As Of RightEdit

As Of Right refers to a zoning and land-use concept by which certain development rights can be exercised without discretionary approval, so long as the project complies with the applicable zoning code, building standards, and other objective requirements. In practice, this means a project can proceed on the strength of a parcel’s zoning designation and its technical plans rather than through a planning board hearing or a discretionary decision by a city or county official. The notion sits at the intersection of property rights, regulatory efficiency, and local control over neighborhood character.

Proponents describe as-of-right development as a critical tool for reducing red tape, lowering construction costs, and accelerating housing and economic activity. Critics caution that even with objective standards, the removal of discretionary review can diminish opportunities for neighborhood input, environmental safeguards, and thoughtful design. The debate mirrors broader tensions in modern governance: how to balance individual property rights and predictable growth with community planning, equity concerns, and the need to fund infrastructure. This article surveys the concept, its mechanics, and the major lines of argument, while noting that implementations vary widely across jurisdictions.

Definition and scope

As Of Right is most often described in relation to zoning and planning frameworks as development that is permitted by right if it conforms to the explicit rules of the applicable ordinance. In other words, a project meeting the defined uses, densities, setbacks, parking, design standards, and other objective criteria can obtain a building permit without engaging in discretionary reviews, variances, or special-use procedures. The core contrast is with processes that require a planning commission or zoning board to exercise judgment about compatibility, infill character, or strategic fit with community goals.

The practical effect of as-of-right rules is to replace some or all of the traditional gatekeeping functions of zoning with a regime anchored in maps and codes. Proponents emphasize that this reduces uncertainty for developers and investors who must make multi-year financial commitments. Critics, however, worry that even objective standards may not capture local preferences for neighborhood character, environmental protection, traffic considerations, and long-run fiscal impacts. The concept is closely related to, and sometimes used interchangeably with, by-right development and permitted uses, though the precise meaning can differ depending on a jurisdiction’s drafting of its zoning code.

Within this framework, certain activities—such as residential apartments, mixed-use projects, or accessory dwelling units (ADUs)—are frequently cited examples of as-of-right development when they are allowed under the current zoning and building codes without additional discretionary review. See Accessory dwelling unit for a representative case of how ADUs are tied to as-of-right pathways in many places. For more about the overall structure of zoning and uses, refer to zoning and land-use planning.

Mechanisms, standards, and processes

Under an as-of-right regime, development rights are exercised by meeting objective standards rather than seeking discretionary permission. The typical steps include:

Verification that the project’s proposed use and intensity fit the zoning designation (often described as a “permitted use” or “by-right” scenario). See permitted use.
Demonstration that project plans comply with applicable codes, including building, safety, fire, accessibility, and neighborhood-design requirements.
Submission of a complete building-permit package, after which the local authority conducts plan review and issues a permit if all standards are met.
Limited or no hearing before a planning board or zoning authority, though some regimes retain minimal notice requirements or post-approval conditions tied to infrastructure contributions or mitigation.

The design-character, massing, and materials standards in a given code can influence whether a project is truly straightforward or becomes impractical, even when it is technically by-right. In practice, many jurisdictions retain some form of design review or performance standards to avoid stark departures from prevailing streetscapes, even when discretion is limited. See design review and historic preservation for related concepts.

ADUs provide a particularly clear example of as-of-right mechanics in practice. In many places, the construction of an ADU in a single-family zone is allowed by-right if it complies with size limits, setback rules, and parking provisions, with limited or no discretionary review. See Accessory dwelling unit for more.

Benefits framed from a center-right lens

Property rights and predictability: By aligning development rights with the existing zoning framework, as-of-right rules give property owners and developers a predictable set of rules, reducing the risk of costly delays and uncertainty.
Efficiency and lower costs: Eliminating discretionary hearings can lower permitting costs and shorten timelines, enabling faster delivery of housing, jobs, and services.
Local control within codified boundaries: While reducing discretionary gatekeeping, as-of-right standards still reflect the community’s chosen zoning map and code, reinforcing the idea that decisions should flow from codified rules rather than ad hoc judgments.
Economic dynamism: Quicker projects can spur investment, create construction jobs, and broaden the tax base, which proponents argue helps fund essential services without raising across-the-board regulatory burdens.
Complement to prudent planning: When paired with objective standards—traffic impact thresholds, environmental safeguards, and infrastructure planning—as-of-right pathways can coexist with responsible growth.

Key terms and concepts connected to these arguments include zoning, land-use planning, and infrastructure planning, as well as the broader idea of property rights in the built environment.

Controversies and debates

Local input and character: Critics argue that discretionary review provides a check on projects that could alter neighborhood character or strain schools, parks, roads, and utilities. Supporters contend that codified standards already reflect the community’s preferences and that predictable rules prevent politicized or opaque gatekeeping.
Environmental and fiscal safeguards: Opponents worry that fast-tracking development may sideline environmental review or fiscal impact analyses. Proponents respond that objective standards can be designed to incorporate environmental protections and that avoiding discretionary delays can still permit robust mitigation through codified requirements and impact fees where appropriate.
Equity and displacement: A common concern is that rapid growth under as-of-right regimes contributes to rising housing costs and displacement in already tight markets. Advocates argue that efficiency and increased supply are essential to broader affordability, and that housing policy should be paired with targeted measures such as incentives or programs that ensure a fair distribution of benefits and avoid selective gouging or substandard construction.
Woke criticisms and counterpoint: Critics from outside or within the reform movement sometimes frame as-of-right expansion as “un-democratic” or as a tool for wealthier interests to sideline lower-income neighbors. From a center-right perspective, the counterargument emphasizes that governance should be transparent, rules-based, and predictable, not subject to shifting political winds. Objective standards, clear timelines, and accompanying infrastructure investments are presented as ways to preserve neighborhood quality while delivering growth. Proponents also argue that open, codified rules reduce the risk of arbitrary decisions and corruption, and that there is room for updating codes to address legitimate concerns without resorting to discretionary gatekeeping.
Racial and neighborhood dynamics: Discussions about growth, density, and zoning inevitably touch on race and equity. A responsible view notes that all communities deserve fair treatment, while arguing that growth should be managed through neutral, transparent rules rather than through opaque discretion. The goal is to channel development in a way that expands opportunity and does not disproportionately burden any neighborhood, while keeping in mind that different areas have different capacities for change. See discussions around fair housing and urban policy for related debates.

Regional patterns and implementation notes

Jurisdictions differ in how they implement as-of-right pathways. Some place strict limits on density, height, and design within the by-right framework, while others embrace broader allowances for housing and mixed-use development. The balance between speed and safeguards tends to reflect local political culture, fiscal priorities, and the capacity of infrastructure to accommodate growth. In all cases, the central premise is to anchor development decisions in the rules that are written in planning codes, rather than in discretionary judgments that can be swayed by lobbying or particular interests. See growth management and smart growth for related policy discussions.

The interaction between as-of-right development and other planning tools—such as inclusionary zoning, transportation demand management, or impact fees—shapes outcomes in terms of affordability, traffic, and service provision. Advocates argue that pairing by-right pathways with accountable funding mechanisms ensures that growth pays for the infrastructure it uses, while critics warn that inadequate funding or poor placement can still overwhelm local facilities. See infrastructure and impact fees for more on these connections.