What’s your minimum lot size for new construction to make sense?
Member since 2021 · 95 posts · 23 votes
Quick question for those doing new construction: what’s the smallest lot size you’ll consider before it no longer makes sense financially? I’m seeing more smaller lots come up (especially in older areas of Atlanta), and I’m trying to understand where most builders draw the line.
Is it strictly numbers, or are there certain layouts/zoning situations that make smaller lots still worth it?
Great question, Brooke – especially relevant for older intown Atlanta neighborhoods where you see a ton of narrow, “quirky” lots.
From what I’m seeing on the ground in Atlanta, it’s less about an absolute minimum lot size and more about the combination of:
I know infill builders here who are perfectly happy on sub‑7,000 sf lots if:
On the flip side, I’ve seen larger lots that don’t pencil because setbacks, slope, or infrastructure kill the usable building envelope.
Personally, I think the better question is: “What’s the smallest buildable envelope (after setbacks, buffers, etc.) where my intended house type still makes sense?” Once you underwrite it that way, you’ll find some small lots are home runs and some “normal” lots are landmines.
Curious what others are seeing as their “functional” minimum in Atlanta infill right now – both in terms of lot area and buildable footprint.
As Mike already laid out, the zoning code alone will further constrain what you can build based on multiple factors. It would be more helpful for you to determine your desired ROI and the programmatic qualities of what you wish to build first. At least as someone working on the design side, I'm not personally aware of such a baseline.
@Mike Grinnell
Makes sense -are you seeing smaller lots becoming easier or harder to pencil with current construction costs?
@Mike Grinnell
Makes sense -are you seeing smaller lots becoming easier or harder to pencil with current construction costs?
Great question – and it’s exactly what I’m hearing from a lot of infill builders around Atlanta right now.
In short, smaller lots are harder to pencil today on a pure cost basis, but they’re not dead if the zoning and layout cooperate. Construction costs haven’t really gone “back to normal,” and with fewer permits getting pulled, most of the builders I talk to are being more conservative on tight infill sites unless they can either go vertical (more SF on the same dirt) or add units.
Where I still see smaller lots working is when:
@Mike Grinnell
Makes sense -are you seeing smaller lots becoming easier or harder to pencil with current construction costs?
@Mike Grinnell
Makes sense -are you seeing smaller lots becoming easier or harder to pencil with current construction costs?
Great question – and it’s exactly what I’m hearing from a lot of infill builders around Atlanta right now.
In short, smaller lots are harder to pencil today on a pure cost basis, but they’re not dead if the zoning and layout cooperate. Construction costs haven’t really gone “back to normal,” and with fewer permits getting pulled, most of the builders I talk to are being more conservative on tight infill sites unless they can either go vertical (more SF on the same dirt) or add units.
Where I still see smaller lots working is when:
@Mike Grinnell
The point about construction costs not really coming back down seems to be the main pressure point on smaller infill sites. It feels like builders either have to go vertical or find some way to add units to make the numbers work, especially when it’s a tighter or more one-off type of project.
Are you seeing more builders shift in that direction, or is it still pretty deal-by-deal depending on the site? Either way, it sounds like smaller lots aren’t necessarily off the table -they just need the right combination of zoning and product to pencil.
@Mike Grinnell
Makes sense -are you seeing smaller lots becoming easier or harder to pencil with current construction costs?
That's helpful! especially putting a rough range around the buildable area versus just lot size. It does seem like as long as you can still get a functional SFH footprint, the deal has a chance to work.
Have you found that zoning flexibility ever makes smaller lots still work, or does it usually come down to just hitting that minimum buildable square footage?
Exactly — that’s what I’m hearing and seeing as well.
In Atlanta it feels very “barbell” right now: on one end you’ve got folks going vertical or stacking more units on a site to spread those fixed construction and soft costs, and on the other end you’ve got very selective infill where the land basis, zoning, and product are almost perfectly aligned. In between, a lot of marginal small-lot stuff is just sitting on the shelf because it can’t support today’s costs and debt.
So to your question: yes, there’s definitely a shift toward “how do we add density or flexibility” (ADUs, duplex/triplex on single‑family lots where allowed, small clusters instead of true one‑offs), but it’s still heavily deal‑by‑deal. Smaller lots aren’t dead, they just have to be unusually clean on entitlement and program to make sense in this environment.
@Mike Grinnell
The point about construction costs not really coming back down seems to be the main pressure point on smaller infill sites. It feels like builders either have to go vertical or find some way to add units to make the numbers work, especially when it’s a tighter or more one-off type of project.
Are you seeing more builders shift in that direction, or is it still pretty deal-by-deal depending on the site? Either way, it sounds like smaller lots aren’t necessarily off the table -they just need the right combination of zoning and product to pencil.
@Philippe Kame
From your perspective, what usually tips the scale one way or the other?