Some liberals see in the web of cumbersome housing regulations an effort to exclude renters, minorities and lower-income residents from many neighborhoods and entire communities, perpetuating segregation. In this view, large-lot single-family zoning and neighborhood review boards are the tools of Nimbyism.

Some conservatives see a tangle of red tape that restricts the construction industry and distorts the market for housing. A conservative ideologically opposed to rules that prescribe how bankers and businesses operate might well feel the same about regulations that say where builders must build and how many times they must defend their plans to the public.

Both camps may be happy to put many of these regulations on the cutting block. But they won’t agree on all of them.

The left and the right are likely to meet on parking requirements, which typically mandate that developers build costly parking garages — of a very specific size — even if tenants might not use them. They are more likely to agree on ending large-lot single-family zoning, which dictates the (large) minimum size of land each house must occupy.

Todd Young, a Republican senator from Indiana, recently introduced a bill, the Yes in My Backyard Act, that would require communities to explain their exclusionary housing policies if they wanted federal Community Development Block Grant dollars. In Oregon, a bill ending single-family zoning across the state passed the Statehouse last week with both Democratic and Republican votes.

But the two sides won’t agree on what to do about rent control (or the right of local communities to enact it). They won’t agree on requirements that buildings meet strict energy standards, or that builders employ construction workers at a higher standard wage.

Communities across the country have increased the number of such rules since the 1970s, adding steps to the approval process, months to project reviews, and new requirements on builders. In some of these areas, it won’t be so simple to tell two kinds of regulations apart: those whose primary goal is to limit new housing and those that, in the service of other goals, make housing more expensive.