The usefulness of land use and transportation approaches including new urbanism, smart growth, transit villages, and jobs-housing balance is frequently assessed based on the capacity of these innovations to reduce auto use. This study, in contrast, argues that regulatory barriers to these approaches underpin their relative scarcity and that removal of these barriers demands no justification in proof of travel-behavior modification. Rather, such reform can improve the fit between people’s transportation-land use preferences and actual neighborhood choices. This fit is compared here between two distinct U.S. metropolitan areas: Boston and Atlanta. In providing a greater range of neighborhood types, Boston allowed a closer fit between household transportation-land use preference and actual neighborhood choice than did Atlanta. This suggests the potential gains in household choice from removal of barriers to alternative development forms.