Small Spaces: Understanding Alternative Housing Options

Small Spaces, Big Questions: Recap of HOME’s June 5, 2026 Housing Forum

Housing conversations often begin with one shared goal: creating more options. But as HOME’s recent forum made clear, the path from idea to implementation is rarely simple.

At the June forum, Small Spaces: Understanding Alternative Housing Options, HOME brought together city leaders, housing professionals, financing experts, and community stakeholders to examine the growing conversation around tiny homes, ADUs, modular housing, manufactured homes, RVs, and movable tiny homes. Hosted at the Piccolo Tiny Homes manufacturing site in Simi Valley, the discussion offered a grounded look at what these housing options are, how they are regulated, how they can be financed, and what barriers still stand in the way of broader adoption.

The forum was designed to help clarify a complicated topic. As interest in alternative and more naturally attainable housing options grows, so does confusion around definitions, approvals, financing, infrastructure, and long-term use. What qualifies as permanent housing? What can be counted toward housing goals? What is allowed in one city but not another? And how do we create pathways that are both practical for residents and workable for local jurisdictions?

These were the kinds of questions explored throughout the morning.

Understanding the Differences Between Housing Types

A central theme of the forum was the importance of definitions. The conversation began by distinguishing between housing types that are often discussed together but treated very differently under law, building codes, and financing systems.

Traditional stick-built ADUs are constructed onsite, placed on a foundation, reviewed under local building codes, and inspected by local agencies. Modular homes are largely built in a factory and then transported to a property, where they are also placed on a foundation and reviewed under applicable building codes.

Movable tiny homes sit in a more complicated space, where application and specifications are still piecemeal from one jurisdiction to the next. As discussed during the forum, movable tiny homes fall under federal RV building standards, but are typically constructed with more durable materials and residential-style finishes, more akin to a modular home. They include better insulation, exterior siding, and other features intended to make them suitable for permanent, long-term living.

However, because they are still titled as a vehicle, different from conventional housing, cities, lenders, and state agencies evaluate them in different ways. That distinction has significant implications for where they can be placed, how they are approved, how they can be financed, and if they can be counted toward housing production goals.

Local Cities Are Approaching the Issue Differently

One of the most valuable parts of the forum was hearing directly from local community development leaders about how different jurisdictions are handling these housing types.

In Simi Valley, movable tiny homes are not currently allowed as backyard ADUs on single-family residential properties. The city does allow stick-built ADUs, including garage conversions, attached ADUs, and detached ADUs. Garage conversions remain especially common because the existing structure can lower the financial barrier for homeowners.

The Simi Valley discussion also highlighted the administrative challenges cities face when considering permanent residency in anything on wheels, whether RV, mobile home, or tiny-house-on-wheels. Enforcement, sanitation, neighborhood compatibility, and long-term management all become part of the conversation.

In Santa Paula, the discussion emphasized the importance of offering a broad continuum of housing types. Not every household fits neatly into one housing category, and many residents fall into the “missing middle” space: earning too much to qualify for assistance but not enough to afford market-rate housing.

Santa Paula has also taken steps to reduce barriers for ADU development, including preparing pre-approved ADU templates. These templates can help homeowners avoid some upfront design costs and move more directly into the permitting process.

Ojai provides an example of a city that is allowing movable tiny homes as permanent residences through local ordinances and pilot programs. The discussion highlighted the city’s broader goal of expanding affordable housing options. It also noted the progression from an initial pilot program under Ojai’s ADU ordinance to a separate tiny home ordinance that creates a more targeted regulatory framework.

As Ojai moves forward with implementation, the city is evaluating several practical and policy considerations, including:

●        Sanitation hook-up fees

●        Options for off-grid living

●        Foundation pad requirements

●        Infrastructure costs

●        How movable tiny homes may count toward housing goals

Statis Perros, City of Simi Valley and Lucas Seibert, City of Ojai discuss the practicality of a movable tiny home ordinance.

The key takeaway was clear: there is no single regional approach yet. Each jurisdiction is working through its own land use rules, infrastructure realities, political considerations, and community priorities.

Financing Considerations

The forum also spent time on financing, and how commercial lending depends heavily on how a housing product is legally classified. The discussion introduced the concept of “chattel,” referring to personal property rather than real property. That distinction matters because lenders evaluate personal property and real estate differently.

Stick-built and modular homes are always connected to real property and have well established  available financial mortgage products. Manufactured (or mobile) homes are financed in different ways depending on how they are titled—as personal property chattel through the DMV or converted and secured as real property. There are established loan products for mobile homes. Recreational vehicles are always chattel, and because they are never permanently affixed to land, they can be financed and secured through traditional vehicle loans.

Financing movable tiny homes becomes more complicated. While they are a physical and permanent housing unit, often affixed to the land like a manufactured home, they are built and titled through vehicle-related systems, like an RV. Current legal and financial systems do not treat it like real property. This duality creates uncertainty and can limit lending options.

Matthew Couch, Mortgage Couch, Inc. and Ben Davis, Piccola Homes discuss financing options for movable tiny homes.

Infrastructure Can Make or Break Feasibility

Another recurring theme was infrastructure. Participants discussed how utility requirements can quickly increase the total cost of a small housing project. Electrical upgrades, sewer connections, septic requirements, water service, fire sprinklers, pads, foundations, and other site improvements can add tens of thousands of dollars to a project.

This is especially important for tiny homes and ADUs because many of these housing types are pursued specifically for affordability. If the cost for the infrastructure required to place the unit is high, the affordability advantage can disappear.

The forum included discussion around off-grid possibilities, composting toilets, solar power, fire safety, and utility connections. While some of these ideas may offer future flexibility, they also introduce additional regulatory and technical questions.

The larger issue is not whether small housing can be built. It is whether the systems around it are, or can be, designed to make small housing feasible.

Housing Solutions Need Flexibility

Throughout the conversation, speakers returned to a broader point: Ventura County’s housing challenges require more than one solution.

Alternative housing options may not solve the entire affordability crisis, but they can be part of a larger housing ecosystem. Movable tiny homes, manufactured homes, modular units, garage conversions, ADUs, emergency housing, transitional housing, and congregate living models may each serve different populations and needs.

For seniors on fixed incomes, young professionals, farmworkers, people exiting homelessness, small households, and those unable to access traditional homeownership or rental options, smaller and more flexible housing types may provide meaningful opportunities.

At the same time, the forum acknowledged that cities must balance these opportunities with safety, enforcement, neighborhood compatibility, infrastructure capacity, and long-term housing policy goals.

The conversation also touched on the role of housing as part of community life. Housing connects to employment, health, transportation, aging, disaster recovery, and economic development. As one speaker noted, the housing challenge cannot be addressed through a single “silver bullet.” It requires a range of tools that can be adjusted based on the needs of different people and different communities.

Policy, Funding, and Implementation Must Work Together

A major takeaway from the forum was that many promising housing ideas are stalled because of policy and funding.

Even when a housing type seems practical, it must still fit within local codes, state law, financing systems, fire and safety requirements, infrastructure standards, and state housing reporting frameworks. If one part of that system does not align, the project can become difficult or impossible to execute.

The discussion around RHNA credit was a strong example. If movable tiny homes are permitted as ADUs or otherwise recognized as housing units, can they count toward a jurisdiction’s housing goals? How should they be tracked if they are technically movable? What if they remain in place long-term? What kind of permit or slab or site improvement makes them countable?

These questions matter because jurisdictions are under pressure to plan for and produce housing. If alternative housing types can help meet those goals, local governments may have stronger incentives to create clearer pathways for approval.

As new housing products such as movable tiny homes emerge, the systems that regulate, finance, and insure them must also continually evaluate and adapt. At present time 23 cities and counties in California have policies approving movable tiny homes, including Ojai, Los Angeles, San Jose, San Diego, and Fresno. These and other cities experimenting with pilot programs, templates, sample ordinances, or alternative utility approaches are helping identify what works—and where additional policy guidance may be needed. A more widespread conversation and action is needed to incorporate innovation into solutions for more affordable housing.

A Conversation Worth Continuing

The June forum did not attempt to answer every question. Instead, it did something equally important: it brought the right people into the room to clearly name and address the challenges.

Alternative housing is not simple. Tiny homes, ADUs, manufactured housing, modular construction, RVs, and movable dwellings all carry different legal, financial, and practical considerations. The complexity should not prevent but rather fuel continued exploration.

Ventura County needs to continue to engage in broad housing conversations—ones that include traditional development, affordable housing, missing-middle options, homeownership pathways, supportive housing, and smaller-scale solutions that help fill gaps in the market.

This forum reinforced that progress requires coordination across sectors: municipal staff and elected officials, lenders, builders, housing and service providers, employers, nonprofit organizations, state agencies, and residents themselves.

It also requires a willingness to test ideas, gather data, refine policies, and keep asking practical questions. What can be approved? How can it be financed? What can be built affordably? What can be maintained over time? And how can each city create room for housing solutions that reflect the needs of its own community?

Moving the Conversation Forward

HOME’s mission has always centered on thoughtful discussion, education, and collaboration around housing issues in Ventura County. This forum reflected that mission in action.

By bringing together local expertise and community perspectives, Small Spaces: Understanding Alternative Housing Options helped clarify why alternative housing matters—and why implementation requires careful, collaborative work.

The conversation around small spaces is really a conversation about larger possibilities: how Ventura County can expand housing choice, support more attainable options, and create flexible solutions for residents at different stages of life. As housing needs continue to evolve, forums like this create the space to learn from one another, challenge assumptions, and move closer to practical solutions.

HOME looks forward to continuing these conversations and supporting the partnerships needed to advance housing opportunities throughout Ventura County. We appreciate the Forum speakers and guests for sharing their experiences and expertise, especially:

●        Ben Davis, President, Piccola Homes

●        Lucus Seibert, Community Development Director, City of Ojai

●        Stratis Perros, Environmental Services Director, City of Simi Valley

●        James Mason, Community Development Director, City of Santa Paula

●        Matthew Couch, CEO, MortgageCouch, Inc.