Manufactured Homes Regulation - What Can Cities Do?
By Bob Meinig, MRSC Legal Consultant, 1994.
The following question and answer narrative address issues concerning how and to what extent cities and towns in Washington State may regulate the construction and location of manufactured housing.
- What is a manufactured home?
A: Obviously, it is important to define what is a manufactured home in order to regulate it. The task of defining one is, unfortunately, not made easy by differing state statutory definitions and by a separate federal statutory definition. State law sometimes uses the term "manufactured home" interchangeably with the term "mobile home" (RCW 46.04.302), but, in other contexts, state law distinguishes between these terms (RCW 43.63B.010). Then there is "factory built housing," or modular housing, that is regulated separately under state law (RCW 43.22.450 - .490). Given this confusing statutory scheme, it is helpful to clearly define and distinguish between these various housing types in your ordinances regulating them.
Since federal law preempts local construction, safety, and energy efficiency standards for manufactured housing (see below), we recommend that cities and towns use the federal law definition or one consistent with that law. Federal law, 42 U.S.C. § 5402 (6), defines a manufactured home as:
A structure, transportable in one or more sections, which, in the travelling mode, is eight body feet or more in width or forty body feet or more in length, or when erected on site, is three hundred twenty or more square feet, and which is built on a permanent chassis and designed to be used as a dwelling with or without a permanent foundation . . .
A definition consistent with federal law that could be used is provided in RCW 43.63B.010(5):
"Manufactured home" means a single-family dwelling built in accordance with the department of housing and urban development manufactured home construction and safety standards act . . .
Manufactured homes have taken the place of mobile homes in the housing industry. Mobile homes, as they are commonly thought of, are no longer built. A useful historical cut-off point between mobile and manufactured homes is June 15, 1976, when the federal regulations implementing the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 became effective. As such, a recommended definition of mobile homes that clearly distinguishes them from manufactured homes would define them as factory built dwellings built prior to June 15, 1976 that comply with the applicable state codes in effect when constructed or when introduced into the state.
- May a city allow only those manufactured homes that comply with the Uniform
Building Code (UBC)?
A: No. Federal law "preempts" state and local governments from requiring standards for manufactured homes that are different than federal standards with respect to construction, safety, and energy efficiency. Federal manufactured housing standards are imposed through regulations adopted by HUD and are less stringent than UBC standards that apply to conventional site-built housing and to modular housing. Federal standards are enforced in this state by the Department of Labor and Industries, which does in-plant inspections, and by the Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development, which acts on consumer complaints.
Thus, a city may not permit only manufactured housing that complies with the UBC and exclude or limit that which meets only HUD standards.
- May a city exclude manufactured homes from certain zones? May a city
totally exclude manufactured homes from its boundaries?
A: A city may exclude manufactured homes from certain residential zones. Federal law does not preempt local governments from regulating the location of manufactured homes. However, the state supreme court in 1978 concluded that a city may not totally exclude mobile homes, and that conclusion should be equally applicable to manufactured homes.
If a city decides to exclude manufactured homes from certain residential zones, it is recommended that the city include in the enacting ordinance (perhaps in the recital clauses) the reason or justification for treating manufactured homes differently. The primary reason that cities treat them differently is because of aesthetic considerations and the possible impact of manufactured homes on surrounding property values.
- May a city exclude manufactured homes from a particular zone while allowing
modular homes in that zone?
A: A major difference between these two types of housing is that their construction is governed by different building codes. However, federal regulations provide that manufactured home can also be a modular home and can be excluded from the manufactured home regulations if the manufacturer certifies that it is designed only for installation on a site-built permanent foundation, that it is designed not to be moved once installed, and that it complies with a nationally recognized building code such as the UBC. HUD has indicated that a manufactured home that meets UBC standards and has a "gold label"and is thereby considered a modular home may not be regulated differently than a manufactured home that meets only HUD standards for that type of housing. Thus, a city may not get around the federal preemption issue by defining modular homes so as to include manufactured homes that meet the UBC and regulating them differently than manufactured homes.
Thus, a city could regulate modular homes differently than manufactured homes only if the former are defined such that a manufactured home could not also be considered a modular home.
- May a city distinguish between manufactured homes on the basis of aesthetics,
allowing in a particular zone those that meet certain aesthetic standards
while excluding those that do not?
This question gets into a tricky area. First of all, it is unclear the extent to which a city can regulate solely on the basis of aesthetics. Tying aesthetic considerations to preservation of property values may, however, be a legitimate basis for aesthetic regulation.
The best that can be said on this issue is that a city may be able to exclude manufactured homes from a particular zone that do not meet specified aesthetic standards directed at the exterior appearance of these homes while allowing those that meet those standards. Such a restriction would, however, be much more legally defensible if those aesthetic standards also applied to conventional site-built homes.
One approach that may resist a successful legal challenge is that which allows only "designated manufactured homes," as that term is defined in RCW 35A.63.145(2), in certain zones, particularly if site-built homes are subject to the same requirements. That statutory definitions includes requirements such as having "exterior siding similar in appearance to siding materials commonly used on conventional site built . . . residences" and "a composition or wood shake or shingle, coated metal, or similar roof of not less than 3:12 pitch." Note, however, that these standards, if also applied to site-built homes, would prohibit, for example, a contemporary design home with a flat roof.
Related MRSC Resources
MRSC Index – Mobile homes, manufactured housing