AJJCS
Products News Help
Client Sign In

Freddie Mac Publishes Study of Risk of Affordable Housing Loss Due to Expiring LIHTC Extended Use

person A.J. Johnson today 07/31/2022

Freddie Mac (the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation) has released a study titled "Risk and Impact of LIHTC Properties Exiting the Program: Examining the Risks of Expiring LIHTC Restrictions and the Outcomes of Properties that Exit."

As market rents continue to rise, rental affordability is becoming increasingly important - especially in preserving existing affordable housing. Some in the industry are concerned that units supported by Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) may transition from having restricted, affordable rents to levels that are too expensive for low and even moderate-income households to afford.

The goal of this Freddie Mac study is to provide an overview of the general risk that currently exists in the market and the potential for a high level of lost affordable units.

A key finding from the research is that LIHTC properties that exit the program often remain more affordable than conventional market rate properties that were never subsidized, even if they are not resyndicated. Former LIHTC properties are often transitioning to workforce housing, remaining affordable to tenants that earn below the area median income (AMI).

Here are some of the key findings outlined in the report:

  • 86.8% of LIHTC properties are programmatic, meaning that they are still in the program and remain subject to rent restrictions. However, a growing number of properties will be able to exit the program in the coming years.
  • High opportunity areas have a relatively high share of programmatic LIHTC properties, which, given the elevated rental costs, can be particularly beneficial for these areas.
  • LIHTC properties that have left the program (referred to as non-programmatic) generally have higher rents compared with LIHTC-restricted units, but lower rents compared with conventional market-rate units.
  • Some non-programmatic LIHTC properties increase rents substantially above 60% of the AMI affordable rents, but the majority are still affordable at this income level. The most common path for non-programmatic LIHTC properties is to remain affordable at 60% of AMI, which happens roughly 61% of the time.

Explanation of Risk

Housing researchers generally agree that the U.S. suffers from a lack of affordable housing. The National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC) estimates that for every 100 renters earning 30% of AMI there are only 36 units available.

The LIHTC program is the federal government’s primary vehicle for providing affordable housing nationwide. The study found that based on the equity financing for LIHTC properties in 2021, most units (84.5%) are priced at 60% of AMI, with the remaining 15.5% targeting either 30%, 40%, or 50% of AMI. This validates what we in the industry have known anecdotally for years - most LIHTC properties operate under the 40/60 minimum set-aside.

Identifying Types of Risk of Properties Exiting the LIHTC Program

Between years 1-15 of the initial LIHTC compliance period, the risk of affordability loss is low since there is typically no legal way to raise rents above what is permitted at the time of LIHTC allocation. However, after year 15, several risks emerge that could lead to LIHTC properties leaving the program.

The Qualified Contract (QC)

Beginning as early as the end of year 14, LIHTC property owners typically may inform the applicable state Housing Finance Agency (HFA) of their intent to sell the property pursuant to the QC process.8

• If a buyer is not found by the HFA within one year, the owner can convert the property to market rate rents after a three-year "decontrol" period.

It should be noted that this option is very unpopular with the states and Congress is considering doing away with the option.

Expiration of Affordability Restrictions

Depending on the year a property is placed in service, affordability restrictions will generally lapse after 30 years. After this period, property owners can raise rents without the risk of credit recapture by the IRS or, in some cases, legal action by the HFA.

• Some states require a longer extended use period, and some property owners agree to more stringent restrictions in order to be more competitive in the allocation process. In this way, the 30-year rule is not universal.

Foreclosure

Historically, LIHTC properties have very low delinquency and default rates. However, a LIHTC property could still suffer from financial and operational problems that give a lender the right to foreclose. This can happen even before year 15.

Upon foreclosure and transfer of ownership, the Land Use Restriction Agreement that includes rent restrictions typically will terminate, permitting the new owner to convert the property to market rent after a three-year decontrol period.

The study notes that leaving the LIHTC program via foreclosure is very rare.

If LIHTC properties leave the program, the degree of affordability loss can only truly be measured on a case-by-case basis since property owners will not necessarily raise rents, especially if property or local market conditions can’t support the increase.

Snapshot of Current Non-Programmatic LIHTC Properties

The study identified 40,296 multifamily properties in the entire history of the LIHTC program. Of these, 34,975 are programmatic, which means they currently restrict rents based on local income in accordance with LIHTC requirements. The remaining 5,321 properties have exited the LIHTC program and are no longer believed to have LIHTC restricted rents.

What Factors Increase or Decrease the Propensity of a Property to Exit the LIHTC Program?

  • Ownership Type: LIHTC properties with nonprofit owners are less likely to leave the program.
  • Year Placed-in-Service: Older LIHTC properties are substantially more likely to exit the program. Over 90% of properties placed in service prior to 1990 are believed to be non-programmatic. In 1990, the program length switched from 15 years to 30 years. However, beginning in 2020, the 30-year extended use period is expiring for a number of LIHTC properties, and this is a concern.
  • Property Size: Smaller properties are more likely to have exited the program. The average property size of a non-programmatic property that was placed in service prior to 1990 is 43 units, compared with 73 units for programmatic properties. The trend changes for properties in service after 1990, where programmatic properties tend to be smaller than non-programmatic properties.
  • Resyndication History: The rate for resyndicated programmatic properties is high — 96.2% of properties that have resyndicated (i.e., obtained a new allocation of credits) remain programmatic.
  • The State: Some states will mandate or incentivize extended use periods longer than the 15-year federal minimum. The study has identified 11 states for which this is true, with extended use periods ranging from 18 years to 99 years.  These increased restrictions appear to decrease the rate of non-programmatic properties. Therefore, LIHTC properties in states with longer extended use periods will generally correlate with a lower risk of near-term exit. Following are the states the study identified with extended use periods longer than 15 years:
    • Alabama      -       20 years
    • California -       40 years
    • Connecticut -     25 years
    • Hawaii       -       30 years
    • Kentucky    -       18 years
    • Maine         -       30 years (was 75 years until 2013)
    • New Hampshire-   45 years (was 84 years prior to 2020)
    • Oregon       -       45 years
    • Pennsylvania-    25 years (was 20 years prior to 2021)
    • Utah           -       35 years (was 84 years prior to 2013)
    • Vermont      -       84 years
  • Local Housing Market: There is the concern of an increased risk of losing LIHTC restricted properties that may be able to receive a premium due to local housing conditions. This is especially the case in highly sought-after neighborhoods. Interestingly, non-programmatic properties are in lower-income areas compared with programmatic properties. Given the elevated rental costs, high opportunity areas especially benefit from affordable housing, so it’s encouraging that an outsized portion of LIHTC units are still in the program.
  • Rent Level - Market vs. Max LIHTC: As market rate rents increased, fewer conventional market rate properties remain affordable at 60% of AMI and below, creating a gap between maximum restricted LIHTC rents and conventional rents. If market rent is substantially higher than maximum LIHTC rent, this could entice property owners to reposition a LIHTC property as market rate either at the expiration of affordability restrictions or before expiration via a QC.

What Happens to LIHTC Properties that Become Market Rate?

Once a LIHTC property exits the program, rents at the property are no longer subject to restrictions, provided the property does not receive other subsidies and is not subject to other restrictive covenants. The Study uses seven metro areas to determine the answer to what is happening to exiting LIHTC properties. These are Dallas, Indianapolis, Los Angeles, Orlando, Phoenix, Seattle, and Washington, D.C. These locations were chosen because they are geographically and culturally diverse and had relatively large non-programmatic populations. Non-programmatic properties with fewer than 50 units were not considered.

Here are the major findings:

  • Non-programmatic LIHTC properties are considerably older than other market-rate properties.
  • Non-programmatic LIHTC properties generally have lower property ratings and lower location ratings compared with conventional market rate properties.
  • Rents in non-programmatic LIHTC properties tend to be lower than market-rate units that were never in the LIHTC program. This is true for all seven metro areas studied. The largest rent gap was in Dallas, where non-programmatic LIHTC rents are 26.5% lower than market rate, while the smallest gap was in Phoenix, where non-programmatic rents are only 3.0% lower.
  • The analysis shows that non-programmatic LIHTC rents are still materially below the rest of the market.
  • In general, many non-programmatic LIHTC properties continue to provide affordable housing. Rent levels across these metro areas for non-programmatic properties are affordable, on average, to tenants making 61% of AMI.

Opportunity for Workforce Housing

Non-programmatic LIHTC represents a loss of the strictly affordable stock, which is the segment of the market with the most need, but it benefits another market segment: workforce housing.

Workforce housing typically serves renters who make below the median income for the area but are not eligible for subsidies.

Overall, programmatic LIHTC units are generally the most affordable and guarantee they will remain affordable, followed by non-programmatic LIHTC.

Loss of Deeply Affordable Units

The loss of affordable LIHTC units can still be very problematic. This is especially true for deeply affordable units at 30% AMI. There are no units in the non-programmatic dataset that are affordable at 30% AMI, while only 0.1% of conventional market-rate units are affordable at this level. Since market rents can almost never support rents at this level, the conversion of a LIHTC property to market rate typically means the loss of deeply affordable units at 30% AMI.

Conclusion of the Study

Rent and income restrictions for LIHTC properties generally persist for at least 30 years, but as the program ages and more properties near the end of their compliance periods, the risk of affordability loss increases. Certain factors are correlated with the risk of ending LIHTC rent restrictions such as ownership type, property characteristics, and local housing market. The decision to convert properties to market rate, however, ultimately lies with the property owner who is motivated by a variety of factors.

Fortunately, the propensity for LIHTC properties to move to a rent level on par with market rate is low. Although rent for units among non-programmatic LIHTC properties is typically higher than programmatic LIHTC rents, they are still materially below conventional market-rate rent levels. In this way, LIHTC properties leaving the program play a role in a community’s overall rental housing strategy by adding to the workforce housing stock, thus increasing affordable access to households that may not qualify for subsidized housing.

However, several risks remain, particularly around the loss of deeply affordable units and the risk of rents increasing due to market conditions or rehabilitation of the property. Available public subsidies can best benefit those properties that provide deeply affordable housing as well as affordable housing in areas without a lot of access to similar-priced housing. Understanding the risks associated with the loss of affordable units from LIHTC properties can help inform what may happen as more properties exit the program and provide strategies to help preserve affordable housing to help those tenants most at risk of losing affordable housing.

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.