After pushback, New Hampshire course-corrects pro-housing laws

Last year, New Hampshire lawmakers jumped on the bandwagon of state legislatures targeting a worsening housing shortage by mandating that local governments permit multifamily housing in commercially zoned areas.

The effort sought to boost housing supply and improve affordability by stripping away local zoning authority.

Local governments, true to the state’s “live free or die” motto, didn’t give up the fight.

This year, lawmakers introduced a bill to repeal the year-old mandate outright. Cooler heads prevailed in the House, where a committee rewrote the bill into targeted fixes. They aimed to mollify municipal critics without gutting the underlying reform.

House Bill 1010 passed the full House in February after lawmakers amended it. The New Hampshire Senate Commerce Committee followed suit on April 30. The bill now awaits a full Senate vote.

It is one of several 2026 bills aimed at refining New Hampshire’s wave of pro-housing legislation. Lawmakers in Concord are also considering changes to accessory dwelling unit rules and parking requirements.

New Hampshire’s case syncs with a pattern playing out across the country. State legislatures enact sweeping housing preemption laws to override local zoning, only to return the following session to patch gaps that municipalities exploit or challenge. The cycle of legislate-then-revise has become a defining feature of the national pro-housing movement, as local governments push back against what they call an erosion of their authority.

In Florida, lawmakers have amended the Live Local Act three times since its 2023 passage, each time tightening language that local governments had exploited to delay or block projects. In Connecticut, a governor vetoed his own administration’s housing reform bill after suburban officials mounted opposition, and then signed a compromise into law. The lesson from statehouse to statehouse is the same — passing the law is the easy part.

Resistance from below

New Hampshire, like much of the country, faces a housing shortage that has pushed rents and home prices out of reach for many residents. Last year’s legislation aimed for a practical solution. It sought to convert dying malls and vacant office space into apartments, allowing developers to build by-right without seeking local approval.

Supporters called it a practical tool for targeting underused commercial corridors. Critics, including the New Hampshire Municipal Association, argue the law moved too fast and left local governments exposed to litigation over vague definitions and infrastructure gaps.

“Top-down mandates without local buy-in often face sustained resistance, lawsuits, and workarounds that can undermine their intent,” the NHMA noted in a January paper on the law. “Building broader coalitions around comprehensive housing strategies fosters more durable and sustainable change.”

New Hampshire is not a home rule state. Whatever local zoning authority municipalities have is granted by state lawmakers. Under the Dillon Rule, what is given can be taken.

The NHMA frequently cites a quote from a senator who opposed last year’s legislation.

“We gave these towns permission to set zoning,” the senator said. “And now, like Lucy with the football, we’re trying to take it back.”

Fixing definitions of multifamily housing

The original law did not adequately define “multifamily residential development” or account for whether existing infrastructure could support new density, according to the NHMA. The amended bill adds infrastructure review requirements and tightens definitions.

It also changes the term “multi-family residential development” to the more widely used “multi-family dwelling,” aligning the statute with standard zoning terminology.

The NHMA supports HB 1010 as amended, describing it as making “significant positive updates” that will “clarify the statute and head off potential litigation.”

Housing Action NH initially flagged the bill as a threat, saying a full repeal would eliminate the ability to build multifamily housing in commercial zones. It shifted to a neutral position in February after the amended version gained traction. The group noted in a newsletter that the “amendment makes technical changes to clarify implementation standards without undermining” the current law.