The ‘Golden Girls’ Could Move to Pennsylvania—Thanks to a New Housing Bill

In Pennsylvania, the "Golden Girls" might need a lawyer.

Not because Blanche is flirting with the neighbors again or because Sophia is being too loud, but because local “unrelated persons” rules in some municipalities restrict how many nonfamily members can share a rental, making the iconic quartet’s four-roommates-under-one-roof setup illegal.

But as affordability pressures rise in a state that stands out for its low-cost living, a new state bill aims to change that.

Dubbed the “Golden Girls Law,” HB 2109 would block municipalities from using zoning or housing codes to cap unrelated roommates. Lawmakers say it could reopen the door to single-room occupancy housing (SROs), a once-common, low-cost option that’s been regulated into near-extinction.

The bill’s sponsors say the stakes are big: The state is short more than 265,000 affordable units, and local occupancy limits “prevent friends, workers, older adults, and families from saving money by sharing a place.”

If it passes, Pennsylvania would join states like Iowa, Colorado, Oregon, and Washington that have already moved in this direction. And while the bill won’t bring Miami to Pittsburgh, it could make roommate living (and cheaper housing) a lot easier to do legally.

Pennsylvania’s 'unrelated persons' rules hit the wrong target

“Unrelated persons” caps have long been defended as a way to prevent overcrowding and protect housing quality. But supporters of reform argue that in practice, the rules don't function as a safety regulation and instead act as a barrier to basic affordability—one that falls hardest on the people most likely to rely on shared housing: students, low-income renters, and anyone priced out of living alone.

That collision is getting harder to ignore as roommate living becomes more common. The share of young adults living with nonrelatives has been rising as college costs and big-city rents climb, a 2024 study found. The increases were most pronounced among people under financial pressure and those with less family support—exactly the groups with the fewest alternatives when laws make shared living harder.

“With housing costs rising so quickly today, sharing space like that is more important than ever,” the bill memo notes. “Yet in many Pennsylvania communities, outdated rules make these kinds of living arrangements illegal.”

The same policy ecosystem also helps explain why SROs and boarding houses have nearly disappeared. 

“Over the past several decades, zoning rules limiting unrelated tenants, building and safety codes requiring private kitchens and bathrooms, and urban renewal projects have largely phased SROs and boarding housing out,” says Jiayi Xu, an economist at Realtor.com®. 

“Today, most municipalities either ban or heavily restrict these units, leaving low-income singles with few legal, flexible housing options,” she adds.

Pennsylvania’s housing pipeline problem

For anyone following housing trends, the bill might seem out of place. Pennsylvania has been making headlines for something rare in 2026: relative affordability.

Starter homes in the state rank among the most affordable in the Northeast, even for buyers earning around $50,000. Pittsburgh, meanwhile, has been singled out as one of the country’s most affordable major metros, with median prices still below $250,000.

But “affordable” doesn’t mean “fixed,” especially when it's a relative measure up against a country in crisis.

While house hunters may have more affordable options today, Pennsylvania’s bigger problem is upstream. The state isn’t building enough homes to keep pace with demand, especially in the places where jobs, schools, and population growth are concentrated. That weak pipeline is the main reason the state still struggles on broader affordability measures.

In its latest State-by-State Housing Report Card from Realtor.com, Pennsylvania earned a C, driven in large part by low levels of new construction and relatively high prices for newly built homes, says Xu. That’s where the Golden Girls Law could help.

“HB 2109 could expand legal shared housing and lower costs for singles and low-income renters in tight markets,” Xu says. “But it won’t dramatically change statewide affordability challenges—achieving that would require broader zoning reform, financing incentives, and new unit creation.”

SROs won’t solve affordability outright, but they can restore a missing rung

SROs and boarding houses aren’t a universal fix, but they’re not trying to be, either.

That could ultimately be their superpower. Instead of a holistic fix, these units are designed for a specific gap in the market that has been hurting for years.

“SROs and boarding houses are meaningful tools for singles, low-income workers, and students, especially in high-cost cities,” says Xu. “However, because they feature small rooms and shared kitchens and bathrooms, they are unsuitable for families and cannot solve housing affordability for households with children.”

Still, the historical case is hard to ignore.

In some major U.S. cities, SROs once made up about 10% of the rental stock, offering a basic, low-rent rung that’s largely disappeared, according to research from Pew. The Pew analysis argues that if SRO-style housing had simply grown alongside the broader housing supply since 1960, the U.S. would have roughly 2.5 million more of these units today—exactly the kind of “in-between” housing that helps keep people from getting priced out entirely.

And while current estimates put closing the national housing gap seven years out, HB 2109’s pitch offers localities speed.

“Reforming occupancy limits could quickly unlock housing supply that is currently illegal or constrained, by converting large houses, commercial buildings, or underused spaces into shared units,” Xu says. “Unlike new construction, this approach avoids long permitting delays and high costs. It would have the greatest impact in high-rent, high-demand markets like Philadelphia and in student or worker hubs like Pittsburgh, helping to absorb demand and ease pressure on traditional rentals.”