Pennsylvania bill targets local curbs on shared housing

A group of Pennsylvania lawmakers wants to scrap local limits on shared living in a move that could reopen the door to boarding houses, single-room occupancy buildings, and other shared housing statewide.​

House Bill 2109 – with support from seven state legislators signing on sponsor a committee vote – would bar municipalities from using zoning or housing codes to limit the number of unrelated people who can share a home. Lifting the limits could let cities revive a housing type that zoning had largely pushed out of existence.​

The debate lands as housing affordability remains a national problem and as cities revisit forms of shelter that zoning made taboo. If it passes, the Keystone State would join Iowa, Colorado, Oregon and Washington in pre-empting local occupancy limits.​

Oregon and Washington went further by explicitly legalizing SRO housing.​

Public interest organization Institute for Justice is lobbying states to adopt a model bill based on Washington’s 2024 SRO zoning law. Called the Restoring Options in Occupancy Models Act, the proposal would legalize single-room occupancy housing statewide.​

It would also allow new construction and conversions and remove local restrictions that block such projects.​

Pennsylvania’s shifting rules on shared housing

The legislation has been dubbed the “The Golden Girls” bill after the hit 1980s television show with four senior women living together and sharing expenses.​

“The effect of this legislation will expand housing options, help people afford to stay in their communities, and modernize housing policies,” Philadelphia State Rep. Tarik Khan, the bill’s chief sponsor, wrote in a memo with the bill.​

HB 2109’s supporters describe local “unrelated persons” caps as lifestyle policing rather than safety regulation. They argue such rules unfairly target students, low-income renters and people who cannot afford full apartments.​

The proposal keeps building, fire and property-maintenance codes in place but removes local power to criminalize certain household compositions. That change could normalize group living, rooming houses and co-living models that function much like modern boarding houses.​

Many local governments still view boarding-house-style uses with suspicion. Cities have tightened rules on halfway houses, rooming houses and group homes, citing overcrowding, nuisance calls and concentrated impacts on older neighborhoods.​

Zoning codes often define sharp distinctions between single-family dwellings and homes where unrelated adults rent bedrooms. The buildings may look identical, yet only one arrangement enjoys full legal protection.​

The SRO model returns to policy debates

Across the country, cities have begun to reconsider SROs and shared housing that planners of yore worked to eliminate. For decades, SROs offered tiny rooms with shared kitchens or baths for single workers, new arrivals and people on the brink of homelessness.​

Aggressive code changes and urban renewal eliminated many of those buildings, especially in downtown areas. Reformers now argue that SRO-style housing may be the fastest way to add low-cost units.​

Advocates say SROs can emerge through hotel conversions, micro-unit projects or regulated rooming houses near transit. These options often deliver lower per-person costs than conventional apartments and place residents closer to jobs.​

National organizations are tracking a wave of state and local reforms that legitimize small, shared units. Many of those measures treat congregate layouts as regular housing, not emergency shelter or a land use of last resort.​

Analysts counted scores of pro-housing laws in 2025, including accessory dwelling unit legalization and reduced lot-size requirements. Several packages also loosened outright bans on shared or congregate housing that effectively blocked SRO-like projects.​

Business groups increasingly frame these changes as economic necessities and social policy. Employers need nearby workers, and workers need modest homes they can actually afford.​

Philadelphia’s overlay fight

Philadelphia shows how broad arguments about shared housing crash into neighborhood politics. A proposed rezoning for the Northeast Overlay District would explicitly prohibit SRO development across a large swath of the city.​

The proposal arrives just as interest grows in SROs as an affordability strategy. Critics warn that the overlay would remove a potential pipeline of small, low-rent units in politically influential neighborhoods.​

Supporters of the overlay cite parking, crowding, and concerns about crime or disorder. Their concerns echo mid-century campaigns that pushed SROs out of downtowns and transit corridors.​

Opponents say the overlay policy conflicts with City Hall’s messaging about missing-middle housing and homelessness. They argue it blocks one of the few realistic ways to add cheap units quickly in older commercial and multifamily areas.​

Old fears meet new housing math

The broader question is whether policymakers will accept SRO-style housing as a permanent, regulated housing type. Many reforms, including HB 2109, aim to normalize shared occupancy in ordinary houses by removing rules that single out unrelated tenants.​

Other states focus on legalizing small rooms and congregate layouts in multifamily zones where infrastructure already exists. Both approaches place SRO-style housing inside the formal housing system rather than at the margins.​

On the other side are neighborhood overlays and spacing rules that strictly control where SROs and group homes may locate. Those tools keep such uses sparse and often cluster them in areas with the least political leverage.​

Pennsylvania now sits at the center of that tension. State lawmakers question whether municipalities should decide who counts as a household, while cities like Philadelphia explore new ways to keep SROs out of specific districts.​

If the state curbs municipal authority over occupancy limits but local zoning maps harden against boarding-house-style projects, access will likely remain uneven. Some communities could see legal, regulated shared housing, while others rely on improvised or underground arrangements.​

How those conflicts are resolved will shape whether SROs return as a mainstream affordability tool or remain symbolic. The outcome will signal how far shared housing reforms can go when neighborhood resistance remains strong.