If you live in BC, you probably know someone with a basement suite, or you may have one yourself. They provide much needed rental housing, help homeowners offset rising mortgage costs, and contribute to community affordability. Yet, an estimated nearly 70% of basement suites are considered “unauthorized.”
This isn’t based on guesswork. It’s from 5 years of MLS sales data, which showed that between January 1, 2020 and today, 27,923 homes with unauthorized suites have sold, compared to just 12,633 homes with legal suites. That means 69% of all homes with suites sold were unauthorized. Even in today’s market, 2,313 active listings contain unauthorized suites, compared to 1,520 with legal suites. Legalizing suites just isn’t feasible for most homeowners.
This raises a bigger question: If most people don’t follow the law, should the law change?
A Law That Doesn’t Match Reality
The issue isn’t that homeowners want to avoid compliance, it’s that compliance is often unrealistic, expensive, or outdated. Many suites fail to meet legal requirements for minor technicalities, such as ceiling height, separate heating controls, or additional parking spaces. In other cases, bringing a suite “up to code” could cost tens of thousands of dollars, forcing homeowners to either operate quietly or remove rental housing altogether.
Take, for example, a family I recently worked with. They bought a small three-bedroom detached home, but as their boys grew and a family member moved in, they became desperate for more space. The only way to afford it was to buy a home with a suite to help with the mortgage. The problem? Every home they could afford had an unauthorized suite. Bringing one up to code would cost tens of thousands, and finding a home with a legal suite in their price range was essentially impossible. They had no choice but to operate in the grey market.
And they’re not alone. Unauthorized suites make up a major part of our rental housing supply. Province-wide estimates often undercount just how common they are. But MLS data confirms what many already know: unauthorized suites are the norm, not the exception. That’s especially true in single-family zones where affordability hinges on a secondary income.
Other cities have recognized this. Calgary introduced an amnesty program that allowed homeowners to legalize existing suites without massive costs. Los Angeles went even further, changing state law to remove barriers for homeowners to add or register rental units, which led to thousands of new homes. Even here in BC, Abbotsford is rolling out a new incentive program that offers up to $10,000 to help homeowners upgrade or register their suites. These aren’t fringe ideas, they’re realistic responses to a clear need.
As David Hutniak, CEO of LandlordBC, put it: “These secondary suite units need to be legalized immediately.” He criticized past enforcement attempts, saying, “Instead of focusing on housing Surrey families, we’re focusing on their cars.” That kind of thinking, prioritizing rigid bylaw infractions over actual housing outcomes, only makes the problem worse.
The Fire Safety Excuse: Risk Aversion vs. Reality
One of the biggest arguments against unauthorized suites is fire safety, but the numbers tell a different story. In 2022, fires occurred in just 0.45% of all homes in BC. While fire safety is important, current regulations are built around an extreme risk-averse mentality rather than statistical reality. Of the 9,087 fires reported that year, there were 86 deaths and 212 injuries. That means just 2.3% of fires led to injury, and less than 1% were fatal. The real issue? Only 45% of homes involved in fires had working smoke alarms.
The reality is that a home is safe enough for a family to live in, but the moment part of it becomes a rental suite, it’s suddenly deemed “unlivable” and dangerous, even though the egress and safety features remain unchanged. If the government truly cared about fire safety, ensuring every home has working smoke alarms would be a far more effective solution than forcing homeowners into unaffordable renovations.
A practical, harm-reduction approach would focus on achievable safety upgrades rather than unattainable code perfection. Having inspectors work with homeowners to bring suites up to a basic safety standard, such as adding GFCI outlets, proper ventilation, and functioning smoke alarms, would reduce risk far more effectively than forcing homeowners underground. When homeowners fear punishment, issues stay hidden. When there’s a path to transparency, problems can be fixed before they become dangerous.
A Better Way: Regulated Harm Reduction
Instead of strict bans or inconsistent enforcement, cities should introduce a practical, structured framework that:
– Acknowledges non-conforming suites rather than criminalizing them.
– Allows tenants to sign a liability waiver if they choose to rent a suite that isn’t fully to code.
– Requires homeowners to compensate tenants for a higher-end insurance policy to cover any potential risks.
– Implements a simple registration fee (like existing secondary suite fees) for non-compliant units.
– Creates an incentive-based path to compliance rather than forcing costly retrofits under threat of fines.
– Offers coordinated safety inspections to identify and correct minor but meaningful hazards.
This isn’t about removing safety standards, it’s about realigning regulation with reality. A system like this would ensure tenants are aware of potential risks and are financially protected, while homeowners are given a reasonable path to compliance without fear of extreme penalties.
Time for Reform
The citizenry is the government, our laws should reflect the needs of the people. If nearly 70% of secondary suites don’t meet current standards across British Columbia, the problem isn’t the people, it’s the policy.
It’s time for Fraser Valley municipalities to update their approach to secondary suites:
– Encourage transparency, rather than forcing suites underground.
– Allow homeowners and tenants the freedom to negotiate reasonable agreements.
– Recognize that housing affordability depends on more than rigid regulations.
As the BC Non-Profit Housing Association once stated, “most [rental supply] is found in the secondary market.” Trying to legislate away the bulk of our affordable housing stock isn’t a solution, it’s a crisis in the making.
If we want more homes and stronger communities, we need policies that make sense for today’s housing market, not outdated bylaws from decades past.
What do you think? Should Fraser Valley cities adopt a more flexible approach to secondary suites? Let’s start the conversation.
