After 15 years of bank closures, new branches are having a resurgence

Bank branch changes, Q1 2026

The national bank branch network grew for the second consecutive quarter in the first three months of 2026, marking the first back-to-back expansion since 2010. 267 full-service branches were opened between January and March while 217 branches were closed, producing a net gain of 50 locations. This follows the fourth quarter trend that occurred in 2025 when the network grew by 71 branches, breaking a 15-year streak of uninterrupted contraction. In 65 quarters of data tracking going back to 2010, only four have been positive and only two have occurred consecutively.

The reversal is striking in the context of the industry’s recent history. In 2022, NCRC documented in its The Great Consolidation of Banks and Acceleration of Branch Closures Across America report the ways in which the pandemic had doubled the pace of branch closures, from roughly 99 per month in the decade before COVID-19 to more than 200 per month thereafter. That report also found that two-thirds of all banking institutions had disappeared since the early 1980s and that 9% of all branches closed between 2017 and 2021.

One in three of those closures was in a low- to moderate-income or majority-minority neighborhood. Four years later, the closure wave has subsided and the network is growing again. The growth is concentrated entirely in traditional standalone branches, while in-store retail locations are closing at three times the rate and virtually no new branches are opening in their place.

That growth, however, is not happening everywhere. 67 new branches were added in the Southern region of the US during this quarter, with Texas and Florida seeing the largest gains. The Midwest flipped from contraction to growth. But, the Northeast continued to lose branches, with the closures that did occur remaining heavily concentrated among a small number of large institutions. The geographic pattern of branch expansion closely tracks where the country’s population is growing, particularly in metros attracting younger and more diverse communities.

For a more detailed look at bank branch changes in your community, contact NCRC’s research team at research@ncrc.org.

Where branches opened and closed

The following map shows every full-service branch that opened or closed during the first quarter of 2026. Yellow markers indicate openings and red markers indicate closures. Click any marker for the bank name, branch name and address or use the dropdown to filter by bank name.

 

Bank branch openings and closures, Q1 2026

267 branches opened and 217 closed between January and March 2026. Click any marker for details.

The map reveals the geographic concentration of the quarter’s activity. Branch openings tend to cluster in the Sun Belt, particularly across Texas, Florida and the Southeast, while closures are more dispersed across the Northeast and California. Several of the largest closure clusters correspond to individual corporate decisions by TD Bank and Bank of America rather than a broad market retreat from those communities.

The national picture

The following chart compares branch openings and closures across the five most recent quarters, showing how the balance between the two has shifted from sustained contraction to consecutive growth:

 

While the chart tells the story of what happened, the why matters even more. The turnaround came almost entirely from the closure side: banks sharply reduced the number of branches they shut down, while the pace of new openings held roughly steady. That means the industry did not suddenly accelerate its expansion but in fact reduced closures. Whether this reflects a deliberate strategic shift or simply the lack of easy closure targets after years of aggressive consolidation is a question the coming quarters will help answer.

The growth is not evenly distributed across branch types. There are full service, brick and mortar locations, which often have full service features like drive through tellers, parking and ATMs. There are also in-store locations mostly in grocery stores or large retailers.

The following chart compares the quarterly closure rate for each branch type as a percentage of its baseline by putting the two on equal footing despite their very different network sizes:

 

The chart shows the gap clearly: banks are abandoning the in-store model. The branches inside grocery stores and retail locations that were prevalent in the 1990s and 2000s are being systematically wound down, while traditional standalone branches are the only bank type showing growth. For communities that relied on an in-store branch as their primary access point to banking services, this shift may effectively function as a closure even if the bank maintains a traditional location elsewhere in the metro area.

82 branches were relocated during the quarter. Most moved less than a quarter of a mile from its original location. However, relocations did not change the total number of branches and were excluded from the final opening and closing counts. The nation’s bank branch network currently stands at 74,511 full-service locations.

Where the banking industry is investing

The following chart shows the five metropolitan areas with the largest net branch gains during the first quarter alongside their performance in the same quarter one year ago:

 

Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas saw the highest net gain out of all of the metros during the first quarter with six branches, representing the biggest year-over-year increase for any market in the country at +15. One year ago, Dallas-Fort Worth lost nine branches. Nashville, Tennessee added five net branches, with Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania gaining four with zero closures after posting losses in the prior quarter.

Out of the five metros with biggest net gain in branches two are in Texas and two are in the Southeast region. Four of the five are among the fastest-growing metropolitan areas in the country by population. Pittsburgh is the exception, posting branch gains despite a flat regional population, suggesting bank investment there is driven by market repositioning rather than demographic growth. St. Louis and Seattle both went from negative losses to positive growth year-over-year. Texas accounted for three metros that ranked in the national top 15 for branch growth.

Where branch networks are contracting

The following chart shows the five metropolitan areas with the largest net branch losses during the first quarter alongside their performance in the same quarter one year ago:

 

No metropolitan area lost more than six branches during the first quarter. This represents a significant improvement from one year ago, when several major metros posted double-digit losses. New York remains the market with the largest net contraction, though its losses improved from nine to six year-over-year. San Francisco showed the most dramatic improvement of any major metro nationally, going from 12 net closures in the first quarter of 2025 to just three in the first quarter of 2026.

Chicago also improved substantially, from 10 closures a year ago to four. Washington, DC and Minneapolis were the only major metros with the steepest net declines that performed worse than one year ago. California continues to have multiple metros experiencing contraction, with Los Angeles, San Francisco and Sacramento, CA all posting net losses.

Regional patterns

The following chart compares each census region’s net branch change in the first quarter of 2026 to changes shown in the same quarter one year ago, showing where the reversal is concentrated:

 

The South is driving the national growth story. The states gaining branches are the same states gaining population, particularly through the growth of Hispanic, Black and Asian communities. The Census Bureau estimates show that Texas, Florida, North Carolina, Georgia and Arizona attracted the most immigrant populations between 2020 and 2023, with branch expansion  following those same migration patterns. However, reversals in immigration and the threat of an executive order targeting banks that serve immigrant depositors threaten to reverse this trend.

The Midwest posted the biggest regional reversal, shifting from a net loss of 46 branches in the first quarter of 2025 to a gain of nine in 2026. The Western region of the country improved substantially, though California’s ongoing consolidation kept the region in negative territory. The Northeast was the only region that showed no improvement, reflecting both its population decline and the concentrated closures by TD Bank and other large institutions headquartered in the corridor.

California and New Jersey continue to lead when it comes to state-level contraction. New Jersey’s persistent presence at the top of that list reflects structural consolidation in a mature, densely branched market rather than a sudden retreat.

Which banks are driving the changes

More than 200 banks had at least one branch opening or closing during the first quarter. But, the activity is not evenly distributed, with the pattern differing sharply between openings and closures.

Branch closures are heavily concentrated among a small number of large institutions. Three banks (TD Bank, Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase) accounted for nearly half of all closures during the quarter. TD Bank was responsible for nearly a quarter of all closures nationwide, shuttering 51 branches with zero openings in the Northeast region. Without TD Bank’s closures, the national net gain would have been 101 branches.

The following chart shows the 10 banks with the most branch closures during the quarter:

 

Branch openings are far less concentrated. JPMorgan Chase leads with 36, followed by Fifth Third Bank with 19 and Bank of America with 16. However, 26 different banks account for half of all openings. By contrast, just three banks account for nearly half of all closures. In other words, while some banks are still closing large numbers of their branches, many more banks are seeing a gradual expansion of their networks.

The following chart shows the 10 banks with the most branch openings during the quarter:

 

Community and regional banks are a significant part of the story. Of the 208 banks with any branch activity during the quarter, 164 had exactly one opening or one closing. These single-event institutions represent nearly 80% of all active banks and collectively account for a third of all branch activity nationwide.

Fifth Third Bank had the largest single-quarter net gain of any institution, adding 18 net branches on 19 openings with just one closure. Wells Fargo opened seven branches and closed none, its first positive quarter after five consecutive quarters of contraction. Whether this signals a strategic shift remains to be seen. JPMorgan Chase remains the dominant force when it comes to expansion, with a cumulative net gain of 128 branches over five quarters.

Counties at risk

Despite the overall positive trend, 209 counties nationwide currently have just one full-service bank branch. Texas has 22 single-branch counties, Montana has 15, Georgia has 14 and Colorado has 11. When a county’s last branch closes, residents must travel to a neighboring county for basic banking services, a round trip that can exceed 30 miles in rural areas.

What this means for communities

The geographic alignment between branch network changes and population trends is consistent and persistent. Branches are opening where people are moving and where Hispanic, Asian and Black communities are growing. They are closing where populations are aging and shrinking. The Census Bureau population estimates show that communities of color drove essentially all of the nation’s population growth between 2020 and 2023, with the nation’s population under age 18 already being majority-minority. The banking industry’s physical infrastructure is following these demographic currents.

The metros gaining the most branches are also among those most dependent on immigration-driven population growth. The Census Bureau projections indicate that without sustained immigration, the nation’s working-age population would begin to decline within the next two decades. Significant reductions in immigration levels could slow population growth in the Sun Belt metros where branch expansion is concentrated, potentially undermining the economic conditions that are attracting bank investment in the first place. For communities that have only recently gained banking access as their populations grew, that reversal would compound an already fragile situation.

This raises questions that the branch counts alone cannot answer. Are new branches in growing metros reaching the low- and moderate-income neighborhoods and majority-minority census tracts where population growth is concentrated or are they clustering in higher-income corridors? Under the 1995 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) rules, which remain in effect after the withdrawal of the 2023 CRA modernization rule, a bank’s community development obligations are tied to the geographic areas where it operates physical branches. As the branch network shifts, so do the areas where regulators evaluate whether banks are meeting community needs.

Community organizations and regulators should examine whether branch openings in high-growth metros are serving the communities responsible for that growth. NCRC members can access this data by contacting the NCRC research team.

Methodology

This analysis uses data from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) BankFind Suite, which tracks individual branch openings and closures as they are filed. Branch openings are identified by FDIC change code 711 and closures by change code 721. Only full-service branches are included, which would be classified as either service type 11 (brick-and-mortar) and service type 12 (retail). Quarters are assigned by the FDIC processing date. Branch relocations, mergers and acquisitions are excluded from opening and closing counts to avoid double-counting.

The FDIC provides two separate datasets for tracking bank branch networks. The BankFind Suite tracks individual branch openings and closures as they are filed, making it the preferred source for quarterly trend analyses. The Summary of Deposits provides an annual snapshot of all branches as of June 30 of each year, including deposit volumes and census tract mappings. Branch counts may differ between the two datasets due to different inclusion criteria and reporting timelines.

Regional classifications follow the US Census Bureau definitions. Metropolitan area definitions follow the Office of Management and Budget’s Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA) boundaries. This report uses common metropolitan names in tables and text. Full CBSA definitions with component counties are listed below.

The population and demographic data cited in this report are drawn from the US Census Bureau population estimates covering April 2020 through July 2023. The data is current through March 31, 2026.

Metropolitan area definitions

Atlanta — Barrow, Bartow, Butts, Carroll, Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, Dawson, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett, Haralson, Heard, Henry, Jasper, Lamar, Meriwether, Morgan, Newton, Paulding, Pickens, Pike, Rockdale, Spalding and Walton counties in Georgia.

Austin — Bastrop, Caldwell, Hays, Travis and Williamson counties in Texas.

Boston — Essex, Middlesex, Norfolk, Plymouth and Suffolk counties in Massachusetts; Rockingham and Strafford counties in New Hampshire.

Chicago — Cook, DeKalb, DuPage, Grundy, Kane, Kendall, Lake, McHenry and Will counties in Illinois; Jasper, Lake, Newton and Porter counties in Indiana; Kenosha County in Wisconsin.

Dallas-Fort Worth — Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Hunt, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, Rockwall, Tarrant and Wise counties in Texas.

Los Angeles — Los Angeles and Orange counties in California.

Minneapolis — Anoka, Carver, Chisago, Dakota, Hennepin, Isanti, Le Sueur, Mille Lacs, Ramsey, Scott, Sherburne, Washington and Wright counties in Minnesota; Pierce and St. Croix counties in Wisconsin.

Nashville — Cannon, Cheatham, Davidson, Dickson, Macon, Maury, Robertson, Rutherford, Smith, Sumner, Trousdale, Williamson and Wilson counties in Tennessee.

New York — Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Hunterdon, Middlesex, Monmouth, Morris, Ocean, Passaic, Somerset, Sussex and Union counties in New Jersey; Bronx, Kings, Nassau, New York, Putnam, Queens, Richmond, Rockland, Suffolk and Westchester counties in New York; Pike County in Pennsylvania.

Pittsburgh — Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver, Butler, Fayette, Washington and Westmoreland counties in Pennsylvania.

San Diego — San Diego County in California.

San Francisco — Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco and San Mateo counties in California.

Washington, DC — District of Columbia; Calvert, Charles, Frederick, Montgomery and Prince George’s counties in Maryland; Arlington, Clarke, Culpeper, Fairfax, Fauquier, Loudoun, Madison, Prince William, Rappahannock, Spotsylvania, Stafford and Warren counties and the independent cities of Alexandria, Fairfax, Falls Church, Fredericksburg, Manassas and Manassas Park in Virginia; Jefferson County in West Virginia.