By Timothy Schofield
On July 9, 2026, Governor Healey signed legislation making sweeping changes to the Massachusetts Zoning Act (G.L. c. 40A), including substantive changes to Section 6 (non-conforming structures and residential uses) and Section 10 (variances). The changes, which took effect immediately, dramatically alter the existing law and create new opportunities for owners and developers by increasing the value of existing properties and the feasibility of development projects, while changing how investors and lenders may assess entitlement risk.
Unlocking Value in Existing Properties
The most immediate impact may be on existing residential properties that do not comply with current zoning. Prior to these amendments, a property owner seeking to extend or alter such a property needed a finding from the permitting authority that the proposed change would not be “substantially more detrimental” to the neighborhood than the existing structure or use. That standard gave local boards considerable discretion and generated extensive litigation.
Now, structures or residential uses that are nonconforming because of lot size, shape, coverage, frontage, or floor area ratio may be extended or altered as of right if the proposed work complies with current dimensional requirements governing height, stories, and setbacks. In other words, fewer alterations will need approval, which could create more opportunities and have significant economic implications. The proposed work still must satisfy the statutory requirements, including current height, story and setback requirements, but owners should assess whether properties that were previously treated as requiring discretionary relief now qualify for as-of-right treatment.
For example, an older house on an undersized lot in a high-value community may previously have faced a special permit process, professional fees, months of delay, and the possibility of an abutter appeal. Those costs and uncertainties could have affected the property’s market value and made an otherwise attractive project uneconomic. Now, a property that previously appeared “zoning constrained” may have additional development potential. This is particularly relevant in communities where an additional bedroom, accessory space or several hundred square feet of living area can materially increase property value.
The amendment also gives owners of nonconforming properties more time before a municipality can treat a use or structure as abandoned. Previously, a local zoning bylaw could define a nonconforming use or structure as abandoned or discontinued after two years of nonuse. The amendment increases that period to four years or more.
The practical effect is that a property owner generally has a longer period of inactivity before a property’s nonconforming status can be regulated as abandoned, which may be particularly helpful for owners of vacant commercial or residential properties who need additional time to
sell, renovate, reoccupy, or determine how to use the property. The amendment does not, however, automatically guarantee four years of protection in every circumstance, so owners should still review the relevant zoning bylaw and any specific provisions governing abandonment or discontinuance.
Variances May Be Easier to Obtain
The change to the variance standard may prove to be the most consequential long-term change. Massachusetts historically maintained one of the strictest variance standards in the country. Applicants were required to demonstrate unique circumstances relating to soil conditions, shape, or topography that created a substantial hardship, and they had to satisfy additional statutory requirements concerning the public good and zoning purposes.
The amended statute replaces that framework with a broader “practical difficulty” standard. Rather than requiring the same rigid showing of substantial hardship tied to unique physical conditions, the revised statute directs boards to consider a broader balance between the benefits of relief, impacts on the neighborhood, and public interests, including housing production.
The practical effect is likely to be a significant expansion of available relief, particularly for residential projects in built-out communities. Applicants seeking dimensional relief may no longer be required to fit their cases within the narrow confines of the former hardship standard. Instead, applicants could present evidence concerning feasibility, proportionality, neighborhood compatibility, mitigation measures, and public benefits.
The change also opens new possibilities for residential use variances. The revised statute provides greater flexibility for residential uses, potentially creating new opportunities for adaptive reuse of commercial buildings, former institutional properties, and unusual parcels that do not fit neatly within existing zoning districts.
Again, this change is not a guarantee of approval. Local boards retain discretion and must weigh competing interests, but the economic calculus has changed. A project previously categorized as having a low likelihood of obtaining a variance may now warrant a new feasibility analysis.
Approved Projects Have More Time to Get Moving
The amendments also provide greater protection for projects that have zoning approvals. Previously, construction or operations under a building permit generally had to commence within 12 months after issuance of the last permit necessary for construction. Now, that period is 24 months and is tolled while the applicant is actively seeking or obtaining other necessary permits.
For developers, this is important because entitlement schedules rarely proceed in a straight line. A project may have zoning approval but still require wetlands approvals, subdivision approval, utility work, state permits or other governmental authorizations before construction can begin. The additional time reduces the risk that a developer will lose the benefit of existing zoning
simply because the project is moving through a lengthy approval process. The additional time and protections should also make it easier for lenders to underwrite a project.
Developers Should Revisit Feasibility Studies and Existing Portfolios
The new law also creates an opportunity to revisit projects that were previously rejected, shelved or discounted because of zoning risk.
Development teams frequently carry assumptions forward from one feasibility study to the next. A property may be labeled “variance required,” “special permit required” or “zoning risk” based on an analysis performed several years ago. Those labels can become embedded in acquisition models, broker opinions, appraisals, and investment committee materials.
They should now be tested against the amended statute.
This does not mean that every previously constrained project has suddenly become feasible, but it means that the cost and probability of obtaining development rights may have changed—and those are economic assumptions that should be updated. In a market where land is scarce and housing values remain high, a change from “requires zoning approval” to “potentially available as of right” can have a meaningful effect on residual land value and underwriting assumptions.
(Timothy N. Schofield is the founding partner of Boston law firm, Schofield Donnelly LLC. He can be reached at 617-557-4545 or tim@schofielddonnelly.com.)
