, Michael Manville & Adam Millard-Ball, Impacts of Minimum Parking Requirements: A Research Synthesis, UCLA Inst. Tranp. Stud. 10 (Feb. 27, 2026).
32
Id.; Amy Lee, Adam Millard-Ball & Michael Manville, State Preemption in Theory and Practice: The Case of Parking Requirements, Urb. Aff. Rev., Oct. 17, 2025.
33
Ellen Schwartz, No Such Thing as Free Parking: Construction Costs in 17 U.S. States, UCLA Inst. Tranp. Stud. 10 (Feb. 11, 2026).
34
C.J. Gabbe & Gregory Pierce, Hidden Costs and Deadweight Losses: Bundled Parking and Residential Rents in the Metropolitan United States. Santa Clara Univ. Scholar Commons 18, (Aug. 8, 2016).
35
Schwartz, supra note 33 at 24.
36
Id.
37
Steve Swedberg, End Minimum Parking Requirements and Let the Housing Market Drive, Competitive Enterprise Inst.: Blog (Mar. 24, 2026), https://cei.org/blog/end-minimum-parking-requirements-and-let-the-housing-market-drive/, [https://perma.cc/7XKZ-5N6H]. This article expands on the impacts of parking requirements of housing policy and argues that parking requirements encourage “supersized parking” when, in many cities, there is an undersized market demand for those spaces. Id.
38
Id.
39
Parking Reform Map, Parking Reform Network (Mar. 7, 2026), https://parkingreform.org/resources/mandates-map [https://perma.cc/86H4-LE44].
40
See, e.g. Cincinnati, OH, Municipal Code § 1407-04(c)(3) (2026).
41
Lee, Manville & Millard-Ball, supra note 32.
42
Id.; Cal. Gov’t Code § 65863.2 (West, Westlaw through Ch. 7 of 2026 Reg. Sess.); Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21155 (West, Westlaw through Ch. 7 of 2026 Reg. Sess.); Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21064.3 (West, Westlaw through Ch. 7 of 2026 Reg. Sess.).
43
Cal. Gov’t Code § 65863.2(b) (West, Westlaw through Ch. 7 of 2026 Reg.Sess.).
44
Press Release, Office of the Governor JB Pritzker, Fact Sheet: Northern Illinois Transit Authority Act (SB 2111) (Dec. 16, 2025), https://gov-pritzker-newsroom.prezly.com/fact-sheet-northern-illinois-transit-authority-act-sb-2111 [https://perma.cc/5ZG3-VPT5].
45
Sophie Baker, Statewide Parking Reform Sparks Mixed Reactions, Daily Nw. (Jan. 14, 2026) https://dailynorthwestern.com/2026/01/14/city/statewide-parking-reform-sparks-mixed-reactions/ [https://perma.cc/KY7L-J3JM].
46
50 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann.845/5-90 (West, Westlaw through P.A. 104-460 of the 2026 Reg. Sess.).
47
See Andrew Pyles, Blog, Federal Preemption of Local Laws: Implications of the Small Business Administration’s Interim Final Rule on Disaster Relief, U. Cin. L. Rev., (Mar. 6, 2026), https://uclawreview.org/2026/03/06/federal-preemption-of-local-laws-implications-of-the-small-business-administrations-interim-final-rule-on-disaster-relief/ [https://perma.cc/2J5N-XGNH].
48
See Lee, Manville & Millard-Ball, supra note 32 (“The city’s incremental changes… gave the City Council and the community an opportunity to see new development and enjoy amenities that were possible because of low and eliminated parking requirements”) (emphasis in original).
49
Developments in the Law–State Preemption of Local Zoning Laws as Intersectional Climate Policy, supra note 30.
50
Lee, Manville & Millard-Ball, supra note 32
51
Id.
52
Id.
53
Lee, Manville & Millard-Ball, supra note 32.
54
Lee, Manville & Millard-Ball, supra note 32 (“local actions and developers’ intentions are hard to monitor, and identifying a locality’s compliance with a preemption law becomes especially difficult when the law has provisions that let localities plausibly (and in some cases, legally) ignore it.”).
55
50 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 845/5-15 (West, Westlaw through P.A. 104-460 of the 2026 Reg. Sess.).
56
Lee, Manville & Millard-Ball, supra note 32.
57
Metra, About Metra, https://www.metra.com/about-metra [https://perma.cc/D3TZ-QEWE] (last visited Mar. 26, 2026).
58
See Cal. Gov’t Code § 65863.2(b) (West, Westlaw through Ch. 7 of 2026 Reg. Sess.);.
59
50 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 845/5-5 (West, Westlaw through P.A. 104-460 of the 2026 Reg. Sess.)..
60
Lee, Manville & Millard-Ball, supra note 32 (“ Still other cities disagreed with reducing parking requirements, believing that the city needs to require off-street parking because residents ‘need cars.’”).