By Alex Lawson

The City of Syracuse’s decision to discriminate between tenants and homeowners in its zoning code has created an extremely strange problem: physically identical residential buildings maybe be considered different uses—and therefore be subject to different zoning regulations—according to the history of their ownership and renovation, and depending on the economic class of their occupants. Our previous post outlined several instances of this issue at a high level, but this post will dig into the details of how City Hall’s new zoning scheme yields such strange outcomes in the case of 1- and 2-unit dwellings.

As ReZone was originally written and passed in 2023, 1-unit dwellings and 2-unit dwellings were listed as two different zoning ‘uses.’ ‘Uses’ are categories to which zoning regulations apply. Saying that something is a 2-unit dwelling means that it is subject to certain dimensional standards, parking regulations, and is allowed to operate in certain zoning districts that are the same for all other 2-unit dwellings.

In 2024, City Hall amended the zoning code to add the additional zoning uses:

– 1- and 2-unit dwelling, not owner occupied
– 1- and 2-unit dwelling, commercial conversion

In 2025, City Hall split those uses into four new uses:

– 1-unit dwelling, not owner occupied
– 2-unit dwelling, not owner occupied
– 1-unit dwelling, commercial conversion
– 2-unit dwelling, commercial conversion

Under the City of Syracuse’s current zoning code, 1- and 2-unit dwellings in Syracuse are sorted into 6 separate uses for the purpose of applying zoning regulations:

– 1-unit dwelling
– 1-unit dwelling, not owner occupied
– 1-unit dwelling, commercial conversation
– 2-unit dwelling
– 2-unit dwelling, not owner occupied
– 2-unit dwelling, commercial conversion

(The City of Syracuse Zoning code further distinguishes detached and attached owner-occupied 1-unit dwellings as separate uses. It does not make the same distinction among rented 1-unit dwellings which introduces additional administrative problems).

The split between 1- and 2-unit dwellings is obvious—simply count the number of units in a building. This is a long-established distinction and is common to zoning codes across New York State.

The difference between ‘normal’ 1- and 2-unit dwellings and the four new use categories has to do with whether the occupants of the dwelling own or rent it. ‘Normal’ 1- and 2-unit dwellings are those that are owner-occupied while any rented 1- or 2-unit dwelling is either ‘not owner-occupied’ or a ‘commercial conversion.’ This is extremely uncommon in modern zoning, and there does not appear to be any other municipality in New York State that distinguishes between rented and owner-occupied dwellings as a matter of zoning.

The code makes the additional distinction between rented dwellings that have not been physically modified to increase the total number of bedrooms in the unit and those which have. The former are classed as either 1- or 2-unit dwellings, not owner occupied while the latter are 1- or 2-unit dwellings, commercial conversion.

Changes to zoning rules for 1- and 2-unit dwellings will have a significant impact on housing in the City of Syracuse. These two types of housing account for 3 out of every 5 homes in Syracuse. Regulating these homes in a way that treats tenants differently from owner occupants is also significant. The majority of Syracuse’s residents are tenants, and 3 out of every 8 Syracuse tenants live in a 1- or 2-unit dwelling. These zoning changes affect tens of thousands of homes and families.

Here are all of the ways that this new distinction imposes different conditions on tenants than on homeowners.

District-level restrictions on Commercial Conversions

Proposed revisions to Syracuse’s zoning code would require special use permits for 1- and 2-unit commercial conversions in zoning districts MX-1 and MX-2. Commercial conversions can only be created by modifying an existing structure to increase the number of bedrooms available for rent, so this effectively requires a special use permit for certain kinds of renovation.

Special use permits require multiple public hearings and votes by both the City Planning Commission and the Common Council to be approved. Because ‘commercial conversion’ refers to the renovation of a dwelling unit to increase the number of bedrooms if and only if the dwelling is occupied by tenants, a special use permit is not required for identical renovations made by owner occupants.

The requirement for special use permits is doubly problematic in light of recent changes to the special use permit application process. As the zoning law was formerly written, special use permits ran with the land. Once one was granted, it remained in force until and unless City Hall revoked it. Under recently adopted changes, special use permits expire every 30 months. Special use permits automatically renew unless City Hall’s Department of Neighborhood and Business Development decides that it has a problem with the property in question (or unless NBD forgets to mail the renewal). This creates a situation where a tenant might be forced to vacate their home because of a paperwork mistake made by either their landlord or by City Hall.

The code also bans commercial conversions in zone MX-3 even though 1- and 2-unit dwellings—both owner occupied and tenant occupied—are allowed in that district by-right.

Additional restrictions on Commercial Conversions

In any zoning district, 1- and 2-unit commercial conversions are subject to major site plan review. This process includes review of the renovation by City Hall staff as well as a public hearing and vote by the City Planning Commission. Staff and Planning Commissioners would examine the proposed modification to the dwelling unit and review whether the proposal conforms with zoning regulations concerning the ratio of bedrooms to common space and an additional required off-street parking space for every new bedroom created by the renovation. Again, because ‘commercial conversions’ are definitionally tenant occupied, these zoning requirements do not apply to owner occupied 1- or 2-unit dwellings being modified in identical ways.

The requirements for a minimum amount of common area are “over and above” those contained in the NYS Property Maintenance Code. These additional interior dimensional requirements only apply to renovations made to rented housing and not to owner occupied housing that is modified in exactly the same way.

The additional parking requirements also only apply to tenant occupied housing, despite the fact that, in Syracuse, tenants are less likely than homeowners to own cars. 38% of renting households do not own a car compared to just 6% of homeowning households. 11% of homeowning households own 3 or more vehicles compared to just 3% of renting households. It is nonsensical to adopt a policy that imposes additional offstreet parking requirements on tenants because they are tenants.

Requiring additional off-street parking spaces for dwellings occupied by tenants but not for physically identical dwellings occupied by homeowners is based on a discriminatory assumption concerning family makeup. City Hall believes these offstreet parking spaces are necessary because tenant households are made up of multiple adults who all drive whereas homeowning households are made up of adults and non-driving children. This gross oversimplification ignores the obvious fact that many children in homeowning households become car drivers themselves before moving out and that many large nuclear families with children rent their housing.

Nonconformities

The zoning code includes a section on ‘nonconformities’ that regulates how the code applies to preexisting structures and uses that do not meet the current code’s standards. ‘Nonconformities’ are generally allowed to persist but are subject to restrictions on their maintenance and expansion. These regulations are exceedingly important as the current code considers most of Syracuse’s prewar neighborhoods nonconforming.

Regulations for nonconformities privilege owner occupied housing over tenant occupied housing, further entrenching the code’s discrimination against tenants. One extremely common nonconformity is a 2-unit dwelling sitting on a lot zoned R1. There are more than 1,500 of these structures in Syracuse—many were built as 2-family houses in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and were only problematized by modern exclusionary zoning.

Syracuse’s current zoning code accommodates these houses under a set of provisions for “Two-Story Single-Unit Dwellings Converted to Use as a Two-Unit Dwelling.” (Despite the name, these provisions also apply to purpose-built 2-unit houses). The code allows these structures to operate as legal conformities (and are thus exempt from the restrictions imposed on nonconformities) if and only if they are owner occupied. Tenant-occupied 2-unit dwellings in R1 districts remain nonconformities subject to all attendant restrictions. Owner occupants would not be allowed to sell their 2-unit dwellings to a landlord or rent out both units to tenants as that would constitute a change from a conforming to a nonconforming use.

The code also allows the construction of 1-unit dwellings on newly created nonconforming lots in any zoning district that otherwise allows 1-unit dwellings. The code does not allow the construction of 1-unit, non-owner occupied or 1-unit, commercial conversion dwellings on these same lots, so any dwelling constructed under this provision could only be occupied by a homeowner—tenants would not be allowed.

---

Taken together, City Hall’s amendments to its zoning code create a system of self-contradictory zoning regulations where identical buildings occupied as dwellings may be subject to different rules depending on the specific history and economic class of the occupants of the structure. A 4-bedroom 1-unit dwelling that was originally built with 4-bedrooms would be allowed districts R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, MX1, MX2, and MX3 without any required off street parking or special use permit regardless of whether or not it was owner or tenant occupied. The same would be true of a 4-bedroom 1-unit dwelling that gained its 4th bedroom through some renovation made by an owner-occupant sometime in the past. If a landlord made the exact same renovation, however, the dwelling would be required to have an offstreet parking space, it would require a special use permit in zones MX1 and MX2, and it would not be allowed in zone MX3. Required offstreet parking spaces, special use permits, and the ban from zone MX3 would all go away if the landlord sold the property to an owner-occupant. It is not clear how City Hall would handle the situation if the owner-occupant then decided to move to another house and rented this one out.

This also creates situations where individual homes may be available to owner occupants but not tenants or vice versa. Here are circumstances where that would be true:

A 1- or 2-unit commercial conversion in zoning districts MX1 or MX2 loses its special use permit. The dwelling would then no longer be able to be rented to tenants but could only be occupied by homeowners.

A 1- or 2-unit rented dwelling in any zoning district is modified to add an additional bedroom but due to impervious coverage or other dimensional standards is unable to add newly required off street parking. The rented dwelling would then be out of compliance with the zoning code but could revert to compliance if sold to an owner occupant.

A 1- or 2-unit rented dwelling in zoning district MX3 is modified to add an additional bedroom. This makes the unit a commercial conversion, a use not allowed in that district, and it cannot be occupied by tenants but may be occupied by a homeowner.

A 2-unit dwelling in zoning district R1 is owner-occupied and thus qualifies as a legal conforming use. If the owner moved out of the structure, a tenant could not rent the vacant unit.

A 1-unit dwelling built on a newly subdivided nonconforming lot could only be occupied by a homeowner, not a tenant.

Classifying renting and owning housing as different uses also creates the possibility of banning renters or owner-occupants from entire zoning districts. The current code does not do this, but City Hall’s distinction between tenant and owner occupied housing as different zoning uses is an innovation in New York State zoning law that could be used for more overtly discriminatory purposes. In communities across New York, NIMBYs loudly campaign against multifamily housing because they do not like tenants or rental housing, and it is unfortunately easy to imagine municipalities using this new tool to ban rented single-unit housing from exclusionary neighborhoods that already ban any kind of multifamily housing.

On top of all these reasons that discriminating between tenants and owner occupants is bad policy, there’s also good reason to think it’s illegal. Despite the sustained interest from many exclusionary municipalities in excluding tenants, no other municipality in New York State has enacted Syracuse’s new scheme of discriminating against them directly. Maybe that’s because nobody has ever thought of it, but it’s more likely because discriminating against tenants contradicts the principle that “zoning is concerned with the use of land, not with the identity of the user.” Courts in North Carolina and New Jersey have already ruled that this kind of scheme violates their state constitutions. Maybe Syracuse’s new zoning code will lead the New York State Court of Appeals to do the same.

By Alex Lawson

When isn’t a house a home? When it’s occupied by renters, according to the City of Syracuse’s zoning code. In every other municipality in New York State, the single-unit houses, duplexes, townhouses, apartments, and condos where people live are considered to be ‘residential’ uses for the purposes of zoning regardless of when the families living in those housing units are tenants or owner occupants. That was true for more than 100 years in Syracuse too, but in 2024 City Hall amended its zoning code to claim that a house is only ‘residential’ if owner-occupied—all rented housing is now considered ‘residential-commercial.’

That would be a little gross but not too much of a problem if it were simply a matter of language, but City Hall’s distinction between renters and homeowners has practical implications. Read through the City of Syracuse zoning code, and you’ll find many instances where City Hall’s decision to discriminate between homeowners and tenants as a matter of zoning creates inconsistent and unfair outcomes.

Rented vs Owner-Occupied single- and two-unit dwellings

The City of Syracuse’s zoning code distinguishes physically identical residential structures as different use types based on whether or not the occupants own or rent the building. In the case of single- and two-unit dwellings, this distinction brings with it different zoning regulations, and it means that physically identical buildings could be owned but not rented depending on the size, location, and history of the structure. The distinction also creates the possibility of banning rental housing from entire zoning districts.

Owner-Occupied dwellings in multi-unit buildings.

The City of Syracuse’s zoning code does not allow owner-occupancy of dwellings in multi-unit buildings. Multi-unit dwellings are listed as a use under the Residential-Commercial use category, and that category only contains dwellings that are rented:

“Uses in this category comprise non-Owner Occupied residential occupancy of a Dwelling Unit. Tenancy is arranged on a month-to-month or longer basis and may include individually rented rooms or rental of the entire Dwelling Unit by a person or group of people for the purpose of residential occupancy.”

Owner-occupied dwellings are listed under the Residential Living use category, and there is no multi-unit use type in that category so it is not possible—as a matter of zoning—to own an individual unit within a multi-unit structure. This makes condominiums and cooperatives in buildings with more than three units—such as the condominiums above the Landmark Theater—impermissible uses in the City of Syracuse.

No owner-occupied Live/Work dwellings

For identical reasons to those described above, the City of Syracuse zoning code does not allow owner-occupancy of a Live/Work dwelling.

Missing Dimensional Requirements for new Residential-Commercial Uses

There are no lot width minimum or area minimum requirements for single-unit non-owner occupied, single-unit commercial conversion, two-unit non-owner occupied, or two-unit commercial conversion dwelling units anywhere in the ordinance as enacted.

This appears to be an oversight. When the City of Syracuse drafted the amended ordinance, they did not account for the fact that some existing dimensional requirements were use-specific and that newly created residential-commercial uses would not be subject to preexisting regulations.

Conflicting dimensional requirements for single-unit attached

The City of Syracuse zoning code was recently amended with the intention of reducing the minimum lot width required for attached single-unit dwellings in zones R1, R2, and R3 from 25’ to 20’. These lot width requirements are listed in two separate places—the subsections pertaining to each individual zone district and in the summary table of dimensional standards. The amended ordinance only changed the minimum lot width requirements for attached single-unit dwellings in the individual zone district descriptions, and it left the summary table untouched. As enacted, the code contains two different minimum lot width requirements for attached single-unit dwellings in zones R1, R2, and R3.

Renting two-unit non-owner occupied dwellings

The code does not allow the individual units in a two-unit dwelling to be rented separately unless the units have undergone ‘commercial conversion’ to add bedrooms to the original floorplan. The code’s definition of a two-unit non-owner occupied dwelling stipulates that the building must be rented in its entirety to a single tenant or tenant group:

“Dwelling, Two-Unit Non-Owner Occupied: the rental or leasing of a two unit dwelling in its entirety to a single tenant or tenant group for residential use.”

The definition of two-unit dwelling makes it clear that the term refers to the building itself and not to the individual units within it:

“Dwelling, Two-Unit: A single building containing two complete dwelling units.”

The definition of a two-unit commercial conversion is written differently and allows for the possibility that each unit might be rented separately, but even it contains language about all tenants sharing “common areas” including kitchens, living areas, bathrooms, and bedrooms that would not be shared by both units in a two-unit building.

The definition of two-unit commercial conversion also states that this use type also includes owner occupied single-unit dwellings when three or more of the bedrooms in the dwelling unit are rented separately. This is likely a typo as the exact same sentence appears in the definition of single-unit commercial conversions.

Attached/Detached distinction for Residential-Commercial Dwellings

The City of Syracuse zoning code divides owner-occupied single-unit dwellings into two different use types depending on whether the building is freestanding or attached to adjacent buildings via party walls. These two use types are referred to as attached and detached single-unit dwellings, respectively.

There is no similar distinction for rented single-unit dwellings. They are all classed as either non-owner-occupied or commercial conversion single-unit dwellings. If the distinction between attached and detached single-unit dwellings matters, then the code must make that distinction for residential-commercial use types. If the distinction does not matter, then there is no reason to make it for residential living use types.

This has practical implications. Interpreting rented single-unit dwellings to include both attached and detached buildings would mean that single-unit attached dwellings could be owned but not rented in zone districts MX4 and MX5. If, on the other hand, non-owner-occupied and commercial conversion single-unit dwellings are only detached, then it is impermissible as a matter of zoning to rent a townhouse.

Given all these problems, it’s worth asking why City Hall would choose to discriminate between renters and homeowners. The publicly stated reason is that this is necessary because they removed the old zoning code’s definition of ‘family.’ Before ReZone passed in 2023, the zoning code referred to ‘single-family’ and ‘multi-family’ dwellings, and it defined what a ‘family’ is in terms of both blood relations and household dynamics as a way to prohibit overcrowding in an individual house or apartment (no more than 1 family could live in a single-family dwelling). It was good to get rid of that definition because it’s not City Hall’s business to tell a household whether or not they’re really a family, but there was no reason to replace that bad piece of zoning with another discriminatory piece of zoning. NYS Building Codes already govern ‘overcrowding,’ and shoehorning that building code issue into the zoning code doesn’t add anything useful.

No other municipality in New York State discriminates between renters and homeowners as a matter of zoning. There is no good precedent for discriminating in this way, it doesn’t solve any problem, and it creates many new problems. City Hall should repeal the amendments that introduced this distinction to local zoning.

By Alex Lawson

One of ReZone’s most innovative changes was to make Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) legal in every residential zoning district. This (along with the legalization of townhomes) was the move that ‘ended’ exclusionary single-family zoning in Syracuse, because it meant that there were no longer any residential lots where a detached single-family house was the only type of housing allowed, and any residential lot could theoretically hold at least two housing units.

However, in the almost three years since ReZone made ADUs legal, only a handful have applied for building permits and none have actually been built. There are reasons for this beyond zoning, and the problem isn’t unique to Syracuse—plenty of places that legalized ADUs had to tweak their laws to actually get anything built—but if City Hall is actually committed to making ADUs part of the solution to our housing crisis, then the zoning code needs to change to make them easier to build.

OWNER OCCUPANCY REQUIREMENT

The biggest problem for ADUs in Syracuse is that the zoning code only allows them to be built or occupied if the owner of the property lives in either the ADU or the principal residence on the property. This kind of restriction is common in municipalities. because people don’t like rented housing, and they don’t like the idea of landlords building new rental housing in their neighborhoods.

This means that only homeowners can build ADUs, and each homeowner can only build one ADU. There are a couple of problems here. First, most homeowners aren’t developers or contractors, and they don’t have experience managing a construction project. This essentially means that only amateurs are allowed to build ADUs, so it’s not surprising that not many are getting built. 

The second issue with the owner-occupancy requirement is that it restricts financing for ADU construction. Banks aren’t keen to lend for the construction of a rental unit that they won’t be able to rent if the borrower defaults on the loan. This leaves home equity lines of credit as the only real option for financing ADU construction.

Finally, the owner-occupancy requirement makes ADUs less attractive investments for property owners themselves because the value of their investment in the property is dependent on the purchaser. A house with an ADU should be worth more than one without because it can generate rental income, but that’s only true if the property owner lives on the lot, so a bank might not recognize that additional value. This hurts resale value, and it is a disincentive for homeowners to build ADUs instead of putting their money somewhere it may get a better return, like the stock market or a kitchen remodel.

For all of these reasons, owner-occupancy requirements are widely considered to be a ‘poison pill’ for ADU laws, and experts agree that municipalities should eliminate them. In Syracuse, City hall should amend the zoning code to remove the ADU owner-occupancy requirement and allow ADUs to be built as accessories to any single-unit dwelling.

CONSISTENT RULES

Cost will always be a barrier to ADU construction, but consistent regulation can help by allowing specialization and economies of scale. When California adopted statewide design standards for ADUs, several companies responded by designing free-standing ADUs that could be mass-produced and installed in any qualifying lot in the state. Standardization and mass production offered a lower-cost option than forcing every property owner to hire an architect to create a bespoke one-off design for every ADU.

Syracuse isn’t the State of California, but the same principle can apply here: consistent rules for ADUs can allow local builders to design an ADU that can go in anybody’s backyard, and repeated construction can allow for bulk materials purchasing and specialization that can lower costs.

In order to unlock these lower costs, City Hall needs to amend its zoning ordinance to make rules for ADUs consistent between lots. One glaring issue is the new rule (adopted in 2025) that sets the maximum size of every ADU at 50% of the size of the primary dwelling. That means identical adjacent lots can have different standards for ADU design if the houses that sit on those lots are different. Another similarly problematic regulation is the one adopted in 2024 that requires detached ADUs to be decorated similarly to the primary dwelling. This, again, creates different standards for different ADUs based on the appearance of whatever house is already on the lot, and it can frustrate attempts to lower costs by streamlining ADU construction.

ALLOW ADUs ABOVE GARAGES

One of the best places to put an ADU is above a garage. This arrangement minimizes impermeable surface coverage and maximizes parking and yardspace while providing the additional privacy of a detached ADU. This arrangement is so popular that you can buy predrawn plans for garage/ADU combos on the internet.

However, several details in Syracuse’s zoning code makes this popular and practical ADU option functionally impossible to build.

The most glaring issue is the code’s 16’ height limit for accessory structures. It’s essentially impossible to build a two-story structure when the highest point of the roof cannot be more than 16’ above the ground. This plan for a garage/ADU combo, for instance, is 28’ tall.

The second problem has to do with restrictions on total square footage of all accessory structures. The zoning code limits ADUs to a maximum of 800 square feet of finished area (or 50% of the square footage of the primary dwelling, as previously discussed). That’s pretty generous, but the code also limits the total square footage of all accessory uses and structures to 1000 square feet. That means any ADU above a garage could be, at most, 500 square feet because the garage below has to be at least as large, and the 1000 square foot limit applies to the garage and ADU’s combined area. This area restriction would prohibit the construction of this garage/ADU combo, for instance, despite the fact that both the garage and ADU would be allowed on their own.

Restricting the total square footage of accessory structures in this way is nonsensical because it encourages people to build other designs with less favorable outcomes. A side-by-side 600 square foot ADU and 400 square foot garage, for instance, would be allowed under current rules, but that structure would cover an additional 400 square feet of the lot with an impermeable surface compared to a 600 square foot ADU stacked on top of a 600 square foot garage.

To fix these problems and make garage/ADU combos easier to build, the code should make two changes. First, eliminate the separate height limit for accessory structures and apply a single height limit to all structures in any zoning district. Second, eliminate square footage restrictions on accessory structures and allow the code’s maximum impermeable lot coverage requirements to regulate their total size.

---

ADUs are good. They create badly needed new housing options in existing neighborhoods. They allow homeowners to generate income from their biggest financial asset. They allow families to stay together even when they outgrow a single house. It is a good thing that ReZone made them legal in Syracuse. Now, City Hall needs to further amend the code to make ADUs not just legal, but practical so that more people can benefit from these types of homes.