What Detroit’s Small‑Lot Ordinance Does

Detroit, like Gary, is a legacy city shaped by population loss, demolition, and decades of disinvestment. The result? Thousands of small, irregular, or narrow lots that no longer fit the zoning code written for a much larger city.

Before Detroit adopted a small-lot infill ordinance in 2005, many of these lots were effectively unbuildable because:

• Minimum lot sizes were too large

• Setbacks were suburban in scale

• Parking requirements were excessive

• Building types allowed by zoning didn’t match the historic neighborhood fabric

• Variances were required for even the simplest infill project

Even simple infill projects required variances, which added time, cost, and uncertainty. The ordinance was designed to solve exactly these problems.

Legalizes Building on Small, Narrow, or Irregular Lots

Like Gary, Detroit has thousands of 25–35 ft wide lots left over from demolitions. Under old zoning, many of these lots were too small to build on without a variance. At its core, the ordinance legalizes building on small, narrow, or nonconforming lots by reducing minimum lot sizes and widths and allowing construction on parcels that previously required special approval. It also brings setbacks back in line with the city’s historic neighborhoods, allowing new homes to sit closer to the street and to neighboring houses, just as they did before modern zoning existed.

This alignment with the existing block pattern makes narrow lots buildable again and restores the walkable, traditional urban form that residents recognize.

Expands Allowed Building Types

The ordinance also expands the range of building types allowed on these lots. Instead of limiting development to single‑family homes, it permits duplexes, small multi‑unit buildings, rowhouses, cottage courts, and even carriage houses. This flexibility allows developers to choose building types that actually pencil financially, rather than being forced into a model that may not work in a low‑appraisal environment.

Parking requirements are also reduced or eliminated for small lots, which lowers construction costs and frees up more of the site for housing. Perhaps most importantly, many small‑lot projects become “by right,” meaning they no longer require variances or public hearings. This streamlines approvals, reduces risk, and allows developers to build with far more certainty.

How a Similar Ordinance Could Transform Gary

Gary faces many of the same challenges Detroit did: deep but narrow lots, scattered vacant parcels, zoning written for a 1960s population, and development standards that don’t match the existing neighborhood fabric. Setbacks, minimum lot sizes, and parking requirements often make small infill projects financially or physically impossible. At the same time, Gary’s appraisal gap already makes feasibility fragile.

Reducing these regulatory barriers would immediately make hundreds of vacant lots buildable again and lower the cost of construction, allowing more projects to pencil.

Such an ordinance would also open the door to missing‑middle housing styles, including duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and small mixed‑use buildings, that historically existed in Gary but are now prohibited in many districts. This kind of gentle density stabilizes blocks, supports multigenerational living, and increases the tax base without triggering displacement. Most importantly, a small‑lot ordinance would empower local, neighborhood‑based developers.

Large developers are not going to build on scattered lots, but small developers will if the rules allow it. 

Streamlines Approvals

Perhaps the most important part: many small-lot projects become “by right.” That means no variances, no public hearings, no months-long delays, and no unpredictable outcomes. Developers can build faster, with less risk, and with more certainty. By lowering barriers to entry and reducing risk, Gary could support a new generation of local builders who can revitalize neighborhoods incrementally, block by block.

Detroit’s experience shows that modernizing zoning in a legacy city can be catalytic!. A small‑lot infill ordinance would give Gary the same opportunity to unlock its vacant land, support local developers, and rebuild its neighborhoods in a way that is incremental, community‑driven, and aligned with the city’s long‑term goals.