Choosing the Right Frontend Folder Structure: From MVP to Enterprise


A lesson I painfully learned while working on my tour aggregator project was that folder structure does matter — especially as your codebase grows.
I originally started with the classic Layer-Based Architecture, but as new features piled in, it became harder to refactor cleanly without introducing chaos. Eventually, I had to restructure the entire project into a hybrid Feature-Based + Shared UI architecture — and believe me, that refactor hurt.
While restructuring, I took time to research common frontend architectural patterns and realized this: developers need to learn the art of choosing the right frontend folder structure — from beginner MVPs to enterprise-ready apps.
The Pain of Late Refactoring
Let me be real with you: refactoring from a flat, layer-based structure to a feature-driven architecture gave me mental whiplash. It’s a common misconception that folder structure doesn’t matter early on, especially when you're solo-building an MVP.
But if there's even a chance your MVP will scale — or if you want to onboard collaborators or future-proof your work — having a clean, intentional structure from day one saves you a world of pain.
6 Common Frontend Folder Structure Styles
Here are six architecture styles I explored — with pros, cons, and where each one shines.
Layer-Based Architecture (Classic MVC-ish)
src/
├── components/
├── services/
├── utils/
├── pages/
├── hooks/
When to Use: Small projects, prototypes, tutorials
Easy to understand
Great for solo devs or MVPs
Poor separation of concerns
Hard to scale and refactor later
This pattern organizes code by type — all components in one folder, all services in another. It’s simple, but once features start to intertwine, this structure becomes a tangled mess.
Feature-Based Architecture
src/
└── features/
├── auth/
├── tours/
├── bookings/
└── dashboard/
When to Use: Most production apps, team projects
High modularity and scalability
Easy to isolate and work on features
Encourages cross-functional collaboration
Requires discipline
Can introduce duplication if not managed well
Each folder represents a business domain, with its own components, services, and tests. This makes it easier for developers to own or ship a complete feature in isolation.
Domain-Driven Design (DDD) Structure
src/
└── domains/
└── booking/
├── domain/ # Business rules
├── application/ # Use cases
├── infrastructure/ # APIs, persistence
└── ui/ # UI components
When to Use: Large-scale, complex apps with multiple teams
Very clean separation of concerns
Scalable and testable
Steeper learning curve
Overhead for small projects
DDD borrows from backend principles and structures each domain into its own vertical stack of logic, API, and UI.
Next.js / File-Based Routing Convention
app/
└── dashboard/
├── layout.tsx
└── page.tsx
When to Use: Projects using Next.js, Remix, or similar
Optimized for SSR and SSG
Enforces clean route structures
Tied to framework conventions
Less flexible for non-routing logic
With this structure, your file system is your router, which makes routing intuitive but sometimes rigid.
Atomic Design / Component-Driven
components/
├── atoms/
├── molecules/
├── organisms/
├── templates/
When to Use: Design systems, UI libraries, component-heavy apps
Great for scalable UI systems
Encourages consistent design
Doesn’t account for business logic
Best as a UI layer, not project-wide structure
This model focuses on building UI components by complexity — it’s ideal for design teams and reusable systems.
Package-Based Monorepo
packages/
├── ui/
├── auth/
├── games/
├── utils/
When to Use: Large codebases, shared libraries, micro-frontends
Total separation of concerns
Easy to share/publish packages
More tooling required
Overkill for small teams
Common in monorepos (with Turborepo, Nx, or Yarn Workspaces), this approach treats features or modules as independent packages.
Hybrid Structures (Best of Both Worlds)
In real-world projects, hybrid approaches often win. For example, I now use:
Feature-Based for domain isolation
A Shared UI layer for reusable components
Layered folders within each feature for clarity (e.g., components/, forms/, pages/)
Here’s what my tour platform structure evolved into:
src/
├── app/
│ ├── App.jsx
│ ├── routes.jsx
│ └── layout/
├── features/
│ ├── auth/
│ ├── tours/
│ ├── bookings/
│ └── dashboard/
├── shared/
│ ├── ui/
│ ├── form/
│ ├── utils/
│ ├── constants/
│ └── hooks/
├── config/
├── redux/
├── assets/
├── styles/
└── index.js
How to Choose the Right Structure
Project Size | Recommended Style |
Solo or MVP | Layer-Based or Flat |
Mid-size App | Feature-Based |
Enterprise Project | DDD or Hybrid |
Design System | Atomic (UI layer) |
Monorepo | Package-based |
Bonus Tips:
Don’t over-engineer too early
Use
index.js
barrel exports for clean importsSeparate UI and business logic
Stay consistent with naming and nesting
Final Thoughts
Folder structure is architecture — and architecture is communication.
Whether you're building solo, with a team, or shipping for users, structure can make or break your speed, sanity, and success. Choose wisely.
If you’re currently working on a React project and unsure how to structure it, feel free to drop a comment or DM — I’d love to help.
Have a folder structure that works great for your team? Share it below and let’s learn together.
Subscribe to my newsletter
Read articles from Mercy Oyelude directly inside your inbox. Subscribe to the newsletter, and don't miss out.
Written by

Mercy Oyelude
Mercy Oyelude
🌍 Frontend Engineer | Green Software Advocate💻 Writing sustainable code, one doc and div at a time.🔁 Building a dev series on green coding best practices.✒️ Sharing dev-friendly climate solutions. Let’s collaborate!📬 Reach out: mercyoyelude2@gmail.com