Why Income-Based Housing Assistance Loses with Land-Use Restrictions

Executive Summary

Housing affordability debates often shift from land-use policy to subsidy mechanisms, particularly when constraints on buildable land are politically difficult to address. This case study examines whether income-based housing assistance—including rent subsidies, tax incentives, and deed or occupancy covenants—can meaningfully reduce housing costs when land scarcity remains unchanged.

Peer-reviewed research synthesized through Consensus shows that land-use restrictions inflate land values and embed higher costs into every unit built. In such conditions, subsidies can help individual households but do not reliably reduce system-wide housing costs, as elevated land prices and constrained supply absorb much of the benefit.

Income-based eligibility and covenants are already normalized in U.S. housing policy, including rental assistance, tax incentives, and age-restricted (55+) communities. The constraint examined here is not legality, but effectiveness under scarcity.

Problem Statement

A recurring claim in housing debates is that affordability can be achieved primarily through subsidies—even when land-use constraints remain in place. This case study asks:

Can income-based housing assistance meaningfully solve affordability problems in markets where regulatory limits inflate the starting price of land and housing?

Evidence Reviewed

1. Housing Is Already Subsidized by Income
   Housing outcomes are already shaped by income-tested rental assistance, tax-based ownership subsidies, and other public interventions. Income-based eligibility is a standard feature of housing policy.
2. Land-Use Restrictions Create Scarcity
   Restrictive land-use policies limit developable land, raise land values, and reduce supply responsiveness, increasing housing prices system-wide.
3. The Cost-Ratchet Mechanism
   When regulation artificially makes buildable land scarce, the land's starting price is already inflated. Every unit built on that land inherits that higher cost. As these restrictions persist across development cycles, prices ratchet upward, resetting markets at progressively higher levels.
4. Why Subsidies Don’t Lower System-Wide Costs
   In land-constrained markets, subsidies are often capitalized into land prices or absorbed by regulatory and compliance costs. They improve affordability for recipients but do not reduce overall housing costs.
5. Covenants and Eligibility Rules Are Established Practice
   Income-based covenants and age-restricted (55+) communities demonstrate that eligibility-based housing rules are well-established. The policy limitation is effectiveness, not legality.

Conclusion

The evidence supports a clear conclusion: income-based housing assistance—whether delivered through subsidies, tax benefits, or covenants—cannot resolve affordability challenges created by land-use restrictions.

When land is scarce by policy design, subsidies operate downstream of inflated land values and constrained supply. They may allocate affordability among households, but they do not reduce system-wide housing costs.

Affordability problems created by scarcity cannot be solved by subsidizing around them.

References

Glaeser, E. L., Gyourko, J., & Saks, R. E. (2005). Why is Manhattan so expensive? Regulation and the rise in housing prices. Journal of Law and Economics, 48(2), 331–369.

Gyourko, J., & Molloy, R. (2015). Regulation and housing supply. In Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics (Vol. 5, pp. 1289–1337). Elsevier.

Hsieh, C. T., & Moretti, E. (2019). Housing constraints and spatial misallocation. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, 11(2), 1–39.

Quigley, J. M., & Raphael, S. (2005). Regulation and the high cost of housing in California. American Economic Review Papers & Proceedings, 95(2), 323–328.

OECD. (2021). Brick by brick: Building better housing policies.

Braakmann, N., & McDonald, S. (2020). Housing subsidies and property prices: Evidence from England. Regional Science and Urban Economics.

Büchler, S., & Lutz, E. (2024). Making housing affordable? The local effects of relaxing land-use regulation. Journal of Urban Economics.

Cheung, K., Monkkonen, P., & Yiu, C. (2023). The heterogeneous impacts of widespread upzoning: Lessons from Auckland, New Zealand. Urban Studies.

Corinth, K., & Irvine, A. (2023). The effect of relaxing local housing market regulations on federal rental assistance programs. Journal of Urban Economics.

Lens, M. (2022). Zoning, land use, and the reproduction of urban inequality. Annual Review of Sociology.

Manville, M., Lens, M., & Monkkonen, P. (2020). Zoning and affordability. Urban Studies.

Reina, V., O’Regan, K., Jang-Trettien, C., & Kurban, H. (2025). Expanding access to rental assistance. Housing Policy Debate.

ViforJ, R., Pawson, H., Singh, R., & Martin, C. (2022). Analysing the effectiveness of demand-side rental subsidies. International Journal of Housing Policy.

Wijburg, G. (2022). Tax-incentivized housing production and the affordability crisis. Housing Studies.

Consensus Research Synthesis. Land-use restrictions, subsidies, and housing affordability (AI-assisted synthesis of peer-reviewed literature).