News & Events

Important Changes to Zoning Rules for Cities and Towns Effective July 1

On July 9, 2026, Governor Maura Healy signed Budget Bill 5555. The Budget Bill, now known as Chapter 137 of the Acts of 2026, largely addressed the state budget, but also quietly introduced several important and substantive changes to local zoning through amendments to G.L. c. 40A, the Zoning Act.  Those changes are outlined below.

Sections 5 and 11 – Electronic Hearing Notices

First, there is a small change that recognizes the reality of the modern world for abutter notices: under both c. 40A, § 5 and § 11, municipalities can now provide electronic notice to property owners required to receive notice of zoning hearings.  Although there is not yet any guidance on how such notice should be accomplished, municipalities would be wise to maintain some form of delivery receipt from emails.

Section 6 – More Flexibility for Prior Non-Conforming Uses

The Budget Bill made major changes to G.L. c. 40A, Section 6, which allows for the extension or alteration of pre-existing nonconforming structures and uses. Section 6 has long-plagued applicants and legal practitioners.  The SJC has notoriously called this particular section a “difficult and infelicitious” statute. Bellata v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Brookline, 481 Mass. 372, 377 (2019).

Previously, applicants seeking to extend or alter a pre-existing nonconforming structure or use had to obtain a finding from the local permit granting authority that the change would not be “substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood.”  This usually required a hearing and discretionary decision by a board.  The Budget Bill makes two major changes to this portion of Section 6.

1. Section 6 now explicitly allows an applicant to extend or alter a non-conforming structure and use (not just use, as before); and
2. Pre-existing nonconforming structures or residential uses that do not conform to zoning because of lot size or shape, frontage, lot coverage or floor area ratio requirements no longer need local permitting relief (i.e., the Section 6 findings described above) if the proposed alterations comply with height, story, and setback regulations.

The Budget Bill also extends some timelines set forth in Section 6 to protect developments from having to comply with current zoning requirements.  Previously, an applicant had to move forward with construction within one year of obtaining a building permit, or its permit would lapse and it would need to re-apply and conform to any zoning changes.  That period is now doubled to two years and it “tolls” or stops the clock for any time that the applicant spends getting additional necessary permits for the project.  The language accomplishing this, while simple on the surface, may raise questions as to when applications are being actively sought versus when the clock is tolled.

Similarly, the Budget Bill allows a municipality to extend the period before which nonconforming uses and structures are considered abandoned or not used to four years, up from two. Once the use or structure is abandoned or not used, its protections under Section 6 lapse and any construction must comply with current zoning.

Finally, existing law provides that zoning changes which increase the area, frontage, width, yard, or depth requirements for a property do not apply to lots for single or two-family residences that are at least 5,000 square feet or more of area and have 50 feet of frontage (so long as adjoining lots are not controlled by the same owner). The Budget Bill extends this protection to all lots meeting the requirements, not just single and two-family residential lots.

Section 10 – A New, Easier Standard for Variances

The Budget Bill makes significant changes to the familiar and stringent variance standard.  Previously, applicants that could not comply with zoning could only get a variance if they could show hardship due to “soil conditions, shape, or topography” of the property.  The amended Section 10 now requires a permit granting authority (i.e., the local board) to grant a variance if it finds that “strict enforcement of the ordinance or bylaw would result in a practical difficulty.” In making such a determination, the permit granting authority must consider the “weight the benefits to the appellant or petitioner and to the public interest, including the interest in supporting the production of housing against the detriment to the public health, safety of the neighborhood.” A permit granting authority may still consider whether that practical difficulty relates to soil conditions and the like, but that is no longer the only factor a board can consider, and such practical difficulty no longer needs to only affect the land in question.

Variance-seekers no longer need to show that enforcement of the bylaw would involve substantial hardship – financial or otherwise.  Instead, they only need to show that strict enforcement would impose a financial hardship. And the local permit granting authority must also consider whether the applicant can otherwise achieve the benefit sought and whether the practical difficulty in compliance was self-created.

In another move to promote housing, the Budget Bill amended Section 10 to allow a residential use variance in districts where such use is not permitted. Existing law does not provide this carve out for residential uses.

Under the Budget Bill, variance recipients now have two years, rather than one, to exercise the entitlements conferred by a variance. And the local permit granting authority that granted the variance has the discretion to extend that period for an additional two years (an increase of 18 months).

Conclusion

These changes represent a substantial shift in the standards applied to non-conforming structures and uses and the variance standard.  Municipalities should consider each of these changes carefully, and should reach out to counsel for guidance before applications start being filed.