In the weeks following sine die — the conclusion of the 2026 General Assembly Session — activity in Richmond has remained steady across both the legislative and political arenas. The Governor’s bill review process, redistricting battle and congressional campaigns, continued state budget uncertainty, the Reconvened (Veto) Session, and a Special Session have together contributed to an unusually dynamic post-adjournment period.
Amid the activity, Governor Spanberger signed into law all ten of HBAV’s priority bills that passed the General Assembly, reflecting an aligned approach across state leadership that recognizes Virginia’s housing challenges are driven in large part by supply constraints and require coordinated action at both the state and local levels.
To read more about how HBAV’s 2026 Legislative Agenda fared, read Part 1 of our Session Recap here.
While the 2026 General Assembly Session delivered meaningful wins for Virginia’s residential development industry, progress is also defined by what does not pass. This session, HBAV engaged on a significant volume of legislation that, if enacted, would have increased construction costs, extended permitting and approval timelines, expanded local authority to delay or deny housing, and undermined reforms the industry has worked years to secure.
Before turning to the most consequential of those measures HBAV worked to defeat, the following provides a brief overview of key legislative developments since adjournment, including broader legislative and political activity beyond housing.
Legislative Developments Since March 14 (sine die)
- HBAV Legislative Agenda: Governor Spanberger signed all 10 of HBAV’s Legislative Agenda bills that passed the General Assembly (with minor amendments to HB 888 (Shin) and HB 1043 (Carr))
- April 21 Special Election, Redistricting: Voters approved the proposed map changes, though ongoing legal challenges could affect implementation.
- Reconvened Session on April 22: The General Assembly took a targeted approach to Governor Spanberger’s 108 amended bills – accepting many technical and budget-related changes while declining several amendments to high-profile measures, including cannabis regulation and public sector collective bargaining, effectively preserving their original legislative intent. The Governor has 30 days to veto the rejected amended bills, or she can sign them as they were prior to her amendments.
- April 23 Special Session: While initially intended to finalize the state biennium budget, legislators recessed Thursday afternoon at an impasse.
Protecting the 2025 Administrative Review Reforms
In 2025, HBAV secured landmark reforms through HB 2660 and SB 974 that moved subdivision plat and site plan reviews to a purely administrative, code-compliance process, effectively removing local planning commissions and governing bodies from that approval pathway. This session, three separate bills attempted to roll that back:
HB 535 (Hamilton), SB 755 (Reeves), and HB 1083 (Webert) – Restoring Planning Commission Review of Sites and Plats
Status: Failed to Advance | HBAV Position: Oppose
The bills — carried by Delegates Karen Hamilton (R) and Michael Webert (R) and Senator Bryce Reeves (R) — expanded the population threshold under which localities can use their planning commission as the designated agent for site plan, plat, and plan of development review.
The practical effect would have been a return to discretionary approvals in a process designed to be technical and objective. It means longer timelines and unpredictable outcomes, both of which add costs to projects.
All three failed, and the administrative review framework remains intact.
HB 985 (Garrett) – Local Land Use Decision Authority
Status: Failed to Advance | HBAV Position: Oppose
Carried by Delegate Tom Garrett (R), this bill would have declared that a locality’s planning and land-use authority remains solely with the locality and cannot be ceded to any state agency or state-sanctioned body.
On its face, the bill reads as a local control provision. In practice, it was a direct challenge to Virginia’s growing body of state housing preemption law — the same legal framework underpinning by-right ADUs, manufactured housing reform, small-lot zoning, and administrative review reforms. Language like this has been cited to resist or invalidate state housing mandates in localities that choose to fight them.
The bill did not advance.
Blocking New Tools for Housing Delay and Denial
Several bills this session would have given localities powerful new mechanisms to slow, defer, or deny residential development without meaningful standards or accountability:
SB 781 (Sturtevant) – Adequate Public Facilities; Development Moratorium
Status: Failed to Advance | HBAV Position: Oppose
Patroned by Senator Glen Sturtevant (R), this bill would have allowed localities to consider the adequacy of public facilities — roads, schools, utilities — when making zoning decisions. A locality that determined facilities were “inadequate” could reject or defer a rezoning application on that basis alone.
This kind of “adequate public facilities” authority sounds reasonable in theory. However, in practice, it’s one of the most powerful tools used by localities to prevent growth and development. Without requirements to fund infrastructure improvements, establish clear timelines, or define what “adequate” means, localities could use this authority to effectively freeze housing production indefinitely.
HBAV opposed the legislation on those grounds alone, and it did not advance.
HB 1163 (Webert) – Local Authority to Limit Frequency of Land Subdivision
Status: Failed to Advance | HBAV Position: Oppose
Delegate Michael Webert’s (R) bill would have allowed localities to restrict how frequently a property can be subdivided, capped at a seven-year waiting period per parcel.
Under this bill, a locality could have told a landowner they must wait seven years before subdividing their property regardless of market conditions, project readiness, or demand. This bill would have allowed localities to throttle the supply of buildable lots at the source, slowing the pipeline of new homes before a single permit is even filed. It did not advance.
HB 1112 (Singh) and SB 554 (Srinivasan) — Zoning Approvals, Electrical Grid Capacity
Status: Failed to Advance | HBAV Position: Oppose
As introduced, bills from Delegate JJ Singh (D) and Senator Kannan Srinivasan (D) would have incorporated electric grid capacity into local land-use decision-making, giving localities grounds to deny or delay zoning approvals based on adverse grid impacts.
HBAV engaged directly with the patrons on this legislation, acknowledging the legitimate tension between rapid data center growth and grid capacity, but the solution cannot be to route that problem through the housing entitlement process. Creating a new basis for residential zoning denial tied to grid conditions would add uncertainty, increase documentation burdens, and hand opponents of specific projects another lever to pull.
The patrons worked with HBAV to address the industry’s key concerns through amendments, but the bill ultimately failed to advance.
Stopping Expanded Impact Fees
Impact fees are one of the most direct cost drivers in new home construction — passed through directly to buyers and renters. HBAV has consistently opposed expansions of impact fee authority, and this session was no different:
HB 536 (Hamilton) and HB 1430 (Cousins) – Impact Fees; Residential Development
Status: Failed to Advance | HBAV Position: Oppose
Two bills — carried by Delegates Karen Hamilton (R) and Rae Cousins (D) — would have significantly expanded local authority to impose residential impact fees. HB 536 aimed at statewide expansion of that authority while HB 1430 specifically removed the Richmond MSA limitation and expanded eligible uses to the full range of public infrastructure.
Every dollar added in impact fees is a dollar added to the cost of a home. Without accountability for how those fees are used or whether they produce the infrastructure they’re meant to fund, this expanded authority would compound Virginia’s existing affordability gap. Both bills failed to advance.
Defeating Rent Control
HB 278 (Clark) and SB 355 (Boysko) – Local Anti-Rent Gouging Authority
Status: Continued to 2027 | HBAV Position: Oppose
Bills from Delegate Nadarius Clark (D) and Senator Jennifer Boysko (D) would have authorized localities to adopt anti-rent gouging ordinances capping annual rent increases at no more than 3% for covered rental units. Rent stabilization measures consistently produce the same long-term effects: reduced housing supply, diminished investment in existing rental stock, and a worsening of the affordability problem.
Blocking Mandatory IECC Adoption
HB 377 (Bennett-Parker) – Mandatory Adoption of the International Energy Conservation Code
Status: Failed to Advance | HBAV Position: Oppose
Delegate Elizabeth Bennett-Parker’s (D) bill would have required the Board of Housing and Community Development to adopt amendments to the Uniform Statewide Building Code within 18 months of publication of each new IECC version, at standards at least as stringent as the new code.
HBAV’s opposition was grounded in three core concerns:
- Cost. Each new IECC iteration adds construction costs, often several thousand dollars per home, that are passed directly to homebuyers. A mandatory 18-month adoption clock removes the Board’s ability to phase in changes or account for material and labor availability.
- Process. Virginia’s building code process is regulatory, not legislative — it runs through expert rulemaking at the Board level, with opportunities for industry input, cost-benefit analysis, and consideration of Virginia-specific market conditions. HB 377 would have bypassed that process entirely, moving toward a model where building standards are effectively set by the publication schedule of a national standards body rather than through deliberative state rulemaking.
- Readiness. Builders, contractors, and product suppliers need lead time to adapt to significant energy code changes. An automatic adoption trigger doesn’t account for whether the market is ready.
Stopping Subdivision Delays Tied to Stormwater Design
HB 1356 (Simonds) – Precipitation Design Standards; Climate-Adjusted Rainfall
Status: Continued to 2027| HBAV Position: Oppose
This bill would have required statewide adoption of updated precipitation design standards to reflect increasing storm intensity, establishing a 20% interim increase over current precipitation values for all design purposes.
A blanket 20% interim increase without site-specific analysis, cost-benefit review, or phased implementation would significantly increase stormwater infrastructure costs across residential development projects statewide.
Other Notable Defeats
HB 202 (Griffin) and SB 547 (Sturtevant) – Restrictions on Single-Family Home Acquisition:
Would have prohibited covered entities with $100 million or more in assets from acquiring more than five single-family homes within the same locality under the “Single-Family Homebuyer Protection Act.”
SB 50 (Rouse) – Expansion of State Lobbying Requirements to Local Government Actions:
Would have redefined “lobbying” to include attempts to influence local government action. This means a routine developer engagement with planning commissioners, elected officials, and planning staff during the entitlement process could have triggered state lobbying registration and compliance obligations.
HB 345 (McLaughlin) – Real Property Tax; Historic Structures Exemption Limitation:
Would have prohibited application of a partial real property tax exemption for commercial and industrial structures to the demolition or replacement of registered Virginia landmarks or structures contributing to a registered historic district.
HJ 48 (McLaughlin) – Study on Local Authority to Require Land Dedication for Sidewalk Improvements:
Would have directed the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development’s (DHCD) Commission on Local Government to study granting localities authority to require land dedication for sidewalks, curbs, and gutter improvements. While framed as a study, the scope of the authority being considered raised concerns.
Key Takeaways and What’s Next?
The 2026 Session demonstrated both the value of early engagement and the volume of harmful legislation we can anticipate returning in 2027. As HBAV shifts focus toward implementation, regulatory workgroups, and preparation for 2027 Session, the same discipline that drove this session’s results will be required to sustain them.
Governor Spanberger’s signing of all ten of HBAV’s priority bills into law reflects meaningful alignment between state leadership and the industry’s housing supply goals. Protecting that progress — and building on it — will require continued investment in advocacy, member engagement, and unified messaging.
Interested in Learning More?
HBAV members are invited to join our upcoming webinar on Wednesday, May 27, from 11 a.m. to 12 p.m. for a full review of the new laws taking effect July 1 and what they mean for home builders and the broader residential development industry.
