AJJCS
Products News Help
Client Sign In

HOTMA Changes to Deductions and Expenses for HUD Properties

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

Introduction

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has released Notice H 2013-10, which expands upon the Final Rule for implementing the Housing Opportunity Through Modernization Act (HOTMA). The publication of this guidance in September 2023 outlined a number of changes to the rules relating to HUD-permitted deductions and expenses.

Owners of HUD-assisted projects that determine rent based on adjusted income must consider mandatory deductions when determining a family’s annual adjusted income. Public Housing Agencies (PHAs) may also consider additional deductions to a family’s annual income if established by a written policy in the PHA’s Admissions or Continued Occupancy Policy (ACOP) or Administrative Plan.

Dependent Deduction

Effective January 1, 2024, the dependent deduction amount is - as it has been - $480. This amount will be adjusted annually, beginning in 2025, and applies to a family’s next annual or interim reexamination after the annual adjustment, whichever is sooner. Not later than September 1 of each year, HUD will publish an adjusted dependent deduction on its website. PHAs and owners will be required to implement the adjusted dependent deduction for all income reexaminations that are effective January 1 or later.

Elderly/Disabled Family Deduction

Effective January 1, 2024, the elderly/disabled family deduction increases from $400 to $525 and applies to a family’s next annual or interim reexamination, whichever is sooner. This deduction will also be adjusted annually based on an inflation factor.

Health & Medical/Disability Related Expenses

In one of the most controversial changes to the current rules, the HOTMA final rule establishes that the sum of unreimbursed health and medical care and reasonable attendant care and auxiliary expenses that exceed 10 percent of the family’s annual income can be deducted from annual income. The current threshold is 3 percent of annual income. This rule applies only to elderly or disabled families.

In order to claim the deduction for disability-related costs, the family must include a person with a disability, and the expenses must enable any member of the family (including the disabled member) to be employed.

Hardship Exemptions for Medical and Disability-Related Expenses

HUD received many comments on the proposed rule relating to hardship exemptions for unreimbursed health and medical care, attendant care, auxiliary apparatus expenses, and childcare expenses. The final rule has been revised to provide clarity to these exemptions and ease burdens on families experiencing financial hardship.

Medical/Disability Expenses

Current regulations permit the deduction of medical expenses from annual income for elderly households if the expenses (1) will not be reimbursed by insurance or another source; and (2) when combined with any disability assistance expenses are in excess of three percent of annual income.

  • The new regulation does not permit the deduction until the medical expenses exceed 10 percent of gross income.
  • This will clearly have a negative impact on many elderly/disabled households. To help ease this burden, the final rule provides two types of hardship exemptions to the ten percent threshold for health and medical care expenses (for elderly and disabled families) and reasonable attendant care and auxiliary apparatus expenses (for families that include a person with disabilities).
  • The first category ("phased in relief") is for families eligible for and taking the unreimbursed health and medical care expenses and reasonable attendant care and auxiliary apparatus expenses deduction in effect prior to this rule (i.e., the 3% rule).
  • The second category ("general relief") is for families that can demonstrate that the family’s health and medical care expenses or reasonable attendant care and auxiliary apparatus expenses increased, or the family’s financial hardship is a result of a change in circumstances that would not otherwise trigger an interim reexamination.
    • HUD is adding this second category in the final rule in recognition that the change from the three percent threshold to the new ten percent threshold for unreimbursed health and medical care expenses or reasonable attendant care and auxiliary apparatus expenses may result in financial hardship for families, including those families who were not receiving the deduction or may not even have been receiving housing assistance at the time the final rule goes into effect.
    • These families may receive temporary hardship relief if their health and medical care expenses or reasonable attendant care and auxiliary apparatus expenses exceed five percent of the family’s income.
  • Under the first category (families taking the deduction based on the three percent rule), owners must deduct eligible expenses exceeding five percent of the family’s income for the first year, 7.5% for the second year, and 10% for the third year. It should be noted that the term "year" refers to the certification year - not the calendar year.
  • Under the second category, a family may qualify for hardship exemptions for health and medical care expenses or reasonable attendant care and auxiliary apparatus expenses if the family can demonstrate that the expenses increased, or the family’s financial hardship is a result of a change in circumstances (as determined by the project owner).
    • For these families, the deduction will be for expenses in excess of five percent of family income for up to 90 days.
  • This may be extended for additional 90-day periods at the discretion of the owner, based on family circumstances.
    • Owners may also terminate the hardship exemption if it is determined that the family no longer needs the exemption.
  • Examples of circumstances constituting a financial hardship may include the following situations:
    •  The family is awaiting an eligibility determination for a federal, state, or local assistance program, such as a determination for unemployment compensation or disability benefits; The family’s income decreased because of a loss of employment, the
    death of a family member, or due to a natural or federal/state-declared
    • disaster; or
    •  Other circumstances as determined by the PHA/MFH Owner.

In some circumstances, families receiving the deduction under the first category may request relief under the second category of hardship relief.

  • During the second year of transition, the owner deducts expenses exceeding 7.5 percent of family income if relief is being obtained under the first category.
  • If the family can demonstrate that the health and medical care expenses or reasonable attendant care and auxiliary apparatus expenses increased or the family’s financial hardship is a result of a change in circumstances, and not just due to the transition to the 7.5% threshold, the family may be granted relief under the second category.
  • In this case, expenses exceeding five percent of the family income will be deducted (instead of 7.5%). However, this relief will last only for 90 days (unless extended by the owner), and the family is no longer eligible for relief under the first category.
    • In other words, at the end of the relief period for the second category, the family will be subject to the regular health and medical care expenses or reasonable attendant care and auxiliary apparatus expenses deduction threshold of ten percent, regardless of whether they fully transitioned to the ten percent threshold under the first category.

Child Care Expense Deduction

HUD regulations permit the deduction from annual income of any reasonable child-care expenses necessary to enable a family member to work or further their education. The expenses must be unreimbursed and must be for the care of a child age 12 and younger.

Childcare Deduction Hardship Relief

Under the final rule, property owners may extend a deduction for unreimbursed childcare expenses for 90 days, with extensions for additional 90-day periods if the family can demonstrate that they are unable to pay their rent due to loss of the childcare expense deduction, and the childcare expense is still necessary even though the family member is no longer employed or furthering his or her education. The following example illustrates how this relief could work:

  • A family that was claiming the childcare deduction no longer qualifies because the care is no longer necessary to enable a family member to work or go to school.
  • The family member who was employed had to leave their job in order to provide uncompensated care to an elderly friend who is very ill and lives across town.
  • The family may continue to claim the childcare deduction for 90 days, with 90-day extensions as approved by the owner.

Hardship Policy Requirements

Owners must establish policies on how they define what constitutes a hardship. Some factors to consider when determining if a family is unable to pay rent may include a determination that the rent, utility payment, and applicable expenses (child care or health/disability expenses) are more than 45 percent (for example) of the family’s adjusted income, or verifying whether the family has experienced unexpected expenses, such as large medical bills, that have impacted their ability to pay rent.

Owners are required to notify families of either approval or denial of hardship exemptions. Notices of hardship exemption approval must inform the family of the dates that the exemption will begin and expire and the requirement for the family to report if the circumstances that made the family eligible for relief are no longer applicable. Owners of hardship exemption denial must state the reason for the denial.

The 90-Day Extensions

Owners may extend hardship relief for as many 90-day periods as the hardship continues to affect the family. Policies for extensions of relief must be included in PHA Administrative Plans and Owner Tenant Selection Plans.

Owners must obtain third-party verification of the family’s inability to pay rent or must document in the file the reason that third-party verification was not available. Owners must attempt to obtain third-party verification prior to the end of the 90-day period.

In conclusion, the adjustments to HUD regulations as delineated in Notice H 2013-10 reflect a concerted effort to modernize and improve the process of determining adjusted income for HUD-assisted families. While the increase in the threshold for medical and disability deductions may initially pose challenges for elderly and disabled households, the provision of phased and general hardship exemptions showcases HUD's commitment to a compassionate transition. The annual adjustments to dependent and elderly/disabled family deductions, along with the specific provisions for hardship exemptions, are designed to ensure that the most vulnerable populations continue to receive the support they need. By establishing clear guidelines and relief procedures, HUD aims to provide equitable opportunities for housing while addressing the complexities of financial hardship. As these changes roll out, it will be crucial for public housing agencies, owners, and families to stay informed and engaged with the evolving landscape of housing assistance to navigate these changes successfully.

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.