2025 · Regular session · Senate bill
SB15
SB15 limits how certain larger cities can use minimum lot sizes, density limits and design requirements to prevent smaller single-family home lots.
Official caption: Relating to size and density requirements for residential lots in certain municipalities; authorizing a fee.
Official report lists Senate author(s): Bettencourt, Campbell, Creighton, Gutierrez, Hagenbuch, et al.. This does not identify sponsors or amendment drafters.
Bill explanation published · Version and amendment review scope is stated below · Individual amendment records may not be separately annotated.
Bill highlights
Selected points from the published explanation. Follow each point to its source-linked context; conditions and limits may matter.
- SB15 limits how certain larger cities can use minimum lot sizes, density limits and design requirements to prevent smaller single-family home lots.
- The city must have more than 150,000 residents and lie wholly or partly in a county with more than 300,000 residents.
- Geographic exceptions exclude areas within 3,000 feet of an airport or military base, and specified military-airport overlay areas within 15,000 feet of a base boundary with clear-zone and accident-potential-zone designations.
- For covered land, cities cannot require a residential lot to exceed 3,000 square feet, 30 feet in width or 75 feet in depth.
- For a covered small lot, the city generally cannot require setbacks greater than 15 feet at the front, 10 feet at the back or five feet at the side; covered parking; more than one parking space per unit; off-site parking; or more than 30% open space or permeable surface.
- Cities may require shared driveways, permitting fees equivalent to those for a single-family-restricted lot, and impact fees to the extent Chapter 395 authorizes them.
What does it do?
What SB15 allows—and where
SB15 limits how certain larger cities can use minimum lot sizes, density limits and design requirements to prevent smaller single-family home lots. It does not require every homeowner to subdivide, and it does not apply to every city or existing neighborhood lot. Signed June 20, 2025, it took effect September 1, 2025. official history; final law.
The city must have more than 150,000 residents and lie wholly or partly in a county with more than 300,000 residents. The tract must be at least five acres, have no recorded plat, and be land that will be platted in an area zoned for single-family homes. These conditions apply to the subchapter as a whole, including the small-lot protections. A “small lot” means 4,000 square feet or less. final law, Sections 211.051–.052.
Geographic exceptions exclude areas within 3,000 feet of an airport or military base, and specified military-airport overlay areas within 15,000 feet of a base boundary with clear-zone and accident-potential-zone designations. The act also contains a one-mile law-enforcement-training-center exception in counties with at least 2.6 million residents; its unusual wording is “one mile of a campus of the perimeter of a law enforcement training center.” That wording should be checked against a particular site rather than silently rewritten into a different boundary test. final law, Section 211.052(b).
Lot size, parking and building limits
For covered land, cities cannot require a residential lot to exceed 3,000 square feet, 30 feet in width or 75 feet in depth. They also cannot use dwelling-density limits to prevent a single-family home on a lot of at least 3,000 square feet. These are limits on what a city may demand, not a ban on larger lots or an instruction that 30 feet multiplied by 75 feet equals the required area. final law, Section 211.054.
For a covered small lot, the city generally cannot require setbacks greater than 15 feet at the front, 10 feet at the back or five feet at the side; covered parking; more than one parking space per unit; off-site parking; or more than 30% open space or permeable surface. It cannot require fewer than three full stories with interior floor-to-ceiling heights not exceeding 10 feet, impose a maximum building bulk or wall-articulation requirement, or evade these limits through overlapping or adjacent zoning restrictions. The story provision is not simply a universal 30-foot exterior-building-height rule. final law, Section 211.055(a).
Cities may require shared driveways, permitting fees equivalent to those for a single-family-restricted lot, and impact fees to the extent Chapter 395 authorizes them. Environmental-feature, erosion and waterway setbacks remain allowed to the extent federal or other state law authorizes them. Aquifer-protection rules in recharge zones may exceed the ordinary open-space/permeable-surface limit. final law, Section 211.055(a-1)–(c).
What remains protected
The act does not affect requirements directly related to rentals shorter than 30 days or to flooding, sewer facilities or well water on an individual lot serving only that lot. Except for the act’s express limits, cities may retain restrictions applicable to similarly situated lots or subdivisions, including full mitigation of stormwater runoff. Private homeowners’ association rules and deed restrictions remain enforceable; the act limits municipal rules, not all private agreements. final law, Sections 211.053 and .056–.057.
A person adversely affected or aggrieved, or a qualifying housing organization, may sue the city or an official in their official capacity in a county containing the property. The statute’s organization definition covers specified Texas-organized housing-industry and nonprofit groups, not every group simply claiming an interest. Courts may declare rights, order an official to comply or issue an injunction. A prevailing claimant must receive reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs. The claimant may elect the Fifteenth Court of Appeals in the petition as the exclusive intermediate appellate court. Final SB15 does not include the Senate proposal’s separate award of economic-loss damages. final law, Sections 211.051 and .058.
What changed along the way?
Amendments and the final compromise
The introduced and Senate committee versions were substantively alike. The adopted Parker Senate amendment F1 raised the city threshold from more than 90,000 to more than 150,000 residents. The adopted Menéndez Senate amendment F2 preserved aquifer-protection rules in recharge zones despite the 30% open-space/permeability ceiling. Both changes survive. Five posted versions; final law.
The House committee version moved the five-acre, unplatted, single-family-zoning conditions from the lot-size section to the whole subchapter, narrowing the reach of the small-lot rules too. It added airport/military exclusions, removed the proposed economic-damages remedy and express immunity-waiver clauses, and made Fifteenth Court of Appeals review an election rather than automatic. The final act retains those changes. Removing the damages proposal should not be confused with eliminating the expressly authorized declaratory, injunction and compliance actions. final law; House committee text.
The adopted Gates House amendment 1 changed the permitted minimum-lot demands from 1,400 square feet/20 feet wide/60 feet deep to 3,000/30/75. It replaced the Senate’s 31.1-units-per-acre formulation with protection for a single-family home on a lot of at least 3,000 square feet. It increased front/back setbacks from five feet to 15/10, preserved certain environmental setbacks and authorized impact fees within Chapter 395. It also removed “map” from the no-recorded-map-or-plat condition. These changes survive.
The adopted Romero House amendment 2 would have required a new single-family zoning classification and limited the bill’s protections to it. The conference removed that amendment: final SB15 does not make its protections depend on that new classification. An adopted House amendment is not necessarily enacted law. The full conference report in the May 30 Senate journal matches the enrolled operative text; the Senate adopted the agreement May 31 and the House June 1. All four amendment outcomes; official history.
For the full amendment record, open the official amendment index.
Official bill versions
Compare the published text versions in the official text index. A change is not attributed to a specific amendment here without a verified record.
Who could benefit—and who could bear the costs?
Potential gains and tradeoffs
On eligible tracts, builders gain room for smaller lots and fewer mandatory parking/design features, potentially spreading land costs across more homes. Buyers may gain more housing choices, but the law does not guarantee lower sale prices or a particular number of homes. Cities lose specified zoning discretion and must administer the remaining infrastructure, drainage and environmental requirements alongside the new limits. Existing private restrictions and the tract/geographic exclusions may limit where benefits occur. These are practical implications of the statutory design, not measured outcomes. final law.
The May 30 conference/final fiscal note anticipates no significant state fiscal impact or state-agency cost. It identifies possible municipal impacts where existing size/density rules conflict and where cities assess authorized permitting fees, without a dollar estimate. That does not mean no local cost. The final fee-shifting provision can require a losing city to pay a successful claimant’s reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs. final law, Section 211.058(d).
All six fiscal postings were checked. The earlier engrossed note referred to possible damages as well as court fees; the economic-damages authorization was removed before enactment, so that earlier discussion must not be presented as a final SB15 remedy. No housing-price reduction or infrastructure saving was quantified in the final note.
Review scope: complete final law and matching conference text, official history, all five posted versions, all four amendment texts and dispositions, and six fiscal postings. The history records an earlier House report returned to committee; the linked House text is the revised committee version considered with the May 27 amendments.
Official sources
- Bill history and latest recorded action
- Bill versions, analyses and fiscal notes
- Action history and votes
- Amendment index
Catalog report retrieved 2026-10-25. Check the official record for corrections or later changes.
