WASHINGTON, D.C. — A new study funded by apartment industry groups has found that several common types of housing regulations are contributing to rising rent costs, with the biggest impacts falling on lower-income households and renters in small multifamily buildings.
The report, conducted by economists Daniel Shoag and Issi Romem of MetroSight, was sponsored by the National Multifamily Housing Council (NMHC) and the National Apartment Association (NAA). It builds on an earlier analysis published in February that showed how certain regulations increase the cost of operating multifamily housing. This follow-up asks whether those higher operating costs are passed on to renters, and concludes that they are.
The study analyzed four categories of regulation: source-of-income protections, which prohibit landlords from rejecting tenants based on vouchers or nontraditional income; just-cause eviction requirements; resident screening laws, which limit the use of background or credit checks; and state preemption statutes, which restrict local governments from enacting their own housing ordinances.
Using two independent data sources—market rent data from CoStar covering 391 metropolitan areas between 2000 and 2024, and renter data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) spanning 307 metros from 2005 to 2023—the researchers found consistent results across both datasets.
Source-of-income laws were associated with rent increases of 5.2 to 5.3 percent, equating to about $876 to $1,104 per unit annually. Eviction regulations raised rents by 5.9 to 6.5 percent, or about $1,092 to $1,224 annually per unit. Resident screening restrictions produced smaller increases, from 1.5 to 3.4 percent, equal to $252 to $708 annually. Preemption laws, however, showed little or no measurable impact on rent levels.
“As housing affordability continues to be a nationwide concern requiring action from state, local and federal lawmakers, this study importantly shows how misguided regulations have the ability to increase monthly costs for renters,” said NAA President and CEO Bob Pinnegar. “Now more than ever, our nation needs responsible, sustainable policy solutions that, instead of raising costs, work to boost the supply of housing and improve affordability long-term.”
NMHC President Sharon Wilson Géno said the research underscores the trade-offs in regulating rental housing. “As the nation continues to confront a housing affordability crisis, it’s critical that we understand how sometimes well-intentioned regulations may impact rent levels—particularly for those who can least afford increases,” she said. “This new research finds that certain policies, while at times designed to protect renters, are associated with higher rents, especially for lower-income households. By bringing these data to light, we and our partners at NAA hope to support a more balanced policy conversation—one that supports renters while improving affordability and expanding the supply of rental housing.”
The study also found that the effects were not evenly distributed across income groups and property types. Lower-income renters experienced larger increases in rent across all three categories of renter-protection laws. Renters in the lowest income quartile faced increases of up to 7.4 percent in some cases, while the impact on higher-income renters was significantly smaller.
Residents of two- to four-unit buildings—often lower-cost housing operated by small landlords—saw the steepest rent hikes, in some cases more than 8 percent. Larger apartment complexes, which generally cater to higher-income renters and are managed by firms with more financial capacity, showed smaller rent increases.
“If we want rent regulations to align with affordability, we need to plainly recognize the tensions between them,” said Romem. “It is striking that we found their cost has fallen hardest on lower-income renters and residents of small apartment buildings—the very people they’re meant to support.”
The findings align with economic theory that when landlords face higher compliance costs, they often pass those costs on to tenants. In markets where renters have fewer options, such as among lower-income households, landlords can shift more of those costs to residents without losing occupancy.
The report stresses that, while protections such as eviction safeguards and income-based anti-discrimination laws are intended to provide security for vulnerable tenants, they can carry unintended consequences. According to the authors, this creates a policy trade-off: tenant protections may improve fairness and security but also reduce affordability by raising operating costs and ultimately rents.
The researchers noted that preemption laws stood out as an exception, showing no measurable impact on rents. These laws, which prevent local governments from passing stricter housing ordinances, may provide stability for landlords, but the study found no evidence that they reduce or increase costs for tenants in the short term.
The authors concluded that lawmakers should weigh the costs and benefits of rental housing regulations carefully. While these protections often address real inequities, they said, policymakers should also consider the affordability impacts and the possibility of unintended harm to the very households the laws are designed to protect.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. To learn make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
