I've been intrigued that there are no libertarian/right-wing approaches to urban planning/land use that are the least bit credible or have popular resonance. In major metropolitan areas i.e where zoning (or its functional equivalent) is needed, there is overwhelming consensus for zoning.
There are useful & provocative conservative critiques of society. (Vouchers for schools, as one example.) Many are rooted in deregulation. But the conservative critique stops at land. No one talks seriously about deregulating land use because
a) there is no political support;
b) no one can imagine what it would be like;
3) conservatives own houses too and benefit from the settled expectations provided by land use laws.
Yes some people rail against zoning/permitting etc but they have no alternative to it.
It is obvious to the vast majority of people that if we are to live in relatively high density (the American suburb included) then we need some set of rules. Oh yes, one can say that ours are cumbersome and overly-intrusive and ineffective --- but that is a matter of degree and execution, not principle.
Simplify, clarify, make more fair and transparent: yes, absolutely.
But will the rules still be footed on the police power? How could it be otherwise. The transaction costs of a series of private contracts and covenants are too high and ineffcient; that's why we have standard form contracts in every business -- to simplify transactions. Look at zoning as way of enhancing social efficiency by creating a common set of rules about what one can do with property. No serious business person wants to do away with zoning (except when it comes to their own property.)
It's a marvelous social invention; and it didn't start with Euclid. Conservatives make much of property rights but offer no intellectually respectable alternative to our current land law system. Nibble about the edges, yes. But provide a systemic alternative which deals with real concerns, no.