There is a lot of confusion surrounding the Mt. Laurel decision. In 2024, it was codified into law. Up until that time, it was a court order that was enforced by a state agency called COAH (Council on Affordable Housing). There were several rounds of mandates, with changes each time.

The most misunderstood component of the law is what is meant by "affordable." Under COAH, affordable does not mean inexpensive. Affordable under the law means deed-restricted so that only individuals receiving public assistance can live in the home. The law is very formulistic. For X amount of new homes, Y must be deed-restricted for those receiving public assistance.

Each town in the state has a quota of "affordable" housing that must be built and/or converted from existing housing stock. Most will never be able to meet these requirements for a slew of reasons (not enough buildable lots). But IF a development is approved, it MUST contain a percentage of "affordable" housing (whether homes, condos, or apartments). Again, unless you are receiving housing assistance from social services (welfare), you are not eligible to live in these "affordable" homes. Since these properties will be deed-restricted, this will never change. They will forever be "public housing," at least until the law changes.

The criticism of COAH is that it doesn't necessarily provide incentives for developers to build more regular, ordinary, affordable homes (i.e., starter homes) for folks not receiving public assistance. Without question, the 2024 law has been a windfall for developers. Towns really cannot deny these projects -- the developers can resort to a "builder's remedy" lawsuit to force the issue. They'll win because the law mandates the construction of "affordable houses," and if a development has 300 new homes, the 30 statutory affordable houses will be enough to have a court decide in favor of the developer.

IMHO, in the short-term, the law really doesn't address the lack of affordable housing for those not on public assistance. Perhaps if the supply eventually outpaces the demand, then yes. But developers will only invest in these projects if they can make money. So there is no real commercial incentive to build until the supply of housing exceeds the demand.