Pritzker's housing plan would reach into common elements, and he has vowed to revive it
Pritzker's housing plan would reach into common elements, and he has vowed to revive it
2026-09-10 · Illinois · Legislation · Proposed — not yet introduced
What is proposed. Governor Pritzker announced the BUILD plan — Building Up Illinois Developments — in his February 2026 budget address. The bills were introduced in March 2026: HB 5626, a 40-page House omnibus, plus SB 4060 (middle housing and statewide standards), SB 4061 (single-stair reform), SB 4062 (impact-fee calculation), SB 4063 (third-party plan review), SB 4064 (parking reform) and SB 4071 (ADUs).1
None reached a floor vote in either chamber, despite Democratic supermajorities. The Senate Executive Committee held only a subject-matter hearing. The package failed at adjournment on June 1, 2026.
Pritzker said at post-session press availability that he will push it in the fall veto session. Because a bill needs only a single vote there, it is genuinely live.
What BUILD would do
- legalize middle housing and ADUs by right in every residential zoning district statewide;
- preempt home rule and void non-conforming local ordinances within eight months;
- tie density to lot size — up to 4 units on 2,500–5,000 sq ft, 6 units on 5,000–7,500, 8 units above 7,500;
- mandate permit-review timelines — 15 days for one- and two-family, 30 days for multifamily — with a right to hire third-party reviewers on a missed deadline;
- eliminate parking minimums for small units and ADUs, capping multifamily parking at 0.5 spaces per unit;
- allow single-stair buildings up to six stories;
- create a private right of action with fee-shifting against non-compliant municipalities.
Funding: $250 million — $100M middle-housing construction, $50M down-payment assistance, $100M infrastructure. The appropriation survived even though the package did not. Target: 225,000 units in five years.
The clause that matters to boards
CAI's Illinois Legislative Action Committee monitored the package and engaged the SB 640 sponsor over language that would have allowed middle-housing development in common elements or common areas.
That objection is the tell, and it is worth being precise about why. Common elements are what a board exists to control. A statewide by-right development mandate that reached them would be the most invasive change to Illinois association governance in decades — not because it would permit an unpopular use, but because it would remove the association's decision entirely for a category of construction on land the members collectively own.
It is not obvious the drafters intended it. Middle-housing bills are written against municipal zoning, and “residential zoning district” language sweeps in association land without anyone deciding that it should. That is how the Chicago ADU expansion works today: it permits by right in zoning terms while leaving governing documents free to restrict.
Whether the veto-session version preserves that carve-out is the single most consequential open question for Illinois HOA boards right now.
Why it failed the first time
Illinois Municipal League President Brad Cole testified against it repeatedly, telling WBEZ he learned of BUILD in a 15-minute phone call the night before the budget address, and that his final contact with the administration came at 2:45 p.m. on the last day of session. Senator Cristina Castro voiced Democratic reservations. House Speaker Chris Welch said the state needs “a BUILD plan that works with communities, not around them.”
The opposition was about home-rule preemption, not about associations — which is precisely why the association question went unresolved rather than negotiated.
The counter-proposal is worse for boards, not better
This is the part that surprises people. The Municipal League's REAL Housing Act — framed as protecting local control — contains provisions BUILD's published text does not: that HOAs and condominium associations may not unreasonably prohibit ADUs, and that certain renter fee caps apply to HOAs and condominium associations with a private right of action and treble damages.
If a negotiated compromise emerges, those association-facing clauses are the likeliest to survive, because neither lobby is defending against them.
What a board can do
Nothing is required; none of this is law. But a board that has never read its declaration's provisions on subdividing units, creating new units, or developing common elements should do so now rather than during a veto session. And an association that wants to be heard should be talking to its own legislators, because the organised opposition in this fight is municipal, not residential.
What to watch next
The fall veto session, and specifically whether any middle-housing or ADU language carries an express carve-out for common elements and common areas.
Related Illinois HOA Topics
Stay on top of Illinois HOA law
Every week: new Illinois legislation, court rulings, and regulatory developments affecting condos, planned communities, and property managers. Free.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.