Bill

Bill > A628


NJ A628

NJ A628
Prohibits imposition of builder's remedy in exclusionary zoning litigation.


summary

Introduced
01/13/2026
In Committee
01/13/2026
Crossed Over
Passed
Dead

Introduced Session

2026-2027 Regular Session

Bill Summary

This bill prohibits the imposition of a builder's remedy in exclusionary zoning litigation. The builder's remedy, as a method of achieving fair share housing, has been contrary to the public interest and public policy goals in that it resulted in the development of extraordinary amounts of market rate housing in densely populated regions while producing comparatively little affordable housing, to the overall detriment of specific communities and the State as a whole. Municipalities have attempted to navigate the rulings of the court for nearly four decades, but have been unable to adequately address the affordable housing needs of the State despite the threat of builder's remedy lawsuits. Under the bill, if a court determines that a municipality has failed to meet its obligation to provide a reasonable opportunity for the development of affordable housing, a court may impose a remedy other than a builder's remedy. For the purposes of the bill, "builder's remedy" means a court imposed remedy for a litigant who is an individual or a profit-making entity in which the court requires a municipality to utilize zoning techniques such as mandatory set-asides or density bonuses which provide for the economic viability of a residential development by including housing which is not for low and moderate income households.

AI Summary

This bill prohibits courts from ordering a "builder's remedy" in lawsuits challenging a town's zoning laws, which are often filed when a municipality is accused of exclusionary zoning, meaning its rules don't realistically allow for a variety of housing options for all income levels. The builder's remedy, a court-ordered solution for profit-making entities or individuals, has historically involved requiring towns to use zoning tools like mandatory set-asides (requiring a certain percentage of units to be affordable) or density bonuses (allowing more units than normally permitted) to make developments economically viable, even if those developments include a significant amount of market-rate housing. The bill argues that this remedy has led to too much market-rate housing and not enough affordable housing, ultimately harming communities and the state. Instead of a builder's remedy, if a court finds a municipality has not provided a realistic chance for affordable housing development, it can now order a different type of solution.

Committee Categories

Housing and Urban Affairs

Sponsors (10)

Last Action

Introduced, Referred to Assembly Housing Committee (on 01/13/2026)

bill text


bill summary

Loading...

bill summary

Loading...

bill summary

Loading...