More Americans than ever live in single-person households — that is, they live alone. Census data tell us that 13 percent did so in 1960, compared to 30 percent today. Now comes the New York Times with a non-surprising analysis;  those who live alone are more likely to be lonely.

One does not need social science for guidance here. As one midtown Manhattan friend in his 70s observed, after learning a long-time mutual friend was joining the new “gray divorce” trend: “She doesn’t know how hard it is to live alone at our age.”

There was a time when Americans addressed this problem in a practical way. Young households would take in lodgers; older adults, often widows, would rent out rooms both for income and help around the house. Those of use who survived the 1960s remember communes, which provided their own sort of camaraderie.  

Census data disclose that 3 percent of American households in 1930 had lodgers; that figure fell to 1 percent by 2000.

It may be that many Americans today prefer to live alone.  But it’s also the case that housing codes in a great many local municipalities explicitly restrict their options by limiting the right of persons unrelated by “blood or marriage” to share quarters.

For a recent American Enterprise Institute research paper, I reviewed zoning regulations in 56 major cities and their nearby suburbs. In 46 of these communities, there are limits on occupants deemed “unrelated” — that is, not related by “blood, marriage, or adoption.” 

Often, these are found in single-family-only districts, the type where older adults are aging in place, have empty bedrooms and high property taxes, and could really use some help around the house. Yet even some big cities impose such restrictions.

At Las Vegas, Nevada, the limit is four unrelated individuals.  The same zoning limit applies at Grand Rapids, Michigan, and Baltimore, Maryland. No more than three unrelated persons may share a household at St. Louis, Missouri. 

Cities and their suburbs may differ substantially in this regard. Although Houston, Texas, permits up to 10 unrelated persons to share a household, its affluent suburb, Sugar Land, limits occupancy to one or more persons who are related by blood, marriage, adoption or guardianship.

Even New York City legally limits occupancy to dependents of those tenants who have signed the lease on an apartment. Enforcement, admittedly, is another matter.

None of this is illegal nor unconstitutional. A 1974 Supreme Court decision upheld such laws, in a case involving a Long Island community concerned about students crowding into local housing.  Laws limiting overall occupancy are distinct, however, from those which effectively define what a family is or should be. 

As one would expect in American federalism, some communities are beginning to adjust their codes to reflect the modern family — blended and otherwise. 

Bexley, Ohio, a suburb of Columbus, has added to its definition of a permissible “household” that of a “functional family,” which can exceed the limit of three unrelated persons if it can demonstrate that all the occupants share living spaces, expenses, and “demonstrate stability or permanence.”

The Cleveland suburb of Beachwood, Ohio, replaced references to husband, wife, and other relationships in its definition of “family” with “one (1) or more persons occupying a dwelling unit and living as a single housekeeping unit.”  The Oregon state legislature has preempted local occupancy laws that had been common throughout that state.

Outdated housing code definitions of family make it difficult for homeowners to make use of empty bedrooms.  They can indirectly raise housing costs by encouraging  individuals to rent their own individual units. Reform, in this case, can not only help households pay their bills but can serve as an antidote to loneliness.