Relocatable Tiny House FAQs

Relocatable Tiny Houses & the IRC Proposal

This effort seeks to establish clear, nationally recognized building code standards for relocatable tiny houses (also known as Movable Tiny Houses and Tiny Homes on Wheels)—small dwellings built on a chassis and used for long-term residential occupancy. The proposal brings these homes into the International Residential Code framework, providing clarity for local governments, builders, and homeowners while preserving safety, local control, and zoning authority.

What is a relocatable tiny house?

A relocatable tiny house is a small dwelling, 400 s.f. or less, not including lofts, built on an integral chassis, designed for long-term residential use, and capable of being moved if needed. Unlike recreational vehicles, these homes are intended to function as permanent housing—with full provisions for living, sleeping, cooking, and sanitation. Also known as Movable Tiny House and Tiny House on Wheels.

How is this different from an RV?

Recreational vehicles are designed and built for short-term, intermittent occupancy and mobility. Relocatable tiny houses can be designed to the same safety and performance standards as other dwellings. However, because building codes do not clearly recognize this distinction, many jurisdictions default to regulating these homes as RVs. When that happens, their use is limited to places where RVs are allowed—often campgrounds, RV parks (communities), or peripheral areas—effectively excluding them from urban and residential settings where long-term, affordable housing is most needed.

How is this different from manufactured home?

Manufactured homes are built by licensed manufacturers in accredited factories to a federal construction and safety standard (the HUD Code) and are regulated separately from the International Residential Code. They also typically require a larger footprint than most relocatable tiny homes.

Relocatable tiny houses, by contrast, are constructed as dwellings—most often by individuals, small builders, non-profits, and educational institutions—who generally cannot meet the federal HUD Code requirements. Like other dwellings, they can and should meet the local standards for the community in which they are placed.

What problem does this proposal solve?

Right now, relocatable tiny houses exist in a regulatory gray area.

Local officials often say, “We don’t know how to permit these.”
Builders lack clear construction standards.
Homeowners face barriers to insurance, financing, and legal placement.

The proposal establishes clear, nationally recognized building standards so jurisdictions that want to allow these homes can do so safely and responsibly.

Is this about deregulation or lowering safety standards?

No. This proposal does the opposite.
It brings these homes into the building code framework instead of leaving them unregulated or misclassified. The goal is safety, clarity, and accountability—using standards consistent with the IRC.

Does this force cities or states to allow tiny houses?

No. Model codes are voluntary.
Local governments retain full authority over zoning, land use, density, and whether or not to allow relocatable tiny houses at all. This proposal simply gives them a clear technical path if they choose to.

Why address this through the building code instead of zoning?

Zoning determines where housing is allowed.
Building codes determine how housing is built safely.

Many communities that want to allow tiny houses are blocked not by zoning, but by the absence of a recognized construction standard. Without code clarity, even supportive local governments can’t issue permits.

How does this relate to housing affordability?

Relocatable tiny houses are not a silver bullet—but they are one tool.
They can:

Lower construction costs
Enable accessory and incremental housing options
Support aging in place, workforce housing, and transitional housing

Code barriers disproportionately affect small-scale and innovative housing types, limiting choice in an already constrained market.

Who developed this proposal?

The proposal was developed collaboratively by actual tiny house dwellers and advocates, engineers, builders, and code experts with experience in residential construction, safety standards, and local government implementation. It’s currently going through the same public, consensus-based process as all IRC changes.

Specific names of listed co-proponents are: Macy Miller, Martin Hammer, David Eisenberg, Andrew Morrison, Jewel Pearson, Vera Struck, Vina Lustado, Mike Spooner, James Herndon, Anthony Dente, Richard Crowley, Alan Plummer, Brad Wiseman and Zack Giffin.

What stage is the proposal at now?

It has been formally submitted to the International Code Council as part of the IRC public comment process. This is a critical window where technical input, public awareness, and stakeholder engagement will influence the final outcome.

Why should the public care about an obscure code process?

Because building codes quietly shape what housing is possible—often more than people realize.
Decisions made in technical rooms can determine:

What homes can be legally built
Who can afford to live in them
How quickly and effectively communities can respond to housing shortages

This process affects real people, in big ways, even if it rarely makes headlines.

What are common misconceptions you encounter?

“These are just RVs.”
“This is about bypassing zoning and/or building codes.”
“Tiny houses are unsafe or temporary.”

None of these are accurate, and the lack of clear code language fuels those misunderstandings.

What would success look like?

Success means local governments have a clear, nationally recognized standard they can point to. It means builders know how to build safely. Homeowners know where they stand. And communities gain one more legitimate housing option—without sacrificing safety or local control.

How can people get involved?

There are several ways to learn more or support this effort, depending on interest and capacity.

Stay informed: Sign up for email updates to receive plain-language explanations, timeline updates, and opportunities for public engagement.
Show public support: A public petition helps demonstrate broad interest in clear, safety-based standards for relocatable tiny houses.
Support the work: Voluntary financial contributions are needed to help cover technical review, and transportation for participation in the public code development process.

Participation is optional, and all engagement is focused on education, transparency, and constructive involvement in an open, consensus-based process.