For more than four decades, I have worked at the intersection of disasters, insurance, resilience, and public policy.
I spent 12 years in the insurance industry, including catastrophe claims response, and witnessed firsthand the devastating consequences that disasters have on families, homes, and communities. Since 1998, I have had the privilege of leading the Federal Alliance for Safe Homes (FLASH), an award-winning nonprofit coalition dedicated to advancing disaster resilience through consumer awareness and smart public policy.
During that time, one lesson has become abundantly clear: building codes are the foundation of resilience. We cannot achieve disaster resilience without them.
Modern building codes save lives. They reduce property damage. They shorten recovery times. They strengthen communities. They lower disaster losses. They help make insurance more available and affordable. And they provide a measurable return on investment for homeowners and society alike.
In fact, after decades of research, public education, and real-world disaster experience, we have largely succeeded in establishing the societal value of strong building codes. Yet one persistent objection continues to surface whenever policymakers consider adopting updated model codes.
“But what about housing affordability?”
For years, opponents of code adoption have argued that stronger codes raise construction costs, which in turn raise home prices, ultimately making housing less affordable. That argument has influenced policy discussions in statehouses, county commissions, and city councils across the country.
Now, thanks to groundbreaking research from the University of Alabama, policymakers finally have the evidence needed to move beyond that debate.
A First-of-Its-Kind Examination of Housing Markets
The University of Alabama researchers, led by Dr. Lawrence Powell, analyzed approximately 2.7 million home sales across 26 states between 2011 and 2022, examining 45 separate adoptions of International Residential Code editions. Using sophisticated econometric techniques that controlled for location, home characteristics, market conditions, and timing, they tested a straightforward question:
Do building code updates actually result in higher home sale prices?
Their conclusion could not be clearer:
“The results shown here do not support any notions that home prices increase, or new home supply is limited or displaced when states adopt new building codes. Even more importantly, the authors found no evidence that code adoption had any detectable effect on large-scale housing prices.”
This matters because the study directly tested a long-standing assumption that decision-makers often accept without verification.
Construction Cost Is Not the Same as Home Price
One of the most important contributions of this research is its distinction between construction cost and market price.
Previous studies, including those conducted by Home Innovation Research Labs (HIRL), estimated that certain code changes can increase construction costs. The Alabama researchers do not dispute those findings. In fact, they acknowledge and cite that work.
What they challenge is the assumption that every dollar of additional construction cost automatically becomes a dollar of increased home price.
Their analysis found little evidence that this occurs in actual housing markets. Many factors, including land costs, location, mortgage rates, labor availability, supply and demand, and neighborhood desirability, influence home prices. Construction costs are only one component of a much larger equation.
The result? The estimated costs associated with code adoption generally do not translate into higher home sale prices.
For those of us who have spent decades defending the value of codes, this is a pivotal finding.
The Real Measure of Affordability
The study also presents an opportunity to redefine how we think about housing affordability.
Too often, affordability is discussed solely in terms of purchase price. But homeowners do not experience affordability as a one-time transaction. They experience it as the total cost of ownership.
A home that suffers repeated storm damage, roof failures, water intrusion, flooding, or wind losses is not affordable.
A home that generates repeated insurance claims is not affordable.
A home that leaves its owners paying large deductibles, temporary housing expenses, repair costs, and escalating insurance premiums is not affordable.
True affordability includes safety, durability, insurability, and resilience, otherwise known as the ability to “bounce back” after a disaster, swiftly and fully.
That matters now more than ever.
Across many disaster-prone states, homeowners are confronting rising insurance costs and shrinking insurance availability. Consumers increasingly need homes that perform better because insurers increasingly need risks that perform better.
Resilience and insurability are becoming inseparable.
A Liberation Day for Policymakers
I believe this study represents something larger than an academic finding. It is a day of liberation for policymakers across the country. For years, many elected officials have found themselves caught between overwhelming evidence supporting stronger building codes and concerns that adopting stronger codes might worsen housing affordability.
The University of Alabama study provides a fresh, objective, data-driven answer. The evidence indicates that policymakers no longer need to choose between resilience and affordability, as the presumed conflict does not appear in real-world housing markets.
That should free leaders to focus on what they know works.
Adopt updated model codes.
Reduce disaster losses.
Protect families.
Strengthen communities.
Improve housing durability.
Support long-term insurability.
Enhance public safety.
Those goals are not in conflict with affordability. They are essential components of it.
A Call to States Still Lagging Behind
The implications are particularly important for states facing frequent disasters.
States such as Texas continue to experience hurricanes, severe convective storms, tornadoes, flooding, hail, winter storms, and extreme weather events that produce billions of dollars in losses each year.
Every year that passes without statewide adoption of the latest model building codes represents a missed opportunity to reduce future losses and maintain a competitive property insurance marketplace.
The evidence supporting strong building codes was already substantial. Decades of research and post-disaster engineering investigations validate their role in preventing or reducing damage and protecting lives. Research, such as the multi-year Federal Emergency Management Agency “Building Codes Save” study, found that “The cumulative savings from hazard-resistant building codes will reach at least $132 billion by 2040, with annual savings growing to more than $3.2 billion every year as code-compliant construction continues to expand.” According to the National Institute of Building Sciences Multi-Hazard Mitigation Council, “Every $1 invested in adopting modern building codes returns approximately $11 in benefits through reduced disaster losses, lower recovery costs, and improved community resilience.”
Now we have something new.
We have compelling evidence that the affordability argument does not hold up under real-world scrutiny. And for those who have hesitated because of concerns about housing prices, this study provides confidence to move forward.
The time has come to stop saying, “Building codes are important, but…”
The “but” is gone.
Building codes work.
Building codes save money.
Building codes support resilience.
And according to this groundbreaking research, building codes do not systematically increase home prices.
It’s time for every leader and advocate in this space to stand up and say so.
Leslie Chapman-Henderson is President and CEO of the nonprofit Federal Alliance for Safe Homes (FLASH). A nationally recognized resilience leader, she received the 2025 National Institute of Building Sciences Exceptional Woman in Building Award and the 2023 National Hurricane Conference Neil Frank Award, the conference’s highest honor. She has held numerous leadership positions, including serving as Chair of the Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund Advisory Committee, Vice Chair of the Florida Task Force for Long-Term Insurance Solutions, and other roles advancing building codes, disaster safety, insurance solutions, and resilience policy at the state and national levels. She and her team developed and sponsored “StormStruck: A Tale of Two Homes” in Epcot at Walt Disney World from 2008 to 2016.
