Modern solutions to your compliance needs

Crime-Free Ordinances: When Local Laws Conflict with Federal Fair Housing Protections

In August 2024, the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice issued a critical warning: municipal "crime-free" rental housing and "nuisance" property ordinances may violate federal fair housing laws. These ordinances effective in nearly 2,000 cities across 48 states until recently place landlords in a precarious position. While intended to reduce crime and maintain neighborhood stability, these measures often result in unintended discrimination and can expose landlords to significant legal liability. Notable Legal Cases Several landmark cases have established important precedents regarding crime-free ordinances: United States v. City of Hesperia (2023) In a groundbreaking case, the Justice Department secured a landmark agreement with the City of Hesperia, California, and the San Bernardino County Sheriff s Department to resolve racial and national origin discrimination allegations in their "crime-free" rental housing program. The consent order required the city to completely repeal its crime-free program and ordinance marking the first resolution demanding the complete end of such a program. The settlement included a $950,000 payout, with $670,000 allocated to compensate individuals harmed by the program. The Justice Department alleged that the city and sheriff s department engaged in a pattern of discrimination against Black and Latinx individuals in violation of the Fair Housing Act and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 through the enforcement of their crime-free rental housing program. Briggs v. Norristown After experiencing the harmful impacts of a nuisance ordinance, Ms. Briggs, with support from the American Civil Liberties Union, filed a lawsuit against the City of Norristown. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) filed a complaint stating that the ordinance violated the Fair Housing Act based on its impact on women experiencing domestic violence. The case resulted in a settlement requiring Norristown to repeal its ordinances, and subsequently, Pennsylvania passed legislation banning localities from creating these types of ordinances. Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. (2015) In this influential Supreme Court case, the Court held that disparate impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act. This crucial decision established that housing policies with discriminatory effects even without discriminatory intent could violate the FHA. The ruling is particularly relevant to crime-free ordinances, which often produce disparate impacts on protected classes. The Legal Conflict: Federal Protections vs. Local Ordinances Landlords face a troubling dilemma: follow local crime-free ordinances and risk violating federal law, or disregard local requirements and face municipal penalties. This conflict stems from the fact that these ordinances may violate four major federal laws: 1. The Fair Housing Act Crime-free ordinances often have a disproportionate impact on protected classes. For example: When these ordinances require eviction based on arrests rather than convictions, they disproportionately affect Black and Hispanic tenants, who statistically face higher rates of police interaction regardless of criminal activity. Blanket policies requiring eviction of an entire household due to one member s criminal activity can discriminate against families with children, female-headed households, and certain cultural groups where extended family living arrangements are common. 2. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Title VI prohibits discrimination in programs receiving federal funds. When municipalities with crime-free ordinances receive federal housing funds, they may violate Title VI if: Their ordinances have disparate impacts on protected classes Implementation decisions are influenced by discriminatory intent or stereotypes about certain neighborhoods or demographic groups 3. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Crime-free ordinances may discriminate against individuals with disabilities in several ways: Automatic eviction for behavior related to mental health conditions without consideration of reasonable accommodations Policies that penalize multiple emergency service calls, which may disproportionately impact those with chronic health conditions requiring frequent medical assistance Exclusions of individuals with past substance use disorder convictions, despite recovery and treatment 4. The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) VAWA specifically protects victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking from housing discrimination. Crime-free ordinances often violate these protections by: Requiring eviction when police are called to a property multiple times, discouraging victims from seeking help Failing to distinguish between perpetrators and victims when criminal activity occurs Treating domestic disturbances as "nuisances" rather than recognizing them as situations where victims need protection Problematic Practices in Crime-Free Ordinances Collective Punishment: Holding Entire Households Accountable One of the most troubling aspects of many crime-free ordinances is the requirement to evict entire households based on one individual s actions. This approach: Punishes innocent family members who had no knowledge of or participation in criminal activity Creates homelessness risks for vulnerable household members, including children, elderly relatives, and individuals with disabilities Disproportionately impacts communities where multi-generational or extended family living arrangements are cultural norms. Blanket Exclusions Based on Criminal Records Many ordinances include overly broad exclusions for individuals with criminal records: Lifetime bans for certain offenses, regardless of rehabilitation or time elapsed Failure to consider the nature, severity, or relevance of the criminal conduct to tenant suitability No individualized assessment of actual risk to property or other tenants Exclusion Based on Arrests Rather Than Convictions Some ordinances allow or require action against tenants based merely on arrests: Violates the presumption of innocence It has a disparate impact on communities of color, which experience higher rates of arrests that do not lead to convictions Creates housing instability based on unproven allegations rather than established facts Automatic Exclusion for Any Criminal Conviction Overly broad policies that automatically deny housing based on any criminal history: Fail to distinguish between violent crimes and minor offenses Ignore evidence of rehabilitation and the age of convictions Create permanent barriers to housing for individuals who have served their sentences and are working to reintegrate into society. Penalizing Emergency Service Calls Particularly problematic are provisions that treat emergency calls as "nuisances": Discourages tenants from seeking emergency medical assistance Forces vulnerable individuals to choose between needed help and keeping their housing Creates dangerous situations where tenants delay calling for assistance during genuine emergencies. Punishing Victims of Domestic Violence Perhaps most concerning is how these ordinances often penalize victims: Treating domestic violence incidents as "nuisance activities" requiring eviction Failing to distinguish between calls made by victims versus perpetrators Creating a situation where victims must choose between enduring abuse in silence or risking homelessness. Legal Protections and Ongoing Developments The legal landscape around crime-free ordinances continues to evolve. In states like Illinois, legislation has been enacted to protect survivors of domestic or sexual violence and individuals with disabilities from being penalized due to calls to police for assistance. The Illinois Department of Human Rights and the UIC Law School Fair Housing Legal Support Center and Clinic have developed a guidebook addressing the fair housing implications of nuisance and crime-free ordinances. In 2024, additional cases have further clarified the legal boundaries of these ordinances: A case against a municipality alleged violations of both the Americans with Disabilities Act and Fair Housing Act for enforcing crime-free housing ordinances that denied tenants with mental health disabilities equal access to emergency response services. The consent decree required the municipality to revise its program rules and enforcement practices and adopt non-discrimination policies. The Department of Justice has increased enforcement actions against localities with discriminatory housing policies, particularly those that disproportionately affect racial minorities, women, and people with disabilities. Recommendations for Landlords If your municipality has implemented a crime-free ordinance that may conflict with federal protections, consider the following steps: 1. Review your lease agreements and policies to identify provisions that may violate federal law, even if required by local ordinance. 2. Consult with a housing attorney familiar with fair housing law and local regulations to understand your specific obligations and risks. 3. Implement individualized assessments rather than blanket policies when evaluating potential tenants with criminal histories. 4. Document all housing decisions with clear, non-discriminatory business justifications. 5. Create explicit exceptions in your policies for domestic violence victims and emergency service calls. 6. Engage with local government by attending city council meetings and advocating for amendments to problematic ordinances. 7. Join or form landlord associations to collectively address concerns with local officials. 8. If necessary, consider seeking a declaratory judgment in court to resolve the conflict between federal and local requirements. 9. Stay informed about new legal developments in this rapidly evolving area of law. Navigating this legal minefield is challenging; however, landlords should prioritize compliance with federal civil rights laws. When local ordinances and federal protections conflict, federal law generally prevails. By taking proactive steps to ensure fair housing practices, landlords can protect themselves from liability while also supporting safe, stable housing for all community members.

HUD Publishes 2025 Income Limits

On April 1, 2025, HUD published the 2025 income limits for HUD programs and the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit and Tax-Exempt Bond programs. The limits are effective on April 1, 2025. The limits for the LIHTC and Bond projects are published separately from those for HUD programs. For better understanding, LIHTC and Bond properties operate under the Multifamily Tax Subsidy Project (MTSP) limits. These properties are 'held harmless' from income limit (and therefore rent) reductions. This means that these properties may use the highest income limits for resident qualification and rent calculation since the project has been in service. However, it's important to note that HUD program income limits are not 'held harmless '. HUD publishes the 50% and 60% MTSP limits alongside the Average Income (AI) limits, which are set at 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, and 80%. Projects that began service before 2009 may utilize the HERA Special Income Limits in areas where HUD has published such limits. Projects placed in service after 2008 cannot use the HERA Special Limits. Projects in rural areas not financed by tax-exempt bonds can use the higher MTSP limits or the National Non-Metropolitan Income Limits (NNMIL). It is important to note that for 2025, HUD has made changes to the definitions of geographic areas as determined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The counties or towns within certain metropolitan areas may have changed. Owners and managers should consult the HUD Area Definition Report for a list of their areas and their components. The link to the Area Definition Report can be found on the website provided below. Owners of LIHTC projects may rely on the 2024 income limits for all purposes for 45 days after the effective date of the newly issued limits, which ends on May 16, 2025. The limits for HUD programs may be found at www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.html. The limits for LIHTC and Bond programs may be found at www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/mtsp.html.

Effects of Potential Staffing Cuts on HUD Programs

As the Trump administration moves forward with plans to reduce the federal workforce dramatically, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), according to recent reporting by the Associated Press, could face potential cuts that could eliminate half of its staff approximately 4,000 positions. Widespread Impact Across Essential Services The proposed reductions would affect numerous critical HUD programs, including disaster recovery efforts, rental assistance, housing discrimination investigations, and support for first-time homebuyers. Housing advocates and former HUD officials have raised substantial concerns that these extensive staffing cuts could greatly hinder or even stop the department s ability to carry out its mission. The official HUD position is that this information "should not be considered final." However, the potential extent of these reductions aligns with the administration s broader goal of reducing government spending. Recently appointed HUD Secretary Scott Turner announced the formation of a Department of Government Efficiency task force inspired by billionaire Elon Musk, while also underscoring the identification of "$1.9 billion in misplaced funds" and "$260 million in wasteful contracts." Rental Assistance Programs at Risk The proposed cuts most concerning aspect is their potential impact on the Office of Public and Indian Housing, which could lose half its workforce from 1,529 employees to just 765. This office manages rental assistance subsidies for more than 3.5 million households and supports public housing for approximately 1 million people. Georgi Banna, general counsel for the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials, warns that such reductions could delay payments for the Section 8 voucher program, which provides rental assistance to millions of low-income Americans. Although tenants have certain protections as long as they pay their share of the rent, they could ultimately face displacement if landlords withdraw from the voucher program due to payment issues. Budget Challenges Compound the Problem The potential staffing cuts come at a particularly challenging time as Congress continues to navigate a contentious appropriations process for HUD programs. The House version of the spending bill would boost funding for Housing Choice Vouchers by $115 million, which sounds promising but falls far short of the estimated $4.3 billion increase needed to simply maintain current service levels, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP). If the House budget is approved, it will only meet 90% of the need, potentially causing about 283,000 households to lose voucher access what the CBPP has described as the "most severe funding shortfall in the history of the voucher program." The situation has already caused damage, with some voucher-administering agencies halting the distribution of new vouchers. Local housing authorities have been operating on constrained budgets, and many lack robust reserves to weather a potential government shutdown or significant funding cuts. Fair Housing Enforcement Under Threat Perhaps the most alarming aspect is the proposed 77% reduction in the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, which could shrink its staff from 572 employees to only 134. As HUD s main enforcer of national fair housing laws, this office investigates discrimination complaints and works to ensure equal access to housing. Although Secretary Turner has previously committed to upholding the Fair Housing Act, which includes a statutory mandate for HUD to combat discrimination, the administration s approach to implementing the law may undergo significant changes. Turner recently announced on social media that HUD had canceled $4 million in diversity, equity, and inclusion contracts. Uncertainty for Housing Authorities and Vulnerable Populations Potential staffing cuts and budget uncertainties have come together to create a tumultuous situation for local housing authorities. Housing authorities are finding it difficult to provide clear guidance to both families and landlords while anticipating potentially "draconian" consequences if significant cuts or a government shutdown happen. The months ahead may pose unprecedented challenges and uncertainty for millions of Americans relying on HUD programs for stable housing, especially those using Section 8 vouchers. As Congress decides whether to pass a bill keeping the government open, the future of these critical housing programs and the millions of Americans who rely on them hangs in the balance. In conclusion, the proposed staffing cuts at HUD pose a significant threat to the stability and effectiveness of critical housing programs that serve millions of Americans. If carried out, these reductions could disrupt essential services like rental assistance, fair housing enforcement, and disaster recovery putting vulnerable populations at greater risk of housing instability and discrimination. The potential for delayed payments, reduced voucher access, and weakened fair housing protections highlights the profound human impact of these cuts. As Congress deliberates over HUD s budget, the stakes could not be higher for the families, landlords, and housing authorities that rely on these programs for their survival and stability. The coming months will challenge the resilience of HUD s mission and the nation s commitment to providing safe, fair, and affordable housing for all. All those in the affordable housing industry must reach out to their elected representatives to stress the importance of HUD and its programs to the housing needs of America s most vulnerable populations.

A. J. Johnson Partners with Mid-Atlantic AHMA for December Training on Affordable Housing—April 2025

In April 2025, A. J. Johnson will partner with the MidAtlantic Affordable Housing Management Association for four live webinar training sessions for real estate professionals, particularly those in the affordable multifamily housing field. The following sessions will be presented: April 15: Pets/Pot/Service Animals: Navigating Fair Housing A Comprehensive 90-Minute Webinar for Housing Professionals Join us for an essential training session that tackles three of the most challenging areas in fair housing compliance today. This practical webinar will equip affordable housing providers with clear guidance on: Service and Emotional Support Animals: Learn the crucial legal distinctions between pets and assistance animals, proper verification procedures, and how to handle accommodation requests while complying with FHA regulations. Pet Policy Development: Explore effective strategies for creating and enforcing fair pet policies that address resident needs while considering property management concerns. Medical Marijuana Considerations: Explore the intricate relationship between federal and state laws concerning medical marijuana use in housing, including the requirements for reasonable accommodation. Through case studies, interactive discussions, and expert analysis of recent court decisions, you will gain actionable strategies for confidently addressing these challenging issues. This tool is perfect for property managers, leasing agents, compliance officers, and housing administrators who want to minimize legal risk while creating inclusive communities. April 16: VAWA with Tips on Communicating with Victims - The Violence Against Women (VAWA) Reauthorization Act of 2013 expanded VAWA protections to many different affordable housing programs, including the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Program. While HUD has provided detailed requirements on VAWA implementation at HUD properties, there has been no uniform guidance for LIHTC owners and managers. A proposal before Congress would legislate that LIHTC Extended Use Agreements contain VAWA requirements. The IRS has not provided guidance, and while many state agencies are requiring VAWA plans, they are not providing information on what the plans should look like. This two-hour training, when combined with the course materials, will review VAWA requirements and recommend best practices for developing VAWA plans at LIHTC and other non-HUD properties. The session will be presented by A. J. Johnson, a recognized expert in the affordable housing field and the author of "A Property Manager s Guide to the Violence Against Women Act." April 24: Preparation for Physical Inspections - Agency inspections of affordable housing properties are required for all affordable housing programs, and failure to meet the required inspection standards can result in significant financial and administrative penalties for property owners. This four-hour training focuses on how owners and managers may prepare for such inspections, with a concentration on HUD NSPIRE inspections and State Housing Finance Agency inspections for the LIHTC program. Specific training areas include (1) a complete discussion of the most serious violations, including health & safety; (2) how vacant units are addressed during inspections; (3) when violations will be reported to the IRS; (4) the 20 most common deficiencies; (5) how to prepare a property for an inspection; (6) strategies for successful inspections; and (7) a review of the most important NSPIRE Standards as they relate to the three inspectable areas [Units/Interior/Exterior]. The training will summarize the HUD Final Rule on NSPIRE with a discussion of (1) the new Self-Inspection Requirement and Reports; (2) Timeline for Deficiency Correction; (3) New Affirmative Requirements; and (4) Tenant Involvement. At the end of the training, attendees will have a blueprint they can use to prepare their properties for agency-required physical inspections, regardless of the program under which they operate. April 29: Understanding and Managing Hoarding in Residential Properties: A Fair Housing Compliance Workshop - In May 2013, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) confirmed that Compulsive Hoarding is a mental disability and a protected class. More than 15 million Americans suffer from the mental health problem of hoarding and potential problems from hoarding include noxious odors, pest infestation, mold growth, increased risk of injury or disease, fire hazards and even structural damage. Hoarding is the one class of disability that requires landlords to offer an accommodation even if an accommodation is not requested! This 1.5-hour live webinar is designed to assist multifamily managers in understanding how to deal with hoarding problems in a way that will prevent liability under fair housing law. The session will define hoarding and provide detailed recommendations on how to deal with a hoarding problem. It will outline examples of accommodations for hoarding, how to engage in the "interactive process" with residents who hoard, and the steps necessary to remove uncooperative residents. Finally, a recent court case regarding hoarding will be reviewed as an illustration of the potential difficulties managers face in hoarding situations. This is an evolving area of fair housing law, and this webinar will provide the guidance necessary to approach the problem in a systematic way that will give multifamily operators the best chance at avoiding the legal traps that exist when dealing with this unique disability. These sessions are part of the year-long collaboration between A. J. Johnson and MidAtlantic AHMA and are designed to provide affordable housing professionals with the knowledge to effectively manage the complex requirements of the various agencies overseeing these programs. Persons interested in any (or all) training sessions may register by visiting either www.ajjcs.net or https://www.mid-atlanticahma.org.