No, it's the style now for churches that are more interested in maximizing return to the pastor/founder than in glorifying God by (among other things) caring enough to build Him a nice house in which to worship Him. Yes, I understand that He is happy when people worship Him anywhere, in any way.
That would be unheard of in today's world where everyone wants instant gratification. The new style independent churches are not interested in glorifying God, they just want a roof to shed the rain while they pass the collection platter. I have personally seen churches of this type make a huge issue out of being asked to even comply with the building code -- which is universally deemed a "minimum" standard for safety. They argued that complying with the "minimum" standard was going to cost "too much," so they should be exempt because they're a church. [Love thy neighbor but screw thy parishioners, I guess.]
I'm afraid you can't tell all that just from the type of building a church uses. Believe it or not, there are churches that start with minimal funding and need an inexpensive place to meet. Renting is an option, but rental places are not usually traditional church buildings, either. And speaking of instant gratification, the sooner the church has a permanent building, the sooner the church can move ahead with its intended ministries, or quit wasting money on rent.
The church I'm going to right now moved from rental space to rental space, until we would have been glad to have any building at all to meet in. Fortunately, we were able to build a very picturesque, colonial-style brick building. But that was not easy. Maybe the complaints about code compliance are due to the fact that cities do not earn tax revenue from churches, so may not feel any incentive to make the inspection/permit process any easier. Then again, that may just be speculation.
