In recent years, the privatization of residential cul-de-sacs and the installation of street barriers—as tools for traffic control and access management—have become increasingly contentious issues in urban governance. This study aims to explain the social and legal conflicts associated with installing barriers to privatize residential cul-de-sacs in urban thoroughfares, and to examine the various dimensions of this issue from the perspectives of stakeholders and experts. Given the multi-dimensional nature of these conflicts and the limited existing theoretical literature, this research employs a mixed-method (quantitative-qualitative) approach. In the qualitative phase, data were collected through semi-structured interviews with urban management experts and analyzed using thematic analysis. The qualitative findings served as the basis for designing the quantitative instrument (questionnaire). In the quantitative phase, the importance and severity of the identified factors were measured among resident and non-resident groups in Shiraz using the non-parametric Mann–Whitney U test. The findings indicate that residents, driven by a sense of spatial ownership, perceive barriers as enhancing security, local cohesion, and quality of life, whereas non-residents view them as a symptom of poor urban planning and a restriction on access to public space. Consequently, this phenomenon holds different meanings and functions for the two social groups, generating opposing interpretations regarding its role in spatial justice. Furthermore, the results suggest that the privatization of residential cul-de-sacs and the installation of barriers is not merely a physical intervention but a socio-spatial phenomenon with divergent consequences. Proper management of this issue requires an awareness of these differences and the formulation of context-sensitive policies.