Just like there's a very broad spectrum between having a friend crash on your house for the evening to running a full time tenement house, one size fits all reg

Just like there's a very broad spectrum between having a friend crash on your house for the evening to running a full time tenement house, one size fits all regulation is an imperfect tool for this job and social, rather than legal forces seem much more adept at negotiating between competing interests. Underground restaurants have been operating for decades in countries all around the world with varying levels of formality and risk. For the most part, they're no more disruptive than that other friend on the block who likes to have dinner parties once a week. There may be a few who verge more into the full time restaurant side of the spectrum but they make up an exceedingly tiny percentage of underground dining. Most underground dining restaurants operate only one or two nights a week, in a single service, for 2 - 20 guests. This is a far cry from the multi-hundred covers a typical restaurant does and trying to apply the same standards of safety seems inappropriately draconian. No matter how popular underground dining gets, it's still dwarfed by many magnitudes by the "having friends over for dinner" scenario which remains completely unregulated. It's hard to imagine any risk for underground dining even ever approaching that which already exists through our normal social dining rituals. For the most part, report any underground restaurants that are truly disruptive but leave the rest alone and be happy that people are being entrepreneurial and doing something productive.