Building and energy codes continue to draw scrutiny for their role in making home ownership ever more costly and out of reach for Americans.
Pressing its case that regulations are a significant source of homebuilding cost escalation, the National Association of Homebuilders (NAHB) has new numbers on the impact: Nearly $85,000 on average in regulatory costs imposed on builders just in the construction phase of a new single-family home, 65% of the total regulatory cost burden.
The claim stems from an NAHB study released in June, an update of one last done in 2021. Since that time, NAHB says, the impact has surged more than 40%, from almost $94,000 in total regulatory costs to nearly $132,000.
Of the $85,000 construction phase total, almost half is attributed to the impact of changes in building codes over the previous decade, while $16,000 is due to “architectural standards beyond the ordinary” and almost $7,000 comes from OSHA and other labor requirements.
NAHB’s stance has caught the eye of some state legislatures grappling with the politics of the home ownership cost issue. In some state and local jurisdictions building code updates having even the most marginal impact have been scrutinized for their impact on residential building costs.
Citing NAHB, lawmakers in Nebraska, Iowa and Indiana, for instance, have adopted updated editions of the National Electrical Code minus some expanded requirements for AFCI and GFCI deemed unnecessary and expendable in the name of controlling rising construction costs.
The NAHB study amplifies findings of a 2024 survey by the National MultiFamily Housing Council. In a survey of 40 builders, developers, and operators of multi-family projects, it found “building codes can raise concerns about construction costs and make it increasingly difficult to develop much needed housing,” according to a NMHC press release. While some regulations are needed, it said, none should be free of scrutiny “particularly in an era of widespread cost increases and worsening affordability problems for renters.”
Among its findings, the survey found mechanical/electrical codes posed the greatest compliance challenges followed by those related to energy performance and efficiency, electrification/net-zero emissions, and fire protection.
Energy codes come in for particular criticism from those pinning high housing costs on regulation. Expanding adoption of the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) and others that aim for higher energy efficiency and reduced emissions is leading to more detailed requirements on building envelope construction and HVAC, lighting, and electrical building components, many of which entail an electrical design and contracting component and all of which can translate to higher upfront design and construction costs.
Responding to NAHB’s latest attack on regulations, the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy focuses on the IECC-impact debate.
Taking issue with NAHB’s assertion, an ACEEE blog post in October 2025 offers evidence it claims shows IECC adoption has not curtailed single-family housing construction. In the five largest states that have adopted the IECC, it says, “new home construction continued at rates in line with national trends,” as did construction of multifamily housing units similarly impacted by stricter energy codes.
Referencing other studies that also have pushed back against claims that stronger energy codes had a deleterious effect on housing construction, the post concluded “stronger energy codes are not slowing down new home construction. They make housing more affordable by lowering utility bills for residents without constraining housing supply. Housing shortages are driven by other factors.”
