AJJCS
Products News Help
Client Sign In

HOTMA Required Revisions to Tenant Selection Plans and EIV Policies and Procedures

person A.J. Johnson today 11/04/2023

On October 2, 2023, HUD published a list of Discretionary Policies the owners participating in HUD Multifamily Housing Programs must set in Tenant Selection Plans (TSPs) and EIV Policies and Procedures. These documents must be updated by March 31, 2024.

  1. HOTMA Provision: De Minimis Errors in Income Determinations.
    1. Required HOTMA Policy: Owners must take corrective action to credit or repay a family if the family was overcharged tenant rent because of de minimis errors (no more than $360 annually) in calculating family income. If a family is undercharged for rent due to an owner miscalculation of income, families may not be required to repay.
    1. Owner’s Discretionary Policies: Owners must include in the TSP how they will repay or credit a family the amount that the family was overcharged retroactive to the effective date of the action for which the error was made, regardless of the dollar amount associated with the error.
  2. Self-Certification of Net Family Assets Equal to or Less Than $50,000 (adjusted annually for inflation).
    1. Required HOTMA Policy: Owners must determine if the family’s total net family assets are equal to or less than $50,000, and they must determine the actual income earned from the assets.
    1. Owner’s Discretionary Policies: (1) Owners may accept a family’s self-certification of net family assets if the assets are no more than $50,000 and anticipated income earned from assets without taking additional steps to verify accuracy, at admission and reexamination; (2) Accepting a family’s self-certification at admission may reduce the initial burden on applicants and speed up the lease-up process. In deciding whether to accept a self-certification of assets at admission, Owners are encouraged to consider the local needs and priorities in their communities along with the potential risks of accepting self-certification of assets, including the requirement to repay funds for participants/tenants who are later found to be ineligible for assistance; (3) Owners who choose to accept self-certification of assets of no more than $50,000 at reexamination are required to fully verify net family assets every three years; (4) Owners who choose not to accept self-certification must verify net family assets every year (5) Owners must include in their TSPs whether they will accept a family’s self-certification of assets of $50,000 or less at admission (only for new admissions effective on or after 1/1/24) and/or at reexamination.
  • Hardship Exemptions for Health/Medical Care Expenses & Reasonable Attendant Care & Auxiliary Apparatus Expenses (General Relief):
    • Required HOTMA Policy: (1) Owners must provide hardship relief to any family that demonstrates its eligible health and medical care expenses, or disability-related expenses exceed 5% of the family’s annual income; (2) An increase in medical or disability-related expenses constitutes a qualifying eligibility factor so long as it exceeds 5% of the family’s annual income; (3) to meet the requirement for a medical expense hardship exemption, the family’s expenses must qualify as medical expenses under HUD regulation; and (4) to meet the requirements for a disability related exemption, the family’s disability related expenses must meet the HUD definition of a disability related expense.
    • Owner’s Discretionary Policies: (1) Owners must develop written policies in their TSPs defining the changes in circumstances that are required for a family to qualify for a hardship exemption. These are hardships that would not otherwise trigger an interim reexamination; (2) Owners may extend the hardship relief for one or more 90-day intervals, while the family’s hardship condition exists;  and (3) Owners must state in the TSP whether hardship exemption extensions are allowable, and the maximum number of 90-day extensions (if establishing a maximum policy) families may receive.
      • Note - MFH owners are not limited by HUD to a maximum number of 90-day extensions.
      • Third-party verification of the hardship is required of the file must be documented as to why third-party verification was not available. Attempts to obtain verification must be obtained prior to the end of the 90-day period.
  • Hardship Exemptions for Health/Medical Care Expenses & Reasonable Attendant Care & Auxiliary Apparatus Expenses (Phased-in Relief):
    • Required HOTMA Policy: (1) All families who received a deduction for medical or disability-related expenses based on their most recent income review prior to January 1, 2024, will begin receiving the 24-month phased-in relief at their next annual or interim reexamination, whichever occurs first on or after the date the MFH Owner complies with HOTMA. (2) Families who receive phased-in relief will have eligible expenses deducted as follows: (i) First 12 months: in excess of 5% of annual income; (ii) second 12 months: in excess of 7.5% of annual income; and (iii) after 24 months: in excess of 10% threshold will phase in and remain in effect unless the family qualifies for General Relief. (3) Once a family chooses to obtain general relief, a family may no longer receive the phased-in relief.
    • Owner’s Discretionary Policy: MFH Owners may continue the phased-in relief for a new admission who was receiving the phased-in relief at their prior assisted housing at the time that the family was admitted to their current unit. This discretion should be stated in the TSP.
      • For example, a family is admitted to a new MFH property, but they would have still been receiving the 24-month phased-in hardship exemption had they continued to reside in their previous unit at a different MFH property. Owners may establish a policy to continue the phased-in hardship exemption for the family’s remaining months in the 24-month phase-in period.
  • Hardship Exemption to Continue Child Care Expense Hardship:
    • Required HOTMA Policy: (1) MFH Owners must develop written policies to define what constitutes a hardship, which includes the family’s inability to pay rent, for the purposes of the childcare expense hardship exemption. (2) Owners must include this policy in the TSP. (3) Owners must obtain third-party verification of the family’s inability to pay rent or must document in the file the reason third-party verification was not available. Owners must attempt to obtain third-party verification prior to the end of the 90-day period.
    • Owner’s Discretionary Policy: (1) Owners may, pursuant to their own discretionary policies, extend the hardship relief for one or more additional 90-day periods while the family’s hardship condition continues. (2) Owners must include in their TSP whether they will permit extensions of the 90-day hardship period and the maximum number of 90-day extension periods (if establishing a maximum policy) that a family may receive.
      • Note: Owners are not limited by HUD to a maximum number of 90-day extensions.
  • Interim Reexaminations - Decreases in Adjusted Income:
    • Required HOTMA Policy: (1) Owners are required by HUD to process interim reexaminations for all decreases in adjusted income when a family permanently moves out of a unit. (2) Owners are not permitted to establish a dollar figure threshold amount instead of a percentage threshold of less than 10 percent.
    • Owner’s Discretionary Policy: (1) Owners may decline to conduct an interim reexamination of family income if the Owner estimates that the family’s adjusted annual income will decrease by an amount that is less than ten percent of the family’s annual adjusted income, or such lower threshold established by the Owner. (2) Owners must identify in their TSPs the percentage threshold they will use for conducting interim reexamination for decreases in a family’s adjusted income. (3) Owners may establish policies to round calculated percentage decreases up or down to the nearest unit (e.g., a calculated decrease of 9.5% may be rounded up to 10%).
  • Interim Reexaminations - Increases in Adjusted Income:
    • Required HOTMA Policy: (1)Owners must conduct an interim reexamination of family income when they become aware that the family’s annual adjusted income has changed by an amount that would result in an estimated increase of ten percent or more in annual adjusted income or another amount established through HUD notice, except Owners may not consider any increases in earned income when estimating or calculating whether the family’s adjusted income has increased unless the family has previously received an interim reduction during the same reexamination cycle. (2) Owners may not establish a different threshold to conduct interim reexaminations for increases in adjusted income.
    • Owner’s Discretionary Policy: (1) Owners may choose not to conduct an interim reexamination if a family reports an increase in income within three months of their next annual reexamination effective date. (2) Owners may choose not to include earned income increases in determining whether the ten percent threshold is met in adjusted income when the family previously had an interim reexamination performed for a decrease in annual adjusted income (earned, unearned, or combined) since the last annual reexamination. (3) Owners must describe these policies in their TSPs.
  • Interim Reexaminations - Reporting Changes & Effective Date:
    • Required HOTMA Policy: (1) Families must report household composition changes and changes to adjusted income consistent with HOTMA’s requirements; however, Owners determine the timeframe in which reporting must occur to be considered "timely." (2) If the Owner has adopted a retroactive rent decrease policy, it may not be applied prior to the later of:
      • The 1st of the month following the date of the actual decrease in income; or
      • The 1st of the month following the most recent previous income examination.
      • Note - Owners must clearly communicate to the family how a retroactive adjustment will affect the family’s responsibility for rent.
    • Owner’s Discretionary Policy: (1) Owners must develop policies that describe when and under what conditions families must report changes in household composition and adjusted income consistent with HUD’s requirements for processing interims or other non-interim reexamination transactions. (2) Owners have the discretion to develop specific reporting policies that describe which changes must be reported and the timeline for reporting the change to be considered timely. (3) Owners may adopt a policy to apply rent decreases retroactively and establish additional criteria to describe the conditions under which retroactive decreases will be applied. (4) Owners must describe these policies in their TSPs.
  • Revocation of Consent Form (Revocation of consent or refusal to sign the consent form prohibits the owner from requesting and accessing  income information and financial records, including pulling any EIV reports and using EIV data to verify income):
    • Required HOTMA Policy: (1) An executed consent form will remain effective until the family is denied assistance, the assistance is terminated, or the family provides written notification to the Owner to revoke consent. (2) Families have the right to revoke consent by notice to the Owner; however, revoking consent can result in termination or denial of assistance if the Owner has established an admission and occupancy policy that the revocation of consent will result in termination of assistance or denial of admission. (3) Owners may not process interim or annual reexaminations of income, including when a family’s income decreases and the family requests an interim reexamination to decrease tenant rent, without the family’s executed consent form(s). (4) Owners must explain to families the consequences, if any, of revoking their consent. (5) Owners must notify their local HUD office when an applicant or participant family member revokes their consent.
    • Owner’s Discretionary Policy: (1) Owners may establish in a written policy that revocation of consent will result in termination of assistance or denial of admission. (2) When Owners do not establish a policy such that revoking consent will result in termination of assistance, participant families will be required to sign a new consent form by the next regularly scheduled reexamination or interim reexamination, whichever occurs first. (3) Owners may establish policies to deny admission but allow existing participant families to continue to receive assistance after revoking their consent until the next interim or annual reexamination, whichever is sooner. (4) Owners must describe these policies in their TSPs.
  • Determination of Family Income Using Other Means-Tested Public Assistance, i.e., "Safe Harbor:"
    • Required HOTMA Policy:
      • (1) Owners may determine the family’s income prior to the application of any deductions based on income determinations made within the previous 12-month period for purposes of the following means-tested forms of Federal public assistance:
        • The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Block Grant ("TANF").Medicaid.The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program ("SNAP").The Earned Income Tax Credit.The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit.The Special Supplemental Nutrition for Women, Infants, and Children ("WIC").Other programs administered through HUD.Other means-tested forms of Federal public assistance for which HUD has established a memorandum of understanding.Other Federal benefit determinations made by other means-tested Federal programs that the HUD Secretary determines to have comparable reliability and announces through a Federal Register Notice.
        (2) Owners are not required to accept or use determinations of income from other Federal means-tested forms of assistance.(3) Safe Harbor verification must be obtained by means of third-party verification and must state the family size, must be for the entire family (i.e., the family members listed in the documentation must match the family’s composition in the assisted unit, except for household members) and must state the amount of the family’s income.(4) Safe Harbor verification must not be mixed and matched with other income verifications, including other Safe Harbor income determinations.
    • Owner’s Discretionary Policy: (1) Owners that choose to implement Safe Harbor income determinations must:
      • Establish in a written policy when they will accept Safe Harbor income determinations (e.g., at reexamination only or at admission and reexamination), including which programs from which they will accept income determinations; and
      • Create policies that outline the course of action when families present multiple verifications from the same or different Safe Harbor programs (e.g., Owners could establish policies to accept the most recent income determination).
      • Owners must describe these policies in their TSPs.
  • Enterprise Income Verification (EIV) Usage:
    • Required HOTMA Policy: (1) MFH Owners must use HUD’s EIV system in its entirety. (2) Owners must update their EIV policies and procedures to reflect their discretionary use of EIV reports (e.g., Income Report, zero Income reports, New Hires Report, etc.) under HOTMA.
    • Owner’s Discretionary Policy: (1) Owners are not required to use EIV during interim reexaminations. (2) Owners who adopt policies to not include earned income increases in determining whether the 10 percent threshold is met for increases in adjusted income when the family previously had an interim reexamination performed for a decrease in annual adjusted income (earned, unearned, or combined) since the last annual reexamination, are not required to use the EIV New Hires report between annual reexaminations. (3) Owners who have a policy to consider earned income increases in calculating whether the ten percent threshold has been met for an interim reexamination are required to review the EIV New Hires report at least quarterly, for the remainder of the reexamination period after the interim reexamination to decrease rent occurs. (4) Owners are not required to use the Income Report at annual reexamination if they use Safe Harbor verification to determine the family’s income. (5) Owners are not required to use EIV Income Discrepancy Report at annual reexamination if they used Safe Harbor verification to determine the family’s income at the last reexamination. (6) Owners must describe these policies in their EIV policies and procedures.

Bottom Line

            As outlined in this article, MFH owners have a good deal of discretion regarding the implementation of a number of HOTMA provisions. Important discretion exists with regard to (1) Self-Certification of family assets; (2) Hardship exemptions for medical and disability-related expenses, as well as child care expenses; (3) the handling of interim reexaminations; (4) Means tested determination of family income {i.e., the "Safe Harbor"}; and (5) use of EIV. Owners who wish to apply any of these discretionary measures must ensure that such policies are reflected in Tenant Selection Plans (TSPs) and EIV Policies and Procedures no later than March 31, 2024.

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.