We Franchise Burgers. Why Aren't We Franchising Affordable Homes?

By Sean Goldsmith

Housing franchises are being tested in South Africa and the US. Can shared designs and suppliers reduce costs enough to make homes more affordable?

For a family trying to buy its first home, the difficulties of property development are largely invisible. They see the asking price, calculate what they can borrow and decide whether they can afford the monthly repayments. They rarely see the months a developer has spent negotiating over land, waiting for approvals or paying interest before construction has even begun.

Those costs eventually find their way into the price of the property. A developer who spends an extra six months waiting for permission to build still has bills to pay, and the money has to come from somewhere. Smaller developers are particularly exposed because they may have only one project under way, with little income arriving until the homes are completed and sold.

It is an expensive business to learn through trial and error. That helps explain why some entrepreneurs are experimenting with a familiar business arrangement in an unfamiliar industry: franchising.

The proposition is fairly straightforward. A central company develops building designs, negotiates with suppliers and establishes procedures for managing projects. Local franchisees then use those resources to develop properties in their own areas. They still need capital, suitable land and construction expertise, but they do not have to organise everything independently.

A Housing Franchise Takes Shape in South Africa

In South Africa, Affordable Living Solutions Africa, known as ALSA, is attempting to put that idea into practice. The business was founded by Dutch entrepreneur Hans van Breugel and offers franchisees access to standardised designs, supplier arrangements, project-management support and assistance with development finance.

Its focus is on apartment developments aimed at buyers looking for more affordable housing. The intention is to give local developers an established process for planning and delivering projects, reducing the time and expense involved in arranging each development from the beginning.

In August 2026, ALSA reported that it had 13 franchisees and that work had begun on its first development in Kuils River, Western Cape. The company has also publicised a substantial pipeline of proposed homes, although a project in planning or construction is very different from a completed property with a buyer preparing to move in.

The timelines illustrate why this is a demanding franchise category. ALSA advises that developments can take two to four years, depending partly on approvals. During that period, a franchisee may be paying for land, professional services and finance without receiving the proceeds from completed property sales.

An established development process could make those years easier to manage. Whether it makes them less expensive will depend on the performance of completed projects and the total cost of using the franchise system.

The American Approach Starts in the Factory

Across the Atlantic, Colorado-based Studio Home is taking a different route. The company manufactures prefabricated building components for backyard homes, detached studios and accessory dwelling units. In May 2026, it announced plans to expand through a national franchise programme.

Studio Home says it has delivered more than 6,500 structures across North America. Under its proposed franchise approach, central manufacturing would be combined with local operators responsible for dealing with customers, arranging permits and managing installation.

A homeowner adding a small dwelling to a property faces many of the same frustrations as a larger developer, although on a different scale. They need to understand local building rules, find reliable contractors and establish what the completed project will cost. Delays and unexpected expenses can turn an apparently manageable improvement into a considerable financial commitment.

Prefabricated components may reduce some of that uncertainty because more of the building is produced to standard specifications before it reaches the site. Local franchisees would still need to manage the parts of the job that cannot be handled in a factory, particularly permissions, foundations and installation.

Studio Home and ALSA are pursuing different markets, but both are trying to reduce the amount of specialist work that individual local operators must arrange for themselves. That could be valuable for entrepreneurs who understand construction but lack the purchasing power or administrative resources of a large developer.

Somebody Still Has to Pay for the Franchise

The difficulty with claims about cheaper housing is that the numbers can look attractive long before anyone has completed a project.

A franchisee may save money by using an established design or buying materials through a central supplier. They may also avoid expensive mistakes by following procedures developed through earlier projects. Those are legitimate advantages, provided they can be demonstrated.

But the franchisee will also have fees to pay, and the land will cost whatever the local market demands. Planning authorities will not necessarily approve a project more quickly because its developer belongs to a franchise. Contractors can still run behind schedule, materials can become more expensive and borrowing costs can rise.

A sensible investor would want to compare two similar developments: one completed by a franchisee and another by an independent developer. The comparison should include land, construction, finance, professional services, franchise charges and the time taken to finish the work.

There is also a distinction between making development more profitable and making homes more affordable. A franchise system might reduce costs while allowing developers to retain the savings as additional profit. That could be a successful business model, but it would not necessarily reduce the amount a family pays for a home.

For a housing franchise to claim a meaningful contribution to affordability, it needs evidence that its approach can deliver suitable properties at competitive prices.

An Opportunity for Smaller Developers

The prospect of helping more people enter property development may be just as significant as any saving on construction costs.

A capable builder or project manager may understand how to complete a building but have little experience securing development finance, organising architectural work or marketing completed apartments. An established franchise could provide some of that expertise and make the move into development less daunting.

It would still be a serious investment. Franchisees would need enough capital to withstand delays, and franchisors would have to monitor construction quality closely. A mistake in a restaurant can sometimes be corrected the following day; defects in a home can create problems for its occupants and the developer for years.

That makes the early results from ALSA and Studio Home worth watching. Their success will depend on how well their local operators deliver finished buildings, how much those projects cost and whether the businesses can support franchisees through the inevitable difficulties of construction.

Families struggling to buy homes are unlikely to be interested in the business structure behind a development. If franchising helps produce well-built properties at prices they can afford, however, they may eventually benefit from it without ever knowing why.

What We Can Learn From This

Anyone considering a property-development franchise should ask to see the costs and selling prices of completed projects, rather than relying on projected returns or the size of a development pipeline. The figures should include franchise fees, finance charges and realistic allowances for planning and construction delays. Franchisors entering this market will need to invest heavily in quality control and project support because the financial consequences of poor construction can last for years. If these businesses can demonstrate consistent savings on completed developments, franchising may offer smaller property developers a credible way to compete with larger companies.

Continue the Conversation

Looking for more innovative franchise brands? Explore our Franchise Brands Directory to discover franchise opportunities and inspiring brands from around the world.

Have a franchise brand, founder or business story worth sharing? Submit your article to be featured in The Franchise Entrepreneur.

Interested in sharing your expertise with our readers? Become a contributor.

Looking to connect with franchise founders, investors and operators? Partner with us.