Mapping New Jersey's Growth

Historical Planning Context (1930-2025)

Under the State Planning Act, the newly formed State Planning Commission would be responsible for formulating a State Development and Redevelopment Plan (SDRP) and facilitating a statewide, collaborative planning process, called Cross-acceptance. This process highlights that statewide planning is not a siloed journey, but one that solicits a negotiation process and participation of all levels of government and the public in the review and preparation of the final draft of the State Plan.

One of the key mechanisms to implement the State Plan at the local level is the voluntary Municipal Plan Endorsement process. Through this process, municipalities can apply for state recognition that their local master plans and land use regulations align with the goals, policies, and spatial framework of the State Plan. Endorsement strengthens the coordination between state, county, and local planning, and provides municipalities with access to certain incentives, such as priority consideration for infrastructure funding and technical assistance. It also reinforces the collaborative intent of the Cross-acceptance process by ensuring local plans remain consistent with regional and statewide objectives.

Although the provisions under the State Plan would not be mandated, they would serve as a statewide forward-looking blueprint for guiding growth and conservation in New Jersey’s geographically diverse regions. The first iteration of the State Plan, along with its State Plan Policy Map (or ​“Policy Map”), was adopted in 1992. The 2001 State Plan, also the second iteration of the Plan, has served as the version that has remained in effect as the statewide planning document for the last two decades.

2001 New Jersey State Development and Redevelopment Plan

The 2001 State Plan was developed with a forward-looking vision for New Jersey in the year 2020. This version of the State Plan acknowledges the impact that the location, type, and scale of development, redevelopment, and conservation efforts have on all aspects of life in New Jersey. Vibrant, livable communities and environmental stewardship can only emerge through careful planning and informed decision-making that involves citizens and agencies at all levels of government. The Statewide Policies outlined in the Plan must be applied to public and private decisions through the State Plan Policy Map, which provides a spatial understanding of the opportunities and constraints of the state’s diverse geographies.

The 2001 State Plan Policy Map

To coordinate this balance between opportunities and constraints, the 2001 State Plan emphasizes that growth in more efficient and compact forms can help ensure high-quality public facilities and services, as well as the conservation of natural landscapes. The State Plan Policy Map introduces the spatial concept of Planning Areas, Centers/Nodes, and Environs to achieve the Plan’s goals and Statewide Policies, as deemed necessary. The 2001 Plan identifies Metropolitan and Suburban Planning Areas (PA1 & PA2) as locations where growth was to be promoted. Other categories where growth could be accommodated (limited to ​“well-designed centers”) include Fringe (PA3), Rural (PA4), and some Environmentally Sensitive areas (PA5).

As defined in the 2001 State Plan, each of the designated Planning Areas are composed of land masses with tracts that share certain unique natural and built environment characteristics, making them suitable for a common application of policy, planning, and development. There are five primary Planning Areas – PA1: Metropolitan; PA2: Suburban; PA3: Fringe; PA4: Rural; PA4B: Rural/Environmentally Sensitive; PA5: Environmentally Sensitive; PA5B: Environmentally Sensitive Barrier Island – that are used to categorize New Jersey’s geography. Given the large size of these boundaries, the Policy Map identifies Center boundaries for a clearer distinction between where growth should be promoted or accommodated within the Planning Areas. Areas beyond the Centers are defined as Environs, and should be leveraged to further contain growth and the protection of natural and environmentally sensitive landscapes. The interaction between these delineated Areas ultimately serves as the framework for structuring smart growth, limited growth, agriculture, open space, conservation, and other relevant categories established by the State Planning Act.

The State Plan outlines policy objectives that guide the implementation of statewide policies within each Planning Area. This means that the scale of growth and conservation varies across regions, tailored to the distinct needs and capacities of each Planning Area, as well as their unique geographical features. As these Planning Areas may not necessarily align with municipal boundaries, it is crucial that cross-agency coordination and partnerships occur between all levels of government to ensure strategic development, redevelopment, and conservation. For instance, the State Plan may prioritize ecologically designed, compact forms of development and redevelopment in ​“smart growth areas.” These areas include Metropolitan and Suburban Planning Areas, Designated Centers, Pinelands Regional Growth Areas, Villages and Towns. This localized approach ensures that development is both sustainable and responsive to the specific environmental, social, and economic contexts of each area.

Establishing the Planning Area boundaries are guided by the delineation criteria set forth in the State Plan, and local context may require flexible application of the criteria to achieve the Planning Objectives of each Planning Area.

Residential Development Trends (1940 - 2020)

By analyzing the housing stock over time and according to the Planning Area Boundaries delineated in the 2001 State Plan, it is possible to see where the housing stock has been growing and the scale of that growth over the decades.

Since 1940, New Jersey has experienced an upward trend in the total number of units added to its housing stock. Between 1940 and 2020, New Jersey’s stock tripled from 1.2 million to more than 3.7 million housing units, a 2.5 million increase over 80 years. Of this increase, 1.4 million units (55% of the net increment) were built in areas designated as Metropolitan Planning Areas (PA1). As of 2020, housing units in Metropolitan areas add to over 2.4 million, representing 64% of the state’s total stock. In contrast, Suburban Planning Areas (PA2) grew from 44,000 units in 1940, less than 4% of the total in that decade, to now comprising over half a million units, accounting for 13% of the state’s total in 2020.

Housing stock located in both Metropolitan and Suburban areas represented over 2.9 million units in 2020, accounting for 77% of the state’s total. The remaining 850k units, 23% of the total, are distributed among other Planning Areas, including Fringe (PA3), Rural (PA4), and Environmentally Sensitive areas (PA5). While some growth has continued in these locations, the net number of units has stabilized over the last two decades.

Following the 2001 Plan, the state experienced a shift toward more compact housing development, characterized by a larger share of new stock in Metropolitan areas and an increase in multifamily building types. This has reduced the sprawling nature of development and limited the loss of open space and farmland. However, when compared to the 1980s and 1990s, the period from 2000 to 2020 saw a significant reduction in units produced across the state. This decline is likely attributed to a 15-year gap in the enforcement of Mount Laurel obligations from 2000 to 2015, which exacerbated issues related to housing affordability.

Incremental Units by Planning Area

To better discern development trends within Metropolitan Areas (PA1), RPA created subcategories based on residential density. We defined a threshold based on seven dwelling units per acre (as measured in the year 2000), which is the minimum generally considered necessary to support bus service. With this, we created high and low-density subcategories of Metropolitan Areas (PA1.1 and PA1.2, respectively). The higher-density locations (PA1.1) are primarily concentrated in northern New Jersey, including but not limited to Jersey City, Hoboken, Union City, Fort Lee, Newark, Elizabeth, Paterson, and Orange, as well as Trenton and Camden in central New Jersey, and Atlantic City, Asbury Park, and Neptune City along the shore.

While more than half of total residential development between 2000 and 2020 occurred in the Metropolitan Planning Areas (PA1), most of that growth has been taking form in places in around the peripheries of the established urban centers mentioned above, in areas characterized to have less than seven dwelling units per acre, or moderate- to low-density (Metropolitan Areas PA1.2 areas).

In the decades following the 2001 Plan (2000-2020), higher-density Metropolitan Areas (PA1.1) experienced a growth of 71,300 units, representing almost 16% of the statewide increase in that period, or three times more than in the previous decades (1980s and 1990s). However, despite the accelerated growth within higher-density Metropolitan Areas (PA1.1), these numbers were eclipsed by the 159,900 additional units created in lower-density Metropolitan Areas (PA1.2), which represented 35% of the net gains during the 2000-2020 period.

Incremental Units by Building Type

Between 1980 and 2020, the statewide housing stock expanded by 1.1 million units, representing a 40% increase. Despite this growth, the overall mix of housing by building type remains relatively unchanged, particularly among detached single-family and multi-family units. From this 40-year period, detached single-family homes have consistently comprised around 53% of the total housing stock, while multi-family units have maintained a share of roughly 20%. A more noticeable shift has occurred in the production of attached single-family and mid-density units, which have experienced a 5% increase and a 10% decrease, respectively, during the same time frame.

While new single-family homes continue to dominate the housing market, representing ⅔ of new stock built between 2000 and 2020, a noticeable shift has occurred in the types of housing units following the adoption of the 2001 State Plan. Multifamily housing (five or more units) saw a significant increase from 78,500 units in the 1980s and 1990s (13% of the total new stock during that period) to 136,200 units in the 2000s and 2020 (29% of the new stock). The significant increase in multifamily units is further evidenced by the steady rise from 2004 to 2022 in the percentage of residential Certificates of Occupancy (COs) issued for units allocated in multifamily structures or mixed-use projects.

Between 1980 and 2000, detached single-family homes (363,900 units) and attached single-family homes (151,000 units) combined accounted for 83% of all housing units added. In contrast, from 2000 to 2020, the numbers of detached (224,604 units) and attached (82,141 units) single-family homes declined, resulting in them representing 66% of the new housing stock.

The production of middle-density housing increased from 14,500 units during the 1980s and 1990s to 19,350 units between 2000 and 2020. However, it is important to note that middle-density housing still accounts for less than 5% of the incremental housing stock for both time periods.

Despite this shift towards more compact housing development in the decades following the 2001 Plan, overall housing production from this period has declined by approximately a quarter compared to the period prior to the Plan’s adoption. Underproduction of housing, particularly for typologies beyond single-family homes, likely contributes to New Jersey’s worsening housing supply and affordability crisis.

Trends in Market Rents and Home Values (2010 - 2025)

Since 2010, New Jersey has experienced a steady rise in both market-rate rents and home values, a trend reflected across the state’s metro areas and major cities. The broader New York Metropolitan Area ranks first in Zillow’s Typical Observed Market Rent, with Jersey City ranking a close second, and Toms River trailing closely behind. Similarly, the Zillow Home Value Index, which is a measure of typical home values and market changes across a given region and housing type, reveals that home values across New Jersey have experienced a steady upward trajectory and recovery following the decline in 2010 and 2013. While average rent and home value thresholds have varied by region, all NJ metro areas and major cities have experienced sustained price increases over the past decade.

Trends in Vacancy Rates (2010 - 2023)

The inverse relationship between vacancy rates and typical market rent and home values speaks to the intensifying housing burdens that New Jersey residents, particularly low-income residents, are facing. Since 2010, New Jersey has experienced a decline in rental and homeowner vacancy rates, with both rates currently at their lowest levels as of 2023. Limited access to affordable and available housing units on the market has driven up rental and housing costs, a trend that is evident at the statewide level, in New Jersey’s major cities, and metropolitan areas.

Incremental Housing in Transit Zone by Planning Area

RPA measured the incremental number of housing units according to the Planning Area Boundaries delineated in the 2001 State Plan, and in relation to their proximity to transit. To do this, we defined a study area based on the distribution of rail stations and bus stops in the state. We drew a half-mile radius around each rail station, and a quarter-mile around bus stops to define New Jersey’s Transit Zone (NJTZ).

Between 2000 and 2020, the state added approximately 176,000 housing units in locations within New Jersey’s Transit Zone. Such growth represents 39% of the statewide housing increase during that period. This represents a substantial increase compared to the growth observed before the adoption of the 2001 Plan. During the 1980s and 1990s, the state added approximately 128,000 units in areas near transit, which represents 21% of the total statewide increment during that period.

Residential Density and Transit Zone

More compact and mixed-use forms of development largely depend on the availability and access to public transportation. Areas with higher residential density tend to have more people and households within a smaller space, making it easier to support frequent and reliable service. This higher density translates into more potential riders, which may offset the costs of providing service and reduce the need for government subsidies. At the same time, increased density enables and justifies larger investments in transit infrastructure and services. This virtuous cycle helps reduce dependency on private vehicles, which are a significant source of pollution and environmental degradation.

While almost half of New Jersey’s statewide housing stock is located near a transit stop (1.7 million units, representing 45%), most of it is situated in areas that lack the necessary residential density and ridership to support transit service and transit-oriented communities. Less than 828,000 units, representing 22% of the total statewide housing stock, are located in areas with sufficient density to sustain bus service. Less than 362,000 (9.7% of statewide) are located in areas with sufficient density to support express bus service. Even within the transit zone boundaries (NJTZ), approximately 963,000 units are located in areas with densities below the minimum required to support bus service. This represents 56% of the total stock within the transit zone.

In the absence of these densities (and the ridership that supports transit), operators either become more reliant on subsidies or vulnerable to declining service. Directing future growth into the NJTZ through better coordination and alignment between housing and transportation planning efforts should remain a key goal going forward.

In 2012, a decade after the adoption of the 2001 Plan, Hurricane Sandy followed an unusual path through the North Atlantic, impacting New Jersey and the broader Tri-State region. The storm tide in Sandy Hook reached over 8.9 feet, and almost completely submerged barrier islands in Ocean County as the storm surge met rising waters from back bays like Barnegat Bay. According to the Governor’s office, approximately 346,000 housing units were damaged or destroyed across the state, with 22,000 units rendered uninhabitable.

As of 2020, approximately 9.2% of the state’s total stock is exposed to coastal storm surge flooding that could result from a Category 2 Hurricane. Over the next 25 years, 565,000 parcels, representing 16.4% of properties statewide, will be exposed to major flood risk, threatening $435.9 billion in market value. Understanding localized characteristics related to potential growth and flood risk will be crucial for minimizing exposure to flood risk and reducing the housing deficit in the next few decades.

Housing Exposed to Coastal Flooding

Storm surge is an abnormal rise in sea level caused by a storm’s winds pushing water towards the shore. Wave action, generated by the storm’s winds, rides on top of the storm surge, exacerbating coastal flooding and damage.

As of 2020, approximately 346,100 units, representing 9.2% of the state’s total stock, are exposed to coastal storm surge flooding that could result from a Category 2 Hurricane. Approximately 112,000 of such units (33% of the total stock exposed) are located in Metropolitan areas (PA1). Another 94,800 units (27% of total stock exposed) are situated in Environmentally Sensitive areas, including 58,200 units (17% of total stock exposed) within Barrier Island areas (PA52).

Incremental Units in Areas Exposed to Coastal Flooding

RPA compared the stock between 2000 and 2020 to measure the increase in residential units constructed in coastal flood-prone areas. Between 2000 and 2020, approximately 52,000 new units were built in areas exposed to coastal flooding. Most of the new stock exposed to coastal flooding is situated in Metropolitan Areas (PA1), with almost 14,000 new units or 27% of the new stock at risk. An additional 7,100 units in Suburban areas (PA2) were built in locations exposed to flooding (14% of the new stock exposed). Fringe and Rural areas (PA 3 & 4) added 10,400 new units, corresponding to 20% of the new stock exposed. Approximately 8,500 new units in Environmentally Sensitive locations (PA 5, 42, and 52) were built in areas at risk (17% of new stock exposed), including 4,000 in Sensitive Barrier Islands.

Unfortunately, flooding hazards, increased by climate change, will continue to exacerbate the housing shortage. The growing risk of climate-driven flooding poses a significant threat to both existing and future housing developments in flood zones. Understanding localized characteristics related to potential growth and flood risk while maintaining a regional perspective will be crucial for both minimizing exposure to flood risk and reducing the housing deficit going forward.