U.S. Housing: ROAD to Housing Act – Incremental Supply Push

 

• After months of back-and-forth between the House and Senate, the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act has passed both chambers by wide bipartisan margins. 
• However, President Trump has delayed signing the bill while seeking action on separate legislation, adding some uncertainty around the timing of enactment. 
• Under the Constitution, the President has 10 days to sign or veto legislation once it has passed both chambers. 
• In the event the President were to veto, Congress could override with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House and Senate. 
• The legislation reflects a rare bipartisan agreement on housing, combining a broad set of measures aimed at easing supply-side constraints, while making targeted adjustments to financing and investor activity. We have previously covered several of these proposals in earlier work (see here). The final package carries forward many of those measures, while providing additional detail on homebuilding incentives, regulatory reform, targeted grants, and investor restrictions. 
  
   

Key changes

• Build Now Act / Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) expansion – incentivizing local supply
  Expands the use of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding—a long-standing federal program that provides flexible funding to state and local governments—to support new housing construction. It also introduces a carrot-and-stick approach, where stronger housing growth can be rewarded through the CDBG allocation framework. Importantly, the changes do not override local zoning, instead relying on federal funding incentives to nudge municipalities toward higher housing output.
• Permitting and regulatory reform – speeding up construction timelines
  Several provisions aim to reduce delays and uncertainty in development, including streamlined environmental reviews—particularly for housing built on underutilized sites in existing communities—and support for pre-approved “pattern book” designs that can shorten local approval timelines. The bill also directs the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to issue guidance on point-access block buildings, supporting more efficient multifamily construction. 
• Manufactured and modular housing – lowering construction costs
  The legislation removes some restrictions—most notably the permanent chassis requirement for manufactured homes—and expands access to financing for modular housing. As we’ve noted in earlier research, removing the chassis requirement could lower the cost of manufactured homes by roughly $5,000–$10,000 per unit. The bill also broadens the use of federal loan programs for manufactured homes. These changes are aimed at scaling lower-cost housing types, particularly in entry-level segments.
• Financing channel adjustments – incremental support for credit and development
  The bill raises Federal Housing Administration (FHA) multifamily loan limits, introduces small-dollar mortgage programs, and adjusts certain community bank deposit and investment rules. These measures are intended to improve access to financing for builders, affordable housing projects, and some lower-cost homebuyers.
• Investor restrictions – targeted limits with supply carve-out
  One of the bill’s most well-publicized measures limits large institutional investors—generally those with 350 or more single-family homes—from acquiring additional single-family homes. Importantly, the final bill retains carve-outs for build-to-rent development and certain other activities, allowing institutional capital to continue funding new supply. Earlier proposals that would have forced investors exceeding the threshold to sell certain purpose-built rental homes were removed, reducing the risk of unintended disruption to new rental construction.
• Targeted grants and programs – supporting supply at the margin
  The package includes planning grants, an Innovation Fund (authorized at $200 million annually for seven years), and pilot programs, including initiatives to convert vacant or underutilized buildings into housing. While directionally positive, these programs remain relatively small in scale, suggesting they are more likely to support targeted local projects than materially shift national supply dynamics.
  
  

Implications for the U.S. housing market 

• Supply: positive, but gradual and locally dependent
  The legislation targets key structural bottlenecks—permitting delays, financing frictions, and construction costs. However, these are slow-moving channels, implying limited near-term impact, though the changes could bring some boost in supply over the medium-to-long term.
• Home sales: limited near-term lift, gradual improvement over time
  The targeted measures aimed at improving access to mortgage credit, could support buyers in lower-cost markets. However, the legislation does not provide broad-based demand stimulus, suggesting limited near-term impact on national transaction volumes. Over time, any sales benefit is more likely to come from improved supply and modest improvements in affordability, particularly in lower-price segments.
• Home prices: modest easing at the margin
  Increased supply over time and reduced investor competition should help modestly ease upward pressure on prices, particularly in supply-constrained markets and areas with a larger institutional investor presence. That said, mortgage rates, income growth, and broader inventory conditions will remain the dominant drivers of market dynamics, limiting the overall impact at the national level.
• Rental market: avoids downside risk, modest positive over time
  By preserving the build-to-rent channel, the bill avoids a potential drag on new rental supply. The carve-out should allow institutional capital to continue supporting purpose-built rental development, helping grow the rental stock over time and modestly easing rent pressures.
• Investor behavior: localized impact, softened by carve-outs
  As we noted in earlier research, the investor purchase cap will likely have more pronounced effects in markets with high institutional presence (see Chart 4 here). In these areas, reduced institutional bidding could modestly improve owner-occupant access to available listings. However, the bill’s build-to-rent carve-out should soften the broader impact of the restriction, as institutional capital remains able to participate in new purpose-built rental development.
• Structural takeaway: incremental improvement, not a near-term fix
  By lowering regulatory friction, expanding targeted financing channels, and nudging local supply reforms, the bill should improve housing supply responsiveness. However, many provisions depend on local implementation and administrative follow-through, while funding support remains targeted rather than large-scale. As a result, the overall effect is likely to remain moderate relative to the broader hurdles facing the U.S. housing market.

Bottom line

The ROAD to Housing Act represents a constructive, bipartisan step toward improving U.S. housing supply dynamics. Its impact will likely be gradual, with limited near-term effects but modest positive contributions over time — particularly in jurisdictions that respond to federal incentives.

Disclaimer

This report is provided by TD Economics. It is for informational and educational purposes only as of the date of writing, and may not be appropriate for other purposes. The views and opinions expressed may change at any time based on market or other conditions and may not come to pass. This material is not intended to be relied upon as investment advice or recommendations, does not constitute a solicitation to buy or sell securities and should not be considered specific legal, investment or tax advice. The report does not provide material information about the business and affairs of TD Bank Group and the members of TD Economics are not spokespersons for TD Bank Group with respect to its business and affairs. The information contained in this report has been drawn from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed to be accurate or complete. This report contains economic analysis and views, including about future economic and financial markets performance. These are based on certain assumptions and other factors, and are subject to inherent risks and uncertainties. The actual outcome may be materially different. The Toronto-Dominion Bank and its affiliates and related entities that comprise the TD Bank Group are not liable for any errors or omissions in the information, analysis or views contained in this report, or for any loss or damage suffered.