Richmond's Zoning Overhaul: What Every Homeowner Should Understand

Richmond is rewriting its zoning code for the first time in 50 years, and Draft 3 lands August 17. It could change how many homes fit on a lot, who can live in your neighborhood, and what your property is worth. Here's what city planners have previewed, what's still being fought over, and what to do before any of it becomes law.

If you own a home in Richmond, or you're thinking about buying one, you've probably heard the phrase "Code Refresh" somewhere in the last year. Maybe at a neighborhood meeting. Maybe from a postcard about an open house you didn't have time to attend. Maybe from a Facebook thread that generated more heat than light.

Two houses on the same Near West End street can sit in different jurisdictions. Before you form an opinion about your own property, find out which side of the line you're on.

What Is Code Refresh?

The city is regrouping nearly 77,000 parcels into a smaller, cleaner set of zoning districts, tied to the Richmond 300 master plan adopted in 2020 and amended in 2023. A good bit of what's already standing in Richmond doesn't technically match the current code, and to be clear, that's not a problem for existing owners. Legal nonconforming status protects those properties, and it almost never comes up in a residential sale. What Code Refresh is actually responding to is the volume of new construction the city has been approving through special-use permits, case by case, because the base zoning hasn't kept pace with what's getting built. The goal is a rulebook that matches what the city is already allowing, rather than one more one-off approval at a time.

Here's a detail worth knowing, with a caveat attached. By the city's own accounting, most of the code is settled. Planning staff list more than two dozen areas of substantial agreement, covering district counts, lot widths, building heights, setbacks, tree canopy minimums, step-backs, parking placement, signs. That's the city's tally, not an independent one, and Draft 2 drew thousands of individual public comments, so "settled" is doing some optimistic work in that sentence. Three questions remain openly, visibly contested.

Those three are where the public fight is loudest, at minimum.

Question One: How Many Homes on a Lot?

This is the big one, and it has moved a lot. Worth walking through, because most of what circulates online describes an older draft.

Today, a typical residential lot allows one primary home plus an accessory dwelling unit capped at roughly 500 square feet.

Draft 1 would have allowed two full principal homes plus a 1,000-square-foot ADU on residential lots. That drew immediate pushback, largely over teardown risk.

Draft 2 introduced what the city calls the preservation bonus. Keep the existing house, and you can add the second unit plus an ADU. Tear it down, and you're back to one home plus an ADU.

Draft 3 hasn't been released yet, but city planners previewed the framework at a June work session, and it moves in two directions at once. Building count narrows: one or two dwelling units would be allowed inside the principal building, with a two-building maximum on the lot. ADU size loosens, and substantially: the cap would rise to 1,200 square feet, up from 500 today and 1,000 in Draft 1. That's not a small unit. It's close to the footprint of a modest house. Demolish the existing house and you'd drop to one unit plus the ADU.

Read what's been previewed carefully. Two units within the principal building would be a conversion or an internal duplex. That's a very different animal from two separate houses on your lot, which is what a lot of people still picture.

Even in this narrowed form, the proposal is on shaky ground. First District Councilor Andrew Breton, who has generally supported expanding housing options, recently told constituents that allowing three units on any single-family property is too controversial and risks derailing the rest of the code. When a supportive councilor says that out loud, pay attention.

One piece isn't really up for local debate anymore. ADUs have been permitted citywide since a 2023 Council decision, and a new state law requires every Virginia locality to allow them in single-family districts starting July 1, 2027, with limited room for local restrictions. That train has left the station.

Question Two: How Many People in a Household?

Practically, that would tie occupancy to the physical house rather than an arbitrary number. If you own near VCU or you've thought about a house-hack, this one matters more to your pro forma than the density debate does.

What's been previewed stops counting people and starts measuring rooms. Your house would tell you how many can live in it.

Question Three: How Do We Zone Places of Worship?

More than 150 religious institutions sit on 470-plus acres across the city. Congregations shrink, buildings get sold, and the code has to say what comes next. The drafts have swung from neighborhood-scale zoning to transit corridors and growth nodes, and the version previewed for Draft 3 leans toward major streets and transit corridors, with flexibility on request.

There's a state-law wrinkle here too. Virginia's new "Yes In God's Backyard" statute lets qualifying religious groups and nonprofits build affordable housing by right on their own land. Whatever the city adopts has to work alongside that.

The Case Against, From Someone in the Room

Her core argument is that the city needs a modern code but that this version creates consequences nobody intended. Three of her points deserve real consideration.

Naturally occurring affordable housing is at risk. Her sharpest example is Chamberlayne Avenue, where older two- and three-story apartment buildings house people at below-market rents. Upzone that corridor for three-to-seven-story mixed use and you hand developers a clear financial reason to buy and demolish. The same logic applies to modest starter homes in City Stadium, Maymont, Oak Grove, and Swansboro. More units, she argues, is not the same thing as more affordable units.

Her argument travels south of the river too, though she doesn't make that case herself. Westover Hills and Stratford Hills hold a lot of what I'd call quietly attainable housing: postwar brick capes and ranches on generous lots, priced well below what comparable square footage costs north of the James. Generous lots plus modest structures is exactly the arithmetic that makes a teardown pencil. Whether Draft 3 actually changes that math on any given Southside block is a parcel-by-parcel question, not a neighborhood-wide one, and it's worth checking rather than assuming.

Preserving what already exists is cheaper than building it. That's true of housing and it's true of a 100-year-old house. Once it's gone, it's gone.

Historic preservation is thin. The preservation bonus is the code's main nod to keeping existing buildings, and Savenko points out it disappears entirely once a parcel is upzoned to multifamily or mixed use. She also notes that City Old and Historic Districts cover only about 6% of city parcels. Carytown and the Fan aren't among them. She points to Austin and Nashville, where upzoning made teardowns pencil out in older neighborhoods.

Process and data. She cites the city's own engagement summary showing roughly 5,000 residents, about 2% of the city, have engaged with Code Refresh. She also notes Richmond 300 described a zoning rewrite as a three-to-five-year effort, and this one has run under two.

Where I'd add nuance: her column describes the density change as "2+1" on single-family lots, which accurately described Draft 2. The framework previewed for Draft 3 would require both units to sit within the principal building and would cap the lot at two buildings. That's narrower than the shorthand suggests, and it's the version staff have said is headed to Council.

The Argument Nobody Wins on Facts

Savenko's opening claim is that Code Refresh doesn't align with Richmond 300. The city says it does, and cites chapter and verse to prove it, including the master plan's own objectives to reduce demolition of historic buildings and to preserve distinctive neighborhoods.

Both sides are reading the same amended 2023 document and arriving at opposite conclusions. That's not one side being wrong on the facts. It's a real disagreement about whether directing growth to corridors and nodes is compatible with adjusting what's allowed on ordinary residential lots. Anyone telling you it's obvious is selling something.

Both camps are quoting the same master plan back at each other. That's not a fact problem. That's an honest disagreement, and it deserves to be treated like one.

Meanwhile, supporters make a point worth sitting with: every year of delay is another year of rising rents, and the households squeezed hardest by that aren't the ones showing up to community meetings.

Infrastructure: Promised Versus Funded

This is where I'd push hardest if I were asking questions at a meeting.

The city's formal position is that Richmond has adequate utility infrastructure for the density range Code Refresh is expected to allow, and that planning staff are coordinating with Richmond Public Schools on enrollment. That's essentially the whole written commitment. No capital improvement plan tied to the rezoning, no funding mechanism, no sequencing that says infrastructure comes before or alongside density.

The density changes are specific and mapped. The infrastructure answer is a promise of adequacy, not a funded plan. That gap is the part I'd want closed before a vote.

Residents keep raising the same three things: sewer and water lines that predate the current code, stormwater capacity as impervious surface grows, and whether schools and streets can absorb the change. Westwood is the sharpest example. It's a historically Black neighborhood founded in the 1870s, and the Rev. Jeanette Brown, president of the Westwood Civic League, told The Richmonder this month, "The city hasn't done their due diligence in keeping up the infrastructure. We've had sewage backups in some of the homes." City Council passed a resolution this summer, sponsored by First District Councilor Andrew Breton, directing planning staff to spend the next six months working directly with Westwood residents on preservation and infrastructure. Breton has acknowledged "a history of disinvestment over time in this neighborhood." It's a genuine, current effort to address the gap, and also proof the gap exists.

Stormwater is the one I'd watch closest along the river. Westover Hills and Stratford Hills sit on sloping ground draining toward the James, and anyone who's owned there through a hard summer storm knows how quickly water finds the low spots. More rooftop and more driveway upstream means more runoff downstream. Public comment on the drafts has repeatedly asked for permeable-surface requirements, impervious-area caps, and tree canopy minimums written into the code itself rather than handled case by case. Tree canopy minimums did make it onto the city's list of settled items. The rest is less clear.

There's also a document worth watching, and the sequencing on it is odd. The Cultural Heritage Stewardship Plan, meant to guide historic preservation alongside the new code, cleared the Planning Commission back in November 2025 on an 8-1 vote. It's been sitting in front of Council ever since, with Councilor Ellen Robertson on record promising "a long list of amendments." Code Refresh looks likely to reach a Council vote before the preservation framework does, which is backwards from how I'd sequence it.

The Political Wildcard

Two separate charter-amendment petitions are moving through Richmond Circuit Court, both seeking to require a public referendum before any rezoning affecting 25% or more of the city's parcels can take effect. One comes from former Councilman Marty Jewell and the Richmond Civic League and would apply retroactively, meaning it could force a do-over vote on Code Refresh after the fact. The other comes from Paul Goldman's Committee for an Affordable Richmond, backed by Richmond for All, applies only to future rezonings, and adds rent control authority for large landlords.

Neither one moves fast enough to affect Code Refresh directly. Only the General Assembly can amend Richmond's charter, and both petitions are aiming for the November 2027 ballot, over a year out. Even if voters approve, the charter change wouldn't go to the legislature until its 2028 session. The city, meanwhile, is targeting a Council vote on Code Refresh this fall. So the real risk here isn't that a referendum blocks adoption. It's that Code Refresh gets adopted, and then faces a retroactive do-over vote well over a year later if Jewell's version clears every hurdle.

Council rejected two proposals in June that would have added a citizen review layer, both on 6-2 votes. So the pressure has moved from City Hall to the courthouse and the ballot, even if the ballot won't matter until after this round is decided.

What Should Richmond Homeowners Do Now?

Three practical takeaways.

Check your own parcel when the Draft 3 map posts. Citywide summaries are useless for your specific situation. Your block might be unchanged, or it might sit at the edge of a corridor designation that changes what a developer would pay for the house next door. Look it up yourself.

Don't price a deal on a draft. I've had conversations this year with sellers convinced their lot is suddenly worth more because of density they read about online. Nothing is adopted. Council hasn't voted. And even a successful referendum petition wouldn't reach a vote before Council decides Code Refresh this fall. Underwriting a purchase on rules that don't exist yet is how people get hurt.

Nothing here is law yet. Paying today for density that may never be adopted is a bet, not a valuation.

Preservation cuts both ways. If the previewed framework holds through the final draft, keeping your existing house is what unlocks the additional unit. For owners of older homes in the Fan, the Museum District, Northside, and the Near West End, that would turn a well-maintained historic structure into an asset rather than an obstacle. Which, frankly, is how it should have been all along.

The same incentive reads differently in Westover Hills and Stratford Hills, where the housing stock skews midcentury and the lots run deeper. A rear ADU on a deep Southside lot is a far easier project than carving a second unit into a narrow Fan rowhouse, and the 1,200-square-foot ADU cap being discussed for Draft 3 is real space, not a garage apartment. If you've got aging parents, an adult child boomeranging home, or an eye on rental income, that's worth thinking about now rather than after the vote.

Common Questions About Code Refresh

Does Code Refresh apply to my property if I live in Henrico or Chesterfield County?

No. This is a City of Richmond ordinance only. Properties outside the city line, including the Henrico side of the Near West End, aren't affected.

Has Draft 3 of Code Refresh actually been released?

Not as of this writing. The city has said Draft 3 will be released August 17. Everything here about its likely contents reflects the framework city planners previewed at a June work session, which could still shift before the formal release.

Has Richmond adopted any of these zoning changes yet?

No. Draft 3 goes to the Planning Commission and City Council after its release, with a Council vote targeted for this fall. Two referendum petitions are also in circuit court, but neither could reach a public vote before November 2027 at the earliest, so they won't affect this round of adoption directly.

Can I already add an accessory dwelling unit to my Richmond property?

Yes. ADUs have been allowed citywide since 2023, and the framework previewed for Draft 3 would raise the size cap to 1,200 square feet.

Should I raise my asking price because of proposed zoning changes?

I'd hold off. Nothing is adopted, and pricing a home on rules that don't exist yet is a bet, not a valuation.

I'll keep tracking this as Draft 3 lands and moves toward a Council vote. If you want to know what any of it means for your particular address, that's a conversation I'm always glad to have. 📞

Sources: City of Richmond Department of Planning and Development Review, Code Refresh work session presentation to City Council (June 15, 2026); rva.gov Code Refresh archive; Melissa Savenko, "In The Zone," Style Weekly (July 26, 2026); Sarah Vogelsong, "Richmond's historic Westwood neighborhood has beaten the odds for years. Can it survive rezoning?" The Richmonder (August 12, 2026); reporting from The Richmonder and VPM News on the Cultural Heritage Stewardship Plan and the pending referendum petitions. As of publication, Draft 3 had not yet been formally released; the city set its release for August 17, 2026. Figures attributed to Draft 3 reflect the framework planning staff previewed at the June 15 work session and may change before formal release. Nothing described here has been adopted.