AJJCS
Products News Help
Client Sign In

HUD Publishes Proposed Rule on Implementation of The Housing Opportunity Through Modernization Act of 2016 (HOTMA)

person A.J. Johnson today 09/22/2019

HUD published a proposed rule implementing The Housing Opportunity Through Modernization Act of 2016 (HOTMA) in the federal register on September 17, 2019. HOTMA was enacted on July 29, 2016. This rule would make sweeping changes to current HUD programs, including public housing and project-based Section 8, especially with regard to income calculation and reviews. Other major changes include the continued occupancy of public housing residents with increases in income. The rule is also intended to create consistency between various HUD programs, so there would be changes to the HOME, Housing Trust Fund, and Housing Opportunities for Persons with Aids programs.

Comments on the proposed rule are due no later than November 18, 2019.

Following is an overview of the major changes that would occur if the final rule is adopted.

Income Reexaminations

  1. Reviews of family income shall be made upon the request of a family at any time the income or deductions of the family change by an amount that is estimated to result in a decrease of 10 percent or more in annual adjusted income, or of such lower amount as HUD may establish or permit the PHA or owner to establish. Interim recertifications will not be required if the decrease in adjusted income is less than 10 percent, but PHAs or owners will be able to establish policies to conduct interims when income decreases by less than 10 percent.
  2. PHAs and owners must conduct an interim reexamination of income at any time the family’s adjusted income is estimated to have increased by 10 percent or more. However, PHAs and owners will not be required to conduct an interim for increases in income during the last three months of a certification period. In a major change, increases due to employment income will not be considered when determining whether a household’s income has increased, unless the increase in earned income corresponds to previous decreases resulting from the family’s request for an interim reexamination.

Calculation of Family Income

  1. For purposes of move-in (initial occupancy), the initial provision of housing assistance, or for an interim reexamination of family income, the income for the upcoming year must be estimated (this is in line with current rules). In determining annual income for annual recertifications, the proposed rule requires that the PHA or owner use the income of the family as determined by the PHA or owner for the preceding year, taking into account any changes in income as reflected on interim certifications during the year. In cases where an interim recertification was not done because the change in income was less than 10 percent, the income will be adjusted to reflect the change in income.

De Minimis Error

  1. A PHA or owner will not be out of compliance with the income determination requirements due to de minimis (minor) errors in the determination of income. HUD is proposing to define "de minimis" as any error where the calculation of income varies from the correct income by no more than 5 percent. However, the PHA or owner will still be required to take corrective action to repay a family if the error resulted in the family being overcharged for their rent.

Definition of Annual Income

The proposed regulation provides a new definition of income. This proposed rule would specify that annual income also includes the imputed return on assets over $50,000, based on the current passbook savings rate if the actual income from assets cannot be computed. It appears that this may change the requirement as it now exists to count the higher of the actual or imputed income to assets. The language in the proposed rule would require that if actual income from assets can be determined, it must be used - even if less than imputed income. The $50,000 figure will be adjusted for inflation.

Income sources that were previously included in annual income are generally unchanged.

Income Exclusions

The proposed rule removes current exclusions for inheritances, capital gains, gifts, and other sporadic income. HUD seems to be taking the position that these amounts should be included in annual income. Based on this change, realized capital gains obtained from the sale of property in a given year would be included as income. The value of unrealized capital gains - meaning the value of any increase in an asset from one year to the next - would be included under the definition of Net Family Assets.

Earnings in excess of $480 for full time student dependents age 18 or older and for adoption assistance in excess of $480 per child will still be excluded, but the $480 will be adjusted annually based on the inflation rate.

Currently, the earned income of foster adults is counted, but under the proposed regulation, such income will be excluded.

Under the proposed rule, educational assistance relating to books and room and board will also be excluded, which is not currently the case.

Under current law, only the medical portion of the Aid and Attendance program for veterans is excluded. The proposed rule excludes the full amount of Aid and Attendance.

Adjusted Income

The $480 dependent deduction would remain in place but would be adjusted annually for inflation, adjusted to the next lowest multiple of $25.

The one-time elderly deduction would increase from $400 to $525, adjusted annually for inflation.

All other deductions currently permitted would remain. However, the deduction for medical expenses, which is now permitted when such expenses exceed 3% of gross income, would not be permitted until the expenses exceed 10% of gross income. This means that families who receive a health and medical expense deduction may see a significant increase in their adjusted income and rent. If the family can demonstrate a hardship resulting in an inability to pay the rent as a result in the change in the medical deduction, the PHA or owner will be required to recalculate the family’s adjusted income. In such case, the deduction would be the amount in excess of 6.5% of the family’s annual income instead of 10%. This hardship exemption would expire at the family’s next regular income reexamination or at such time as the owner determines that the family can afford the rent based on the regular 10% adjustment, whichever comes first.

The childcare deduction remains in place, but the proposed rule allows a hardship exemption for this deduction. Under this rule, a hardship exemption would be provided to allow the deduction for reasonable childcare costs to continue in certain circumstances for a family that no longer has a member that is employed or seeking to further his or her education. The family would be required to demonstrate that their inability to pay the increased rent is due to the loss of the childcare deduction. The family would also have to demonstrate why the childcare expense remains necessary even though no family member is employed, actively seeking employment or furthering his or her education. For example, the family member may have had to temporarily suspend their educational pursuits as the result of injury or illness and due to the injury or illness, they are unable to be the primary full-time caregiver for the child. This exemption would be temporary and would end no later than the family’s next regular reexamination.

Income Limitation for Existing Public Housing Residents

While already in place through prior HUD guidance, the proposed rule would create a new 24 CFR 960-507, which would place an income limitation on a public housing tenancy for families at 120 percent of AMI.

 This limit would not apply to PHAs operating fewer than 250 public housing units that have rented to over-income households because there are no income eligible families on the waiting list or applying for public housing assistance.

If a family’s income has exceeded the 120% limit for two consecutive years, a PHA must terminate the family’s tenancy within six months after the expiration of the two year period or charge a monthly rent equal to the greater of (1) the applicable Fair Market Rent (FMR); or (2) the amount of monthly subsidy for the unit including amounts from the operating and capital fund.

Limitation on Assets

The regulation would limit the amount and type of assets that a family assisted under public housing or Section 8 can possess.

  1. Families would be ineligible for public housing or Section 8 assistance if their net family assets exceed $100,000, adjusted annually for inflation.
  2. Families could not receive assistance if they have a present ownership interest in, legal right to reside in, and the effective legal authority to sell real property in the jurisdiction in which the property is located that is suitable for occupancy by the family as a residence. This provision excludes any property that is jointly owned by a member of the family and another individual or individuals who would not reside with the family. It would also not apply if the family is receiving HUD assistance while living in the home, is a victim of domestic violence, or is offering the home for sale, as demonstrated by a listing agreement.
  3. The proposed rule excludes the value of any accounts approved by the IRS as retirement accounts, including IRAs, employer retirement plans, and retirement plans for self-employed individuals.
  4. Any income distributed from any trust will be considered income, except in the case of distributions from non-revocable trusts, made to cover the medical expenses for a minor.
  5. The proposed rule would revise the existing exclusion in HUD’s regulations for the value of necessary items of personal property, to provide that the exclusion will apply to items of personal property with a total value under $50,000, other than necessary items. Necessary items may include items such as a car used for personal transportation.

Authorization for Financial Disclosures

Under current regulation, Consent to Release forms are valid for 15-months after they are signed. The proposed regulation will make the forms valid until the earliest of: (1) the rendering of a final adverse decision for an applicant; (2) the cessation of a participant’s eligibility for assistance from HUD and the PHA; or (3) the express revocation by the applicant of the authorization, in a written notification to HUD.

The proposed regulation will also incorporate the new requirements into the HOPWA, HOME,  and HTF.

As noted earlier, comments on this proposed regulation are due by November 18, 2019. The changes outlined in this regulation are extensive and all PHAs and owners of affected properties should carefully review and comment on the proposed regulation. After the comment period, HUD will review the comments and publish a final rule with appropriate changes from the proposed rule. No final rule should be expected prior to early to mid-2020.

Latest Articles

Understanding Tariffs and Their Impact on Construction Costs

What Are Tariffs? A tariff is simply a tax imposed on imported goods. When products like building materials enter U.S. ports, paying the applicable tariff is a standard part of the customs process. Historical Context Tariffs have deep roots in American history. From the colonial era through the early 1900s, they served as the federal government s primary revenue source. They were relatively straightforward to enforce even before modern technology, as customs officers could inspect incoming shipments at ports and collect the appropriate fees. The federal government s limited taxing authority under the Constitution meant that a modern income tax was not legally permissible until the 16th Amendment was enacted in 1913. The Decline of Tariffs Despite their historical importance, tariffs have several inherent problems that led to their declining use over the past century: They disadvantaged U.S. agricultural interests and exporters as other countries implemented retaliatory trade barriers. The tax burden fell disproportionately on lower-income individuals who spend more of their income on basic necessities. They couldn t generate sufficient revenue to fund modern government operations. When the global economy faltered in 1930, many nations, including the U.S., implemented protective tariffs with the Smoot-Hawley Act. Most economists view this wave of protectionism as a contributing factor to the severity of the Great Depression. Learning from this experience, the U.S. and other advanced economies gradually reduced trade barriers during the postwar period to foster economic cooperation and peace. Current Tariff Landscape Even during periods of free trade enthusiasm, tariffs never disappeared entirely. They remained relatively low in recent years, dropping to 1.5% in 2017 after decades of bipartisan efforts to establish global trade agreements. The Trump administration increased rates to approximately 3% during his previous term, which President Biden largely maintained. According to the Yale Budget Lab, the Trump administration s announced policies would raise the average tariff to 22.5% higher than during the Smoot-Hawley era and roughly equivalent to 1909 levels. Implementation Authority The scale of newly announced tariffs is significantly larger than previous ones. They affect nearly all goods from every country worldwide and invoke emergency authority not previously used for this purpose. Tariffs Impact on Construction Costs Tariffs increase construction costs through several key mechanisms: Direct price increases on imported construction materials like steel, aluminum, lumber, and other building products. These higher costs are typically passed along to developers and ultimately to end consumers. The specific impact depends on several factors: Which materials are targeted The tariff rate percentages Availability of domestic alternatives Proportion of imported versus domestic materials used The recent tariffs on imports from China (20%), Mexico, and Canada (25%) have significant implications for construction. According to the National Association of Home Builders, these tariffs could increase builder costs by approximately $7,500 to $10,000 per home for residential construction. This impact is substantial because approximately 7% of all goods used in new residential construction are imported. Critical materials like softwood lumber come predominantly from Canada (72% of imports), while gypsum for drywall is mainly sourced from Mexico (74% of imports). Multifamily Construction Impact For multifamily construction specifically, with 46% of materials sourced from these countries and 35-50% of project costs tied to finished materials, tariffs could increase material costs by 7.5%, potentially raising total construction budgets by 3-4%. Broader Effects Beyond core construction materials, reciprocal tariffs may also influence other building-related imports, such as carpeting, electrical outlets, security equipment, furniture, and tools. Projects that have already been awarded but are not yet started are likely to experience the most significant impact. Industry forecasts suggest the construction industry will feel the brunt of tariff policy changes in late 2025 and early 2026. Meanwhile, due to tariff-related inflation concerns, the Federal Reserve is expected to maintain stable interest rates through most of 2025. Recent Developments Homebuilders have been relieved, as Canada and Mexico were exempted from the latest round of tariffs, protecting key lumber and drywall component imports. Additionally, a carveout exists for lumber and copper imports. These tariff developments are challenging the U.S. housing market, which is already struggling with supply constraints and affordability issues. Developers with affordable multifamily housing projects in the pipeline or underway but for which materials have not yet been purchased should prepare for these possible increases. Developers facing this uncertainty should take a proactive, strategic approach. Here are some of the steps they should consider: 1. Lock in Pricing Where Possible Negotiate Early Procurement Contracts: Secure pricing and delivery timelines now for materials that may be subject to tariffs. Bulk Purchasing: If financially feasible and storage is available, purchase critical materials before the tariff is implemented. 2. Revisit and Update Budgets Include Contingency Allowances: Adjust budgets to account for a potential spike in material costs (e.g., steel, aluminum, electrical components). Run Revised Pro Formas: Model project feasibility under different tariff scenarios to understand the margin of financial risk. 3. Communicate with Key Stakeholders Inform Lenders and Syndicators: Ensure your financial partners know potential cost escalations and any resulting impact on project viability or timelines. Coordinate with HFAs and Local Agencies: If the deal includes LIHTCs or public funding, discuss possible adjustments or relief options (e.g., basis boosts, revised gap financing). 4. Evaluate Alternative Materials and Suppliers Source Domestic Alternatives: Tariffs often target imported materials. Switching to local or tariff-exempt sources could mitigate cost hikes. Value Engineering: Reassess design specs to identify non-critical elements where substitutions could reduce costs. 5. Monitor Policy and Industry Updates Stay Informed: Watch for updates on tariff decisions and industry responses through trade associations (e.g., NAHB, NMHC). Engage in Advocacy: Support efforts to exempt affordable housing materials from tariffs or seek policy carve-outs. 6. Build Schedule Flexibility Buffer Time for Delays: Tariffs often disrupt supply chains, so build in extra time for procurement and delivery to avoid construction slowdowns. 7. Document Impacts Track Cost Changes: Keep records showing cost increases due to tariffs this can be useful when requesting additional funding or extensions from oversight bodies. Being proactive can help developers manage risk rather than be blindsided by rising costs. In this environment, a smart developer remains nimble, communicates clearly, and plans for the worst while hoping for the best.

Read full story

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

In May 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: May 20: Acquisition/Rehab, Tenant Selection Plans & Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plans The complexities of affordable housing development don t stop at financing. When acquisition, rehabilitation, and layered funding programs collide, the stakes increase. Join industry expert A. J. Johnson for a practical and timely webinar on compliance pitfalls and planning strategies that can make or break your LIHTC project. This fast-paced session will break down the following: Acquisition-Rehab LIHTC Projects: How IRS rules impact "placed in service dates, acquisition credits, and meeting the 120-day qualification rule. The Available Unit Rule (AUR): Why this often-overlooked rule can lead to credit loss even on properties that no longer recertify. Tenant Selection Plans (TSPs): What every property manager must know about layered program requirements, lottery procedures, and legal screening standards. Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plans (AFHMPs): How to structure your outreach to comply with HUD requirements and avoid costly fair housing violations. Whether you're a developer, property manager, or compliance officer, this training will give you actionable strategies to keep your project on track and in full regulatory compliance. Who Should Attend - LIHTC developers, compliance specialists, property managers, syndicators, and housing agency staff responsible for acquisition, rehabilitation, and oversight of layered programs. May 21: HOTMA - Update on HUD Requirements On January 9, 2023, HUD published a final rule implementing The Housing Opportunity Through Modernization Act (HOTMA), signed into law on July 29, 2016. This final rule was published in the Federal Register on February 14, 2023, and has yet to become effective for HUD programs. Virtually all HUD programs are impacted by the rule, as are the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Program and the Rural Development Section 515 Program. Since publishing the final rule in February 2023, HUD has provided additional guidance in implementing the rule, including extensions regarding implementation. This three-hour training will explain any updated HUD guidance and will cover the following areas: Definitional changes relating to earned and unearned income, non-recurring income, and foster children; Revised Income Exclusions; New requirements relative to Student Financial Assistance; Changes to the HUD permitted deductions from gross income, including a full review of the new "hardship exemptions; Brand new rules regarding assets; New Interim Recertification requirements; and The new definition of "annual income. May 22: Basic LIHTC Compliance This training is designed primarily for site and investment asset managers responsible for site-related asset management. It is especially beneficial to those managers who are relatively inexperienced in the tax credit program. It covers all aspects of credit related to on-site management, including the applicant interview process, determining resident eligibility (income and student issues), handling recertification, setting rents - including a full review of utility allowance requirements - lease issues, and the importance of maintaining the property. The training includes problems and questions to ensure students fully comprehend the material. May 28: Dealing with Income and Assets in Affordable Multifamily Housing - Course Overview This live webinar provides concentrated instruction on the required methodology for calculating and verifying income and determining the value of assets and income generated by those assets. The first section of the course involves a comprehensive discussion of employment income, military pay, pensions/social security, self-employment income, and child support. It concludes with workshop problems designed to test what the student has learned during the discussion phase of the training and serve to reinforce HUD-required techniques for determining income. The second component of the training focuses on a detailed discussion of requirements related to determining asset value and income. It applies to all federal housing programs, including the low-income housing tax credit, tax-exempt bonds, Section 8, Section 515, and HOME. Multiple types of assets are covered in terms of what constitutes an asset and how they must be verified. This section also concludes with problems designed to test the student s understanding of the basic requirements relative to assets. These sessions are part of a year-long collaboration between A. J. Johnson and MidAtlantic AHMA and are designed to provide affordable housing professionals with the knowledge needed to manage the complex requirements of the various agencies overseeing these programs effectively. Individuals or organizations interested in any (or all) training sessions may register by visiting either www.ajjcs.net or https://www.mid-atlanticahma.org.

Read full story

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.

Read full story

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.

Read full story

Want news delivered to your inbox?

Subscribe to our news articles to stay up to date.

We care about the protection of your data. Read our Privacy Policy.