Several well-established strategies can reduce urban sprawl, and they generally fall into three categories: changing zoning laws to encourage compact, mixed-use development; setting physical boundaries on where cities can grow; and investing in public transit and walkable infrastructure. These approaches work best in combination, each reinforcing the others to keep development concentrated rather than spreading outward into farmland and open space.
Mixed-Use Zoning
Traditional zoning laws that separate residential neighborhoods from commercial areas are one of the biggest drivers of sprawl. When homes, shops, and workplaces must occupy completely different zones, residents have no choice but to drive longer distances for basic errands. Rewriting zoning codes to allow mixed-use development, where apartments sit above retail stores or offices share blocks with housing, shortens those trips dramatically and makes neighborhoods walkable.
Mixed land use is one of the three core predictors of walkability, alongside residential density and pedestrian-friendly street design. Communities that blend commercial facilities with single-family and multifamily housing have historically enabled residents to reach multiple destinations on foot. That walkability reduces car dependence, which in turn reduces pressure to build wider roads and more parking lots, both of which consume land and accelerate outward growth. Zoning laws can also be written to require sidewalks and bike lanes in new developments, further supporting this shift.
Urban Growth Boundaries
An urban growth boundary (UGB) draws a legal line around a city and restricts new development beyond it. Inside the boundary, growth is encouraged. Outside, residential and commercial construction is limited or prohibited. This tool has been used globally for at least 80 years to curb sprawl and protect natural areas and farmland.
Research comparing cities with and without UGBs shows that boundaries effectively slow the loss of green space and ecosystem services over time, preserving them at a higher and more predictable rate than cities that grow without limits. UGBs also promote higher urban densities and reduce infrastructure costs by concentrating development. They don’t perfectly protect surrounding land from all degradation, but they significantly moderate the impact of urbanization.
A related approach involves forbidding new housing construction on rural land or setting administrative boundaries for city services like water and sewer connections. If a developer can’t connect a new subdivision to the municipal water system, building it becomes impractical. Conservation easements offer another layer of protection: programs like the federal Agricultural Conservation Easement Program permanently limit nonagricultural uses on working farms and ranches near urban edges, keeping that land in production rather than letting it convert to subdivisions.
Transit-Oriented Development
Building housing, offices, and retail within walking distance of bus and rail stations is one of the most effective ways to reduce both sprawl and car dependence. Households living in transit-oriented developments drive substantially less than those in car-dependent suburbs. California research found that residents near transit generate 28% to 41% fewer vehicle miles traveled per household than those living farther from transit, with most studies landing around 35% to 39% lower.
That reduction in driving matters for sprawl because it weakens the demand cycle that pushes cities outward. When people rely on cars, they tolerate longer commutes, which makes distant land viable for development. When transit is convenient, the incentive flips: living close to a station becomes more attractive, and demand concentrates inward rather than spreading out. Government investment in mass-transit systems is a direct way to support this pattern.
Infill Development and Higher Density
Infill development means building on vacant or underused land within an already-developed area rather than converting open land at the city’s edge. A California scenario study found that infill was the least environmentally impactful growth strategy tested, preserving 46% to 57% more land for other uses compared to outward expansion. Essentially, infill absorbs population growth without consuming new territory.
Zoning changes that encourage higher-density housing, like allowing duplexes or apartment buildings in areas previously restricted to single-family homes, serve the same purpose. More people living on less land means less pressure to develop the next ring of farmland or forest. This also makes public transit and walkable commercial districts more financially viable, since they depend on having enough nearby residents to sustain ridership and foot traffic.
The Infrastructure Cost Argument
Sprawl is expensive. National projections show that managed, compact growth patterns could save roughly 188,000 lane-miles of local roads and $110 billion in road construction costs compared to conventional sprawl development. Infrastructure savings from fewer water and sewer connections add another $12.6 billion. Annual public service costs drop by about $4 billion, a nearly 10% reduction, when development stays closer to urban centers.
Sprawl also raises costs for individual households. Conventional development patterns produce roughly $13,000 more in housing occupancy costs per dwelling unit than compact alternatives, largely because of longer utility runs, more road maintenance, and greater car dependence. These numbers give cities a strong fiscal incentive to adopt anti-sprawl policies even beyond environmental concerns.
Do Growth Limits Raise Housing Prices?
A common concern is that restricting where cities can build will drive up housing costs by limiting the supply of developable land. The evidence on this is more nuanced than critics suggest. A long-term analysis of Portland, Oregon, one of the most well-known UGB cities in the U.S., found no relationship between boundary expansions and home prices over the period from 1975 to 2018. Population growth, rising incomes, and employment trends were more likely drivers of price increases than land supply constraints.
Comparing metro areas nationally, housing prices in cities with UGBs did not rise faster than elsewhere. In fact, during the mid-2000s housing boom, the price growth rate in metro areas without UGBs peaked at 33%, at least 13 percentage points higher than in UGB cities during the same period. UGBs restrict the supply of developable land but not the supply of housing units. Developers can still respond to rising land costs by building on smaller lots or constructing multifamily housing at higher densities, which actually aligns with the broader goal of reducing sprawl.