Zoning Myths and Shared Housing: A Legal Deep Dive
Coverage of lessw-blog
In a recent analysis published on LessWrong, the author challenges prevailing assumptions regarding the legality of shared housing arrangements and occupancy limits for unrelated persons.
In a recent post, lessw-blog (LessWrong) explores the complex and often misunderstood legal frameworks governing shared housing. The article, titled "Shared Houses Illegal?", investigates the validity of common zoning restrictions that purportedly limit the number of unrelated individuals who can cohabitate in a single dwelling.
The Context: Housing Scarcity and Zoning Legends
As housing costs rise and loneliness becomes a recognized public health concern, alternative living arrangements such as coliving and large shared households have gained popularity. However, these arrangements frequently collide with local zoning ordinances-or at least, the popular interpretation of them. A pervasive urban legend in many college towns and cities suggests that more than a certain number of unrelated people living together constitutes a "boarding house" or violates "brothel laws." These beliefs often discourage the formation of community houses and limit affordable housing options.
The Gist: Challenging Institutional Interpretations
The LessWrong post focuses specifically on claims made by Tufts University regarding off-campus housing in Medford, Somerville, and Boston. The university reportedly advises students that living with more than three unrelated people is illegal. The author performs a statutory analysis of the Medford zoning code to test this assertion.
The investigation reveals a critical distinction between a "lodger" and a "household." While the code places strict limits on lodgers (individuals renting a room without being part of the core household unit), it defines a "household" broadly as a single economic unit. Crucially, the author notes that Medford's code does not explicitly define "family." This omission suggests that a group of unrelated people sharing meals, expenses, and domestic life may legally constitute a single household, rather than a collection of lodgers. Consequently, the strict occupancy caps cited by institutions may be based on conservative interpretations or misapplications of boarding house regulations rather than the actual definition of a residential household.
Why This Matters
This analysis highlights a significant gap between the letter of the law and its enforcement or public perception. If zoning codes in jurisdictions like Medford are more permissive than assumed, it opens pathways for legal shared housing that includes families living with housemates or large groups of friends. It suggests that the barrier to density is often not the law itself, but a lack of legal challenges to established bureaucratic norms.
We recommend reading the full post for a detailed breakdown of the specific legal clauses and the author's methodology in deconstructing these zoning myths.
Read the full post on LessWrong
Key Takeaways
- Tufts University's claims regarding occupancy limits for unrelated persons in Medford may be legally incorrect.
- The Medford zoning code defines 'household' broadly but lacks a restrictive definition for 'family,' potentially allowing for larger unrelated groups.
- There is a critical legal distinction between 'lodgers' (paying guests) and members of a 'household' (a shared economic unit).
- Commonly cited zoning restrictions are often more flexible than university guidelines or public perception suggest.