AJJCS
Products News Help
Client Sign In

Biden Administration Introduces "Renters Bill of Rights"

person A.J. Johnson today 03/12/2023

In late January 2023, the Biden administration released a Blueprint for a Renters Bill of Rights.  This blueprint describes federal actions around five guiding renter protections: Safe, Quality, Accessible, and Affordable Housing; Clear and Fair Leases; Education; Enforcement and Enhancement of Renters Rights; the Right to Organize; and Eviction Prevention, Diversion, and Relief.

The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) announced it will identify the opportunities and challenges of adopting and enforcing tenant protections, including policies that limit egregious rent increases at properties with Government Sponsored Enterprise (GSE) backed mortgages going forward.

FHFA is also going to publish a GSE Look-Up Tool to determine if a property is backed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac financing and requires a 30-day notice to vacate for non-payment of rent. HUD will also issue a notice of proposed rulemaking requiring that PHAs and owners of project-based rental assistance properties provide no less than a 30-day notice of lease termination due to nonpayment of rent.

The blueprint also recommends that local governments take the following actions: (1) immediately seal eviction filings and only unseal them in the case of a decision against the tenant; (2) provide the right to counsel in eviction proceedings; and (3) prohibit source of income discrimination.

Following is a description of the "five principles" outlined in the Blueprint.

First Principle: Access to Safe, Quality, Accessible, and Affordable Housing

Renters should have access to housing that is safe, decent, and affordable and should pay no more than 30 percent of household income on housing costs. Owners of rental housing and state and local governments should ensure that homes for rent meet habitability standards and are free of health and safety hazards, such as lead or mold. In addition, owners should provide services and amenities as advertised or included in the lease (such as utility costs and functional appliances) and ensure that the residential housing unit is well maintained (including common areas). Renters should face minimal barriers when applying for housing and receiving housing assistance, which includes minimally burdensome application and documentation requirements and fair and equal tenant screening. Increases in rents should be reasonable, with the acknowledgment that rents may need to increase to cover operating costs. These increases should be transparent and fair to protect against gouging.

In 2019, almost 25% of renters spent half their income on rent. Nationally, rents rose 26% during the pandemic. Limited housing supply has created more competition for fewer available units, which gives owners even more leverage in deciding to whom to rent to, what lease terms to offer, and whether and how much to raise rents. At the same time, the housing stock in America is aging, and more rental housing is facing obsolescence or poor housing conditions.

Perhaps in recognition of the fact that private owners who do not operate under any programmatic regulations (i.e., conventional housing) are not responsible for making housing affordable. These owners operate rental housing for the profits that can be made from such housing. Offering incentives for affordability is the responsibility of the government, at the federal, state, and local levels. To accomplish this, the Biden Administration has proposed the largest expansion of the Housing Choice Voucher program in decades. In addition to this step, the Administration has proposed the following:

  • The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will explore ways to expand the use of its authority under the FTC Act to take action against acts and practices that unfairly prevent consumers from obtaining and retaining housing.
  • As announced in November, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), an independent agency, will increase affordability in the multifamily rental market by classifying multifamily loans with loan agreements that restrict rents at levels affordable to households with incomes between 80 and 120 percent of Area Median Income as "mission-driven." In 2023, FHFA required that at least 50 percent of all Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae purchases of multifamily loans be mission-driven. In 2022, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae purchased a combined $142 billion in multifamily loans supporting over one million units. If the same activity holds in 2023, this will mean an investment in approximately 700,000 affordable units.

Second Principle: Clear & Fair Leases

Renters should have a clear and fair lease that has defined rental terms, rights, and responsibilities. Leases should not include mandatory arbitration clauses, unauthorized terms, hidden or illegal fees, false representations, or other unfair or deceptive practices. A lease should provide a transparent policy regarding security deposits, with those deposits being appropriately sized and placed in an interest-bearing account for the duration of the lease. The lease should also provide reasonable advance notice of actions related to the unit, including notice of entry for inspection by the housing provider and significant changes to the unit. Finally, the lease terms should be written in simple and clear language accessible to the renter, and the leasing process should ensure tenants understand the terms of the lease through a plain-language briefing.

A lease establishes the foundation for the housing provider and tenant relationship, highlighting the rights, responsibilities, and recourse that exists for both parties. A lease covers the terms for what is likely the largest single expense a household makes each month and over the course of a year. The trend of more leases with problematic provisions can be partially attributed to the increased use of shared forms, which are easily accessible through the internet and may include terms that are not legally enforceable in the state or locality in which the property is located.

To ensure fair leases to the greatest extent possible, the Administration is announcing the following new actions:

  • USDA will institute a broad set of actions that will advance clear leases and ensure tenants can seek compliance with lease terms without facing retaliation across its portfolio of 400,000 units of multifamily rental housing.
  • Specifically, USDA is developing a clear and fair lease that is similar to the model lease used in HUD Section 8 properties.
  • USDA will also create a tenant grievance FAQ outlining clear steps for tenants appealing a management decision and will distribute it to owners and management agents,  and ask for distribution to tenants and tenant advocacy groups.
  • Further, USDA Rural Development is working to create a Tenant Rights and Responsibilities brochure modeled after the HUD Multifamily brochure for assisted housing residents, increasing consistency between the two agencies and clarifying Rural Development tenants’ rights and responsibilities.
  • USDA will explore updating its regulations to require borrowers with federal credit from the department’s Rural Housing Service to utilize the brochure.

Owners and managers in the RD Section 515 Program should be prepared for this upcoming change. A good starting point is a review of the current HUD Model Lease for Multifamily Housing and the HUD Rights & Responsibilities Brochure. This will give operators of Section 515 housing an idea of what may be coming down the road.

Third Principle: Education, Enforcement, and Enhancement of Rights

The Administration position is that Federal, state, and local governments should do all they can to ensure renters know their existing legal rights and to protect renters from unlawful discrimination and exclusion that can take many different forms.

The Fair Housing Act (FHA) bans discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity), disability, familial status, and national origin, including practices that have an unjustified disparate impact on a protected class. The Administration proposes to expand the FHA to prohibit discrimination based on source of income.

In order to implement this third principle, HUD is finalizing a rule to clarify that the Fair Housing Act continues to bar practices with unjustified discriminatory effects notwithstanding efforts to weaken its reach. In addition, HUD has published a proposed Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing rule to strengthen and better align grantee planning efforts to advance fair housing goals.

The federal government has advanced other rights beyond those protected by the Fair Housing Act. For example, discrimination against a holder of a Housing Choice Voucher is banned in the federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program, which is the largest affordable housing production program in the country. The Administration has announced the following new actions:

Tenant Background Checks:

  • The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has said it will identify guidance or rules that it can issue to ensure that the background screening industry adheres to the law and coordinate law enforcement efforts with the FTC to hold tenant background check companies accountable for having reasonable procedures to ensure accurate information in the credit reporting system.
  • HUD, FHFA, FTC, and USDA have said they will work with CFPB to release best practices on the use of tenant screening reports, including the importance of communicating clearly to tenants the use of tenant background checks in denying rental applications or increasing fees and providing tenants the opportunity to address inaccurate information contained within background screening reports. HUD, FHFA, and USDA have said they will strongly encourage property owners in their respective portfolios to align with these best practices and inform them of any additional relevant legal requirements in their respective portfolios. HUD will also release guidance addressing the use of tenant screening algorithms in ways that may violate the Fair Housing Act.

Source of Income Discrimination:

  • Discrimination based on a person’s source of income is not expressly prohibited under the Fair Housing Act. There are several ongoing agency actions that will be enhanced, consistent with agency authorities, to reduce such discrimination going forward. Consistent with existing LIHTC rules, the Treasury Department reiterates that LIHTC building owners should lease units in a manner consistent with HUD’s nondiscrimination rules and are prohibited from refusing to lease units to prospective tenants due to their status as holders of Housing Choice Vouchers or certificates of eligibility. The Treasury Department will meet with tenants, advocates, housing providers, and researchers to discuss ways to further the goals of tenant protections, including those around source of income, as well as broader issues of affordability and eviction prevention with respect to the LIHTC incentive.  HUD will explore opportunities to address source of income discrimination through guidance.

Fourth Principle: The Right to Organize

The Administration believes that renters should have the right to organize without obstruction or harassment from their housing provider or property manager and should not risk losing housing over organizing.

Tenants in different types of HUD and RD programs have recognized rights to organize. The Administration is not proposing that the government impose this requirement on non-assisted properties. They are taking the following steps:

  • The Department of Defense (DoD) commits to ensuring that military members living in DoD’s government-owned, government-controlled, or privatized housing have the right to organize and affirms their right to report housing issues to their chain of command and/or Military Housing Office without fear of retribution or retaliation.
  • HUD’s Office of Multifamily Housing is developing a Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) to distribute appropriated funds to support tenant capacity-building activities, including tenant education and outreach.
  • HUD’s Office of Multifamily Housing will build on existing training and technical assistance strategies to promote engagement with residents and implementation of the Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) resident protections, including grievance procedures, by owners of RAD-converted properties. This will include fact sheets and similar public resources, targeted outreach to owners of recently converted properties, and measures to refresh awareness of program expectations following the completion of the conversion process.

It should be noted that these actions will not apply to LIHTC properties.

Fifth Principle: Eviction Prevention, Diversion, and Relief

Before the pandemic, roughly 900,000 evictions were completed against tenants every single year. In order to reduce the number of evictions, the Administration is taking the following actions:

  • HUD will issue a notice of proposed rulemaking, to build upon the previously issued Interim Final Rule, which will propose to require that PHAs administering a public housing program and owners of project-based rental assistance properties provide no less than 30 days advanced notification of lease termination due to nonpayment of rent.
  • HUD will award $20 million for the Eviction Protection Grant Program in fiscal year 2023, which will fund non-profits and governmental entities to provide legal assistance to low-income tenants at risk of or subject to eviction.
  • FHFA, Freddie Mac, and Fannie Mae have indicated their commitment to publishing information about the Enterprise Look-Up Tools, which allow tenants to determine if their property is backed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac financing and requires the 30-day notice to vacate for non-payment of rent. The Enterprises will continue to publish this information and assess how the individual tools might be enhanced to improve utility.

Bottom Line -  This "Renters Bill of Rights" will have a direct impact on federally assisted housing, with some minor effects across the non-federal universe of rental housing. The most immediate impact will be felt in the rural housing community due to the Rural Development Service development of a Model Lease and "Rights & Responsibilities" brochure. At the same time, the push to create "best practices" relative to applicant background screening should lead landlords to examine current practices - before they are forced to do so by state or local agencies.

With regard to the LIHTC program, The Treasury Department will meet with tenants, advocates, housing providers, and researchers to discuss ways to further the goals of tenant protections, including those around source of income, as well as broader issues of affordability and eviction prevention with respect to the LIHTC incentive. 

Latest Articles

Historic Housing Expansion in Reconciliation Act

Since being signed into law on July 4, I have read the "One Big Beautiful Bill twice, in an effort to determine its impact on housing - especially affordable housing. What follows is my take on the impact of the bill on affordable housing in the United States. The "One Big Beautiful Bill Reconciliation Act marks the most significant expansion of affordable housing programs in over twenty years, permanently transforming the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program and delivering the largest housing investment in its 39-year history. Signed into law by President Trump on July 4, 2025, the legislation will fund an estimated 1.22 million additional affordable rental homes over the next decade through improved tax credit provisions and streamlined financing methods. This expansion comes at a critical time when the nation faces a serious affordable housing shortage, with the changes taking effect on January 1, 2026, and offering unprecedented long-term stability for developers and investors. The legislation narrowly passed along party lines 218-214 in the House and 51-50 in the Senate, with Vice President Vance casting the deciding vote as part of a massive $3.4 trillion reconciliation package that reshapes federal fiscal policy across multiple sectors. While the broader bill includes controversial provisions like significant tax cuts and reductions to safety net programs, the housing provisions have received bipartisan praise from industry stakeholders who see them as vital for addressing America s housing crisis. Legislative details and comprehensive scope The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (H.R. 1, P.L. 119-21) originated from the budget reconciliation process as a lengthy 870-1,000 page package that includes broad tax cuts, targeted spending hikes, and social program adjustments. The legislation is estimated to have a fiscal impact of $3.4 trillion over a decade, with housing provisions accounting for $15.7 billion in tax credit expansions. The bill s path through Congress highlighted strong partisan divides, with Democrats consistently opposing the legislation despite backing many of its housing provisions. The reconciliation process allowed Republicans to bypass the Senate filibuster, making it possible to pass the bill with a simple majority. The legislation includes provisions from 11 House committees and 10 Senate committees, showing its wide-ranging scope across federal policy areas. Beyond housing, the act makes the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act individual tax rates permanent, eliminates taxes on tips and overtime pay, raises the state and local tax deduction cap to $40,000 for earners under $500,000, and allocates $350 billion for border security. However, these benefits come with significant cuts to Medicaid and SNAP programs, creating a complex policy landscape that impacts housing affordability in conflicting ways. Transformative LIHTC program enhancements The legislation provides the most significant Low-Income Housing Tax Credit expansion since the program started in 1986. The main feature is a permanent 12% increase in 9% LIHTC allocations, raising the per-capita allocation from $3.00 to about $3.36 beginning in 2026. Although this percentage increase appears small, it results in an extra $132 million per year in tax credit authority across the country, with proportional increases for the eight states, D.C., and four territories that get small-state minimum allocations. The second major LIHTC change permanently lowers the private activity bond financing threshold from 50% to 25% of total project costs for 4% credit deals. This change fundamentally shifts the economics of affordable housing development by making projects eligible for non-competitive 4% credits with much less bond financing. According to a Novogradac analysis, this single change will enable 1.14 million more affordable rental homes between 2026 and 2035, forming the majority of the legislation s housing production impact. The Congressional Budget Office estimates these LIHTC changes will cost $15.7 billion over 2026-2035, making them highly cost-effective compared to other federal housing programs. The permanent nature of these provisions sets this expansion apart from previous temporary measures, offering unmatched certainty for the affordable housing sector s long-term planning and investments. The legislation initially included extra provisions for rural and tribal communities, but these were removed in the final version. The House bill would have provided an automatic 30% basis boost for properties in rural areas and tribal lands, but these enhancements did not make it through the reconciliation process, marking a significant narrowing of the original scope. Broader affordable housing provisions and opportunity zones Beyond LIHTC, the legislation includes several other housing-related provisions that expand development incentives and homeownership opportunities. The act makes the Opportunity Zones program permanent with enhanced incentives, allowing investors to defer taxation of capital gains from qualified opportunity zone investments until December 31, 2033, and providing a 10% basis increase for investments held five or more years. The legislation requires that 33% of newly designated opportunity zones be in rural areas, with automatic qualification for rural and tribal regions. This geographic focus addresses previous criticisms that opportunity zones mainly benefited already-developing urban areas while overlooking rural communities that could gain the most from investment incentives. The New Markets Tax Credit program has received permanent reauthorization with $5 billion allocated annually, ensuring stability for community development financial institutions and community development entities that fund affordable housing and commercial projects in low-income areas. This permanent setup removes the uncertainty caused by repeated short-term extensions. For homeownership, the legislation reestablishes the tax deduction for mortgage insurance premiums and makes permanent the 20% deduction for qualified business income, which specifically benefits real estate professionals. The act also raises the child tax credit to $2,500 per qualifying child through 2028 and offers various other tax incentives that could indirectly boost homeownership capacity. Market dynamics and development impacts The legislation s housing provisions will fundamentally change affordable housing development patterns and market dynamics. Lowering private activity bond requirements from 50% to 25% for 4% LIHTC deals will shift significant development activity from the competitive 9% credit market to the non-competitive 4% market. This change provides developers with greater certainty and faster project timelines, as 4% credits don t need the lengthy competitive allocation process that characterizes 9% credits. State housing finance agencies will need to modify their allocation strategies to handle increased demand while overseeing their private activity bond capacity. States with oversubscribed multifamily bond programs will benefit most from the 25% threshold reduction, as more projects will become feasible with lower bond financing requirements. The ongoing 12% increase in 9% LIHTC allocations will strengthen states ability to fund competitive projects, potentially lowering the oversubscription ratios that make 9% credits highly competitive. However, the effectiveness of these changes depends largely on the availability of gap financing sources, since LIHTC generally covers only 60-70% of development costs. This could become a critical issue since the Administration s 2026 budget proposal calls for the elimination of the HOME and CDBG programs. Construction capacity and workforce availability pose significant challenges to implementation. The U.S. construction industry faces major labor shortages, and the possibility of adding over one million new housing units could strain existing resources. Material costs might also increase due to new tariffs announced by the administration, potentially reducing some of the financial advantages of the increased tax credit provisions. Stakeholder reactions reveal sharp divisions The housing provisions have received enthusiastic support from industry groups despite opposition to the broader legislation. The National Association of Home Builders described the act as "the first time in a long time that housing has been prioritized, while the National Association of Realtors commended the achievement of their "top 5 priorities, including permanent lower tax rates and improved business income deductions. The Mortgage Bankers Association emphasized that the legislation preserves "pro-housing and pro-economic growth tax provisions, especially highlighting the permanent mortgage interest deduction and the reestablished mortgage insurance premium deduction. These industry groups see the legislation as offering crucial long-term certainty for housing investment and development. However, housing advocacy organizations offer a more nuanced view. The National Low Income Housing Coalition supports expanding the LIHTC but strongly opposes the broader legislation s cuts to Medicaid and SNAP programs. Executive Director Kim Johnson stated that "while LIHTC is an important program, LIHTC units are rarely affordable enough for households with the lowest incomes, who will be most affected by safety net reductions. The National Housing Conference praised the legislation, with President David Dworkin calling the housing provisions "the most consequential and positive housing legislation in decades. This highlights the industry s focus on production capacity rather than broader affordability issues. Implementation timeline and administrative challenges The legislation s housing provisions take effect on January 1, 2026, with state housing agencies already preparing for implementation. States will receive their enhanced LIHTC allocations starting with the 2026 allocation year, requiring updates to Qualified Allocation Plans and application processes to handle the increased volume. The Treasury Department and IRS need to develop regulatory guidance for the new private activity bond threshold calculations and basis boost provisions. State housing finance agencies are updating their technology systems and training staff for the expected increase in application volume, with some smaller states worrying about their ability to handle the expanded program scale. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the housing provisions will cut the primary deficit by $85 billion through economic growth effects, indicating that increased housing production will generate enough economic activity to partly offset the legislation s fiscal costs. However, this estimate relies on successful implementation and full use of the expanded credit authority. Rural and tribal communities face specific implementation challenges because these areas often lack the developer capacity and technical expertise needed to fully utilize LIHTC programs. The legislation provides for enhanced technical assistance, but successful implementation will require ongoing efforts to build local capacity and expertise. Comparison to previous housing policy initiatives The One Big Beautiful Bill Act represents the largest federal housing investment since the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, but it has fundamentally different characteristics. While HERA provided temporary expansions in response to the financial crisis, the current legislation implements permanent program improvements that offer long-term stability. The 2008 legislation included a temporary 10% increase in LIHTC allocations and established the 9% minimum credit rate, but these provisions were meant as crisis response measures. The permanent nature of the current expansion sets it apart from earlier temporary initiatives and offers unmatched certainty for industry planning. Compared to Obama-era housing initiatives, the current legislation adopts a supply-side approach that emphasizes tax incentives rather than direct spending programs. The Obama administration focused on foreclosure prevention, GSE reform, and crisis response, while the current strategy prioritizes increasing production capacity through enhanced tax credits and development incentives. The 2018 Consolidated Appropriations Act increased LIHTC allocations by 12.5% for 2018-2021, but this temporary boost expired and required yearly congressional approval. The current legislation s permanent structure removes this uncertainty and allows the industry to plan for the long term. Conclusion and long-term implications The One Big Beautiful Bill Act s housing provisions mark a historic expansion of federal affordable housing programs, with the potential to significantly increase housing production over the next decade. The legislation s permanent improvements to the LIHTC program offer unprecedented stability and certainty for the affordable housing industry, while the enhanced financing mechanisms are expected to streamline development processes and shorten project timelines. However, the overall impact of the legislation on housing affordability remains complex and potentially contradictory. While the supply-side provisions are expected to increase the production of affordable housing, the simultaneous cuts to Medicaid and SNAP programs could lower housing purchasing power for the lowest-income households. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the lowest-income households will lose an average of $1,600 per year, while higher-income households will gain $12,000 annually, indicating that the benefits may mainly go to higher-income groups. The success of these provisions ultimately depends on effective implementation, sufficient construction capacity, and the availability of additional financing sources. The legislation sets the framework for significant increases in housing production, but turning this potential into actual affordable housing units will require coordinated efforts from federal agencies, state housing finance agencies, and private sector developers. For housing policy analysts and practitioners, the legislation presents both significant opportunities and notable challenges. The permanence of key provisions offers stability for long-term planning, while the scale of potential production increases demands substantial capacity building and system adaptation. The coming years will reveal whether this historic expansion leads to meaningful progress on America s affordable housing crisis.

Read full story

USDA Proposes Mandatory Market Studies for Section 538 Projects

The U.S. Department of Agriculture s Rural Housing Service (RHS) is tightening requirements for project feasibility under its Section 538 Guaranteed Rural Rental Housing Program (GRRHP). In a newly proposed rule, RHS will require all applicants seeking loan guarantees for new construction to submit a formal market study as part of a complete application. This may sound like a bureaucratic tweak, but it has real implications for lenders, developers, and rural communities. What s the Section 538 Program? Section 538 is the USDA s flagship loan guarantee program for rural multifamily housing. It backs up to 90% of loans made by private lenders for the construction or rehab of rental housing serving low- and moderate-income households in USDA-defined rural areas. It s a public-private partnership model that has delivered thousands of affordable units to small towns that are often overlooked. What s Changing and Why? Up to now, the rules under 7 CFR part 3565 have encouraged applicants to "demonstrate market feasibility, but have not required any specific documentation to prove it. Some lenders submitted comprehensive market studies; others relied on summaries, broker letters, or hastily compiled spreadsheets. That inconsistency is what the USDA wants to eliminate. Under the proposed rule, all new construction applications must include a comprehensive market study. This will: Ensure projects are built in markets with demonstrated need; Avoid oversaturation and risk to the existing affordable housing stock; Align USDA requirements with industry norms (e.g., LIHTC, HUD programs); Improve efficiency and uniformity in loan guarantee underwriting. What s a Market Study, Exactly? A professional market study typically includes: A demographic and economic profile of the market area; Rent comparables and absorption trends; An analysis of supply and demand for affordable units; Impact projections on existing housing stock; Supportable rent and unit mix recommendations. In short, it s the backbone of a smart housing investment and USDA wants it in every file. Who s Affected? Lenders & Developers: Must budget time and cost for a market study before the USDA will consider a loan guarantee for new construction. Property Managers: May see less risk of oversupplied markets hurting occupancy. USDA & Taxpayers: Benefit from better quality control and reduced risk of supporting white elephants in underserved areas. Comments Wanted Speak Now or Forever Hold Your Feasibility USDA is inviting public comments through August 30, 2025 (60 days from publication). Visit regulations.gov and search Docket No. RHS-24-MFH-0024 or RIN 0575-AD42. If you have a stake in affordable rural housing, this is your shot to weigh in. Bottom Line Requiring a market study isn t red tape it s a reality check. The move helps ensure scarce affordable housing dollars are spent where demand is real and sustainable. For lenders and developers, it s one more hoop, but also a safeguard. For rural communities, it s a sign that USDA wants housing investments to be grounded in facts, not optimism. Smart growth starts with smart data. This rule aims to make sure rural housing does just that. For more updates on affordable housing policy and compliance, stay connected with A. J. Johnson Consulting Services.

Read full story

RD to Implement HOTMA Income and Certification Rules on July 1, 2025

Although HUD has postponed implementation of HOTMA for its Multifamily Housing Programs until January 1, 2026, the USDA Rural Housing Service (RHS) Office of Multifamily Housing has announced that the Housing Opportunity Through Modernization Act (HOTMA) will take effect on July 1, 2025, bringing significant changes to income calculation rules for multifamily housing programs. Key Implementation Details To accommodate the federally mandated HOTMA requirements, Rural Development published comprehensive updates to Chapter 6 of Handbook 2-3560 on June 13, 2025. All multifamily housing tenant certifications effective on or after July 1, 2025, must comply with the new HOTMA requirements. Recognizing the challenges of the transition period, Rural Development has announced a six-month grace period. Between July 1, 2025, and January 1, 2026, the agency will not penalize multifamily housing owners for HOTMA-related tenant file errors discovered during supervisory reviews. Legislative Background HOTMA was signed into law on July 29, 2016, directing the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to modernize income calculation rules established initially under the Housing Act of 1937. After years of development, HUD published the Final Rule on February 14, 2023, updating critical regulations found in 24 CFR Part 5, Subpart A, Sections 5.609 and 5.611. The HOTMA changes specifically affecting the RHS Multifamily Housing portfolio are contained in 24 CFR 5.609(a) and (b) and 24 CFR 5.611, which standardize income calculation methods across federal housing programs. Notable Policy Changes Unborn Child Consideration One of the most significant changes involves how unborn children are counted for household eligibility purposes. Under the new rules, pregnant women will be considered as part of two-person households for income qualification purposes, aligning Rural Development policies with other affordable housing programs, including HUD and the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) programs. However, the household will not receive the $480 dependent deduction until after the child is born, maintaining consistency in benefit distribution timing. Updated Certification Forms Rural Development has released an updated Form RD 3560-8 Tenant Certification, which was initially published on December 6, 2024, and revised on April 18, 2025. The form is available on the eForms Website for immediate use. The previous version of the form has been renumbered as RD 3560-8A and should be used for all tenant certifications effective before July 1, 2025. Implementation Timeline The HOTMA implementation has experienced some delays. Originally scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2025, the Rural Housing Service announced on October 3, 2024, that implementation would be postponed to July 1, 2025, to allow additional time for property owners and managers to prepare. Rural Development initially implemented HOTMA through an unnumbered letter dated August 19, 2024, which outlined the overview and projected timeline for implementation. Industry Impact The HOTMA changes represent the most significant update to federal housing income calculation rules in decades, affecting thousands of multifamily housing properties across rural America. Property owners and managers have been working to update their systems and train staff on the new requirements. The six-month penalty-free transition period demonstrates Rural Development s commitment to supporting property owners through this complex regulatory change while ensuring long-term compliance with federal requirements. Moving Forward Multifamily housing stakeholders are encouraged to review the updated Chapter 6 of Handbook 2-3560 and ensure their staff is adequately trained on the new HOTMA requirements. Property owners should also verify they have access to the updated Form RD 3560-8 and understand the timing requirements for its use. For ongoing updates and additional resources, stakeholders can subscribe to USDA Rural Development updates through the GovDelivery subscriber page. The implementation of HOTMA represents a significant step toward modernizing and standardizing income calculation methods across federal housing programs, ultimately improving consistency and fairness in affordable housing administration.

Read full story

HUD’s Proposed Rule to Eliminate Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plans: A Critical Analysis

Introduction The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has proposed eliminating the requirement for Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plans (AFHMPs), a cornerstone of fair housing enforcement for decades. This proposed rule, published on June 3, 2025, represents a significant departure from established fair housing practices and raises serious concerns about the federal government s commitment to ensuring equal housing opportunities for all Americans. HUD s justification for this elimination rests on six primary arguments, each of which fails to withstand careful scrutiny and analysis. Background on Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plans AFHMPs have long served as essential tools in combating housing discrimination by requiring property owners and managers to actively market housing opportunities to groups that are least likely to apply. These plans ensure that information about available housing reaches all segments of the community, not just those who traditionally have had better access to housing information networks. Analysis of HUD s Justifications 1. Claims of Inconsistency with Fair Housing Act Authority HUD argues that its authority under the Fair Housing Act and Executive Order 11063 is limited to the "prevention of discrimination, claiming that AFHM regulations go beyond this scope by requiring outreach to minority communities through targeted publications and outlets. The agency characterizes this as impermissible "racial sorting. This argument fundamentally misunderstands both the nature of discrimination and the historical context of fair housing enforcement. Information disparities have long been one of the most prevalent and effective forms of housing discrimination. When certain groups systematically lack access to information about housing opportunities, the discriminatory effect is equivalent to being explicitly excluded. The failure to provide equal access to housing information is, in itself, a discriminatory act, not merely a neutral information gap. AFHMPs address this reality by ensuring that housing information reaches all communities, particularly those that have been historically excluded from traditional marketing channels. 2. Constitutional Challenges Under Equal Protection HUD contends that AFHM regulations violate the Equal Protection Clause by requiring applicants to favor some racial groups over others. This characterization is both inaccurate and misleading. AFHMPs do not create preferences or favor any particular group. Instead, they ensure equitable access to information by targeting outreach to communities that are "least likely to apply for specific housing opportunities. This principle applies regardless of the racial or ethnic composition of those communities. For instance, housing developments located in predominantly minority neighborhoods are required to conduct affirmative marketing in white communities since white residents would be least likely to apply for housing in those areas. The regulation is race-neutral in its application it focuses on reaching underrepresented groups regardless of their racial identity. This approach promotes inclusion rather than exclusion and advances the constitutional principle of equal protection under the law. 3. Delegation of Legislative Power Concerns HUD s third argument that the Fair Housing Act s authorization of AFHM regulations constitutes an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power represents perhaps the weakest aspect of their legal reasoning. Congress explicitly mandated that affirmative efforts be made to eliminate housing discrimination. As the administrative agency responsible for implementing congressional intent in this area, HUD possesses both the authority and the responsibility to determine the most effective means of carrying out this mandate. The development of specific regulatory mechanisms to achieve Congress s stated goals falls squarely within HUD s legitimate administrative authority and represents appropriate implementation of legislative intent rather than overreach. 4. The "Color Blind Policy Justification HUD frames its opposition to AFHMPs as part of a "color-blind policy approach, arguing that it is "immoral to treat racial groups differently and that the agency should not engage in "racial sorting. This argument mischaracterizes the function and operation of AFHMPs. These plans do not sort individuals by race or treat different racial groups unequally. Rather, they ensure that all groups have equal access to housing information by specifically reaching out to those who are least likely to receive such information through conventional marketing channels. Critically, AFHMPs require marketing to the general community in addition to targeted outreach. This comprehensive approach ensures broad access to housing information while addressing historical information disparities that have contributed to ongoing patterns of segregation. 5. Burden Reduction for Property Owners HUD argues that "innocent private actors should not bear the economic burden of preparing marketing plans unless they have actively engaged in discrimination. This position suggests that property owners should be exempt from fair housing obligations unless they can prove intentional discriminatory conduct. This reasoning effectively provides cover for property owners who prefer that certain groups remain unaware of housing opportunities. The "burden of creating inclusive marketing strategies is minimal compared to the societal cost of perpetuating information disparities that maintain segregated housing patterns. The characterization of comprehensive marketing as an undue burden ignores the fundamental principle that equal housing opportunity requires proactive effort, not merely passive non-discrimination. This represents a retreat to a "wink and nod approach to fair housing enforcement that falls far short of the Fair Housing Act s aspirational goals. 6. Prevention vs. Equal Outcomes HUD s final argument contends that AFHM regulations improperly focus on equalizing statistical outcomes rather than preventing discrimination. This argument creates a false dichotomy between prevention and opportunity creation. AFHMPs exist not to guarantee equal outcomes but to ensure equal opportunity by providing equal access to housing information. When information about housing opportunities is not equally available to all segments of the community, the opportunity for fair housing choice is compromised from the outset. True prevention of discrimination requires addressing the structural barriers that limit housing choices, including information disparities. The Broader Implications HUD s proposed elimination of AFHMP requirements represents a concerning retreat from decades of progress in fair housing enforcement. The proposal effectively returns to an era when discrimination, while technically prohibited, was facilitated through information control and selective marketing practices. The reality of housing markets is that access to information varies significantly across communities. Property owners and managers possess considerable discretion in how they market available units. Without regulatory requirements for inclusive outreach, there are few incentives to ensure that information reaches all potential applicants. Anyone with experience in affordable housing development and management understands that information flow can be deliberately targeted and shaped. This targeting can either expand housing opportunities for underserved communities or systematically exclude them. Marketing strategies can be designed to minimize applications from certain groups while maintaining technical compliance with non-discrimination requirements. Conclusion The six justifications offered by HUD for eliminating AFHMP requirements fail to provide compelling reasons for abandoning this critical fair housing tool. The arguments reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of how housing discrimination operates in practice and ignore the crucial role that information access plays in maintaining or dismantling segregated housing patterns. Rather than advancing fair housing goals, the proposed rule exacerbates existing disparities by removing a key mechanism for ensuring that all communities have equal access to housing information. The elimination of AFHMPs would represent a significant step backward in the ongoing effort to achieve the Fair Housing Act s vision of integrated communities and equal housing opportunities for all Americans. The current proposal suggests an agency leadership more committed to reducing the regulatory burden on property owners than to expanding housing opportunities for underserved communities. This represents a troubling departure from HUD s mission and responsibilities under federal fair housing law. Moving forward, policymakers, housing advocates, and community leaders must carefully consider whether this proposed rule serves the public interest or merely provides cover for practices that perpetuate housing segregation through more subtle but equally effective means.

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.