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

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

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.

Read full story

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.

Read full story

Impact of Trump Administration's Regulatory Restructuring on HUD and IRS

The Trump administration's recent executive order on federal regulations, "Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's 'Department of Government Efficiency' Deregulatory Initiative," signals significant changes for federal agencies. The order has particularly notable implications for the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The New Regulatory Framework On February 19, 2025, President Trump signed this executive order as part of a broader deregulatory agenda aimed at reducing what the administration views as bureaucratic overreach. The directive mandates that federal agencies conduct a comprehensive 60-day review of their regulatory frameworks to ensure alignment with both legal requirements and administration policies. The order targets explicitly regulations considered: Unconstitutional Based on improper delegations of legislative power Imposing excessive costs without clear public benefits Harmful to national interests Hindering development across various sectors This order is part of a series of regulatory rollbacks, including directives like "Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies" and "Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation," which expand upon the administration's previous deregulatory efforts. Specific Impacts on the IRS The IRS faces several significant challenges under this new directive: Continued Hiring Freeze: The executive order maintains an existing hiring freeze at the IRS, which will remain in effect until the Treasury Secretary, in consultation with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director, determines that lifting it serves the national interest. Increased White House Oversight: IRS regulations will once again be subject to White House review through the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), reinstating a policy from Trump's first term that adds another layer of scrutiny to IRS rulemaking. "10-for-1" Deregulation Mandate: The IRS must eliminate ten existing guidance documents for every new rule or guidance it issues, significantly constraining its ability to update tax regulations and provide new guidance. These measures could substantially impact the IRS's capacity to uphold compliance and maintain operational efficiency, potentially affecting tax administration and enforcement nationwide. Implications for HUD For the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the executive order brings equally significant changes: Comprehensive Program Review: The order requires a review of hundreds of HUD programs, potentially leading to significant restructuring or budget cuts. Grant Funding Uncertainty: Although a federal court temporarily blocked a separate memo seeking to freeze federal grants, the administration's intent to reassess HUD funding remains evident. "10-for-1" Rule Application: Like the IRS, HUD must adhere to the requirement of eliminating ten existing regulations for every new one proposed, which could significantly impact housing policy implementation and program management. These changes may affect HUD's ability to administer housing assistance programs, enforce fair housing regulations, and support community development initiatives. Legal and Procedural Challenges The administration's deregulatory push faces potential legal obstacles: Agencies seeking to rescind or modify rules must generally follow a new rulemaking process, including issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, collecting public comments, and finalizing the new rule. Failure to adhere to these procedural requirements could expose regulatory rollbacks to legal challenges under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The APA requires agencies to engage in reasoned decision-making when modifying or rescinding regulations, and courts may overturn agency decisions if this standard is not met. Outlook As the 60-day review period progresses, the IRS and HUD must navigate competing demands: implementing the administration's deregulatory agenda while maintaining their core functions and avoiding legal challenges. The outcome will likely reshape how these agencies operate and could have lasting implications for the United States s tax administration and housing policy. The full impact of these changes will become more evident as agencies determine which regulations to target and how to implement the administration's directives while fulfilling their statutory obligations.

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.