AJJCS
Products News Help
Client Sign In

HUD HOTMA Rules Clarify and Change the Treatment of Assets

person A.J. Johnson today 02/14/2024

Introduction

HUD Notice H 2013-10 expands upon the Final Rule for implementing the Housing Opportunity Through Modernization Act (HOTMA). This final rule makes some changes to the way managers of HUD-assisted housing will deal with assets on HUD-assisted properties. Since LIHTC properties are required to follow HUD rules relative to the determination of income, these changes also apply to tax credit properties.

Net family assets are defined as the net cash value of all assets owned by the family, after deducting reasonable costs that would be incurred in disposing of real property, savings, stocks, bonds, and other forms of investment, except as excluded by regulation.

Assets with Negative Equity

While assets with negative equity are still considered assets, the cash value of real property or other assets with negative equity are considered to have zero value for purposes of calculating net family assets. Negative numbers are never used in the calculation of asset value.

Assets Owned by a Business Entity

If a business entity (e.g., LLC or LP) owns an asset, then the family’s asset is their ownership stake in the business. The actual assets of the business are not counted as family assets. However, if the family holds the assets in their name (e.g., they own 1/3 of a restaurant) rather than in the name of the business entity, then the percentage value of the asset owned by the family is what is counted toward the net family assets (e.g., one-third of the value of the restaurant).

Jointly Owned Assets

For assets jointly owned by the family and one or more individuals outside of the assisted family, owners must include the total value of the asset in the determination of net family assets, unless the asset is otherwise excluded, or unless the assisted family can demonstrate that the asset is inaccessible to them, or that they cannot dispose of any portion of the asset without the consent of another owner who refuses to comply. If the family demonstrates that they can only access a portion of an asset, then only that portion’s value shall be included in the calculation of net family assets.

Exclusions from Assets

Required exclusions from net family assets include the following:

  • The value of necessary items of personal property;
  • The value of all non-necessary items of personal property with a total combined value of $50,000 or less, annually adjusted for inflation;
  • The value of any retirement plan recognized by the IRS, including IRAs, employer retirement plans, and retirement plans for self-employed individuals;
  • The value of real property that the family does not have the effective legal authority to sell. Examples of this include (1) co-ownership situations {including situations where one owner is a victim of domestic violence} where one party cannot unilaterally sell the property, (2) property that is tied up in litigation, and (3) inherited property in dispute;
  • The value of any education savings account under Section 530 of the IRC 1986, the value of any qualified tuition program under Section 529 of the IRC, and the contributions to and distributions from any Achieving a Better Life Experience (ABLE) account authorized under Section 529A of the IRC;
  • The value of any "baby bond" account created, authorized, or funded by the federal, state, or local government (money held in trust by the government for children until they are adults);
  • Interests in Indian trust land;
  • Equity in a manufactured home where the family receives assistance under the Housing Choice Voucher Program;
  • Equity in a property under the Homeownership Option where the family receives assistance under the Housing Choice Voucher Program;
  • Family Self-Sufficiency accounts;
  • Federal or state tax refunds or refundable tax credits for 12 months after receipt by the family;
  • The full amount of assets held in an irrevocable trust; and
  • The full amount of assets held in a revocable trust where a member of the family is the beneficiary, but the grantor and trustee of the trust is not a member of the family.

Necessary & Non-Necessary Personal Property

Necessary personal property is excluded from assets. Non-necessary personal property with a combined value of more than $50,000 (adjusted by inflation) is an asset. When the combined value of non-necessary personal property does not exceed $50,000, it is excluded from assets.

All assets are categorized as either real property (e.g., land, a home) or personal property. Personal property includes tangible items, like boats, as well as intangible items, like bank accounts. For example, a family could have non-necessary personal property with a combined value that does not exceed $50,000 but also own real property such as a parcel of land. While the non-necessary personal property would be excluded from assets, the real property would be included - regardless of its value, unless it meets a specific exclusion.

Necessary personal property are items essential to the family for the maintenance, use, and occupancy of the premises as a home; or they are necessary for employment, education, or health and wellness. Necessary personal property includes more than mere items that are indispensable to the bare existence of the family. It may include personal effects (such as items that are ordinarily worn or used by the individual), items that are convenient or useful to a reasonable existence, and items that support and facilitate daily life within the family’s home. Necessary personal property does not include bank accounts, other financial investments, or luxury items.

Determining what is a necessary item of personal property is very fact-specific and will require a case-by-case analysis. Following are examples of necessary and non-necessary personal property (not an exhaustive list).

Necessary Personal Property

  • Vehicles used for personal or business transportation;
  • Furniture and appliances;
  • Common electronics such as TV, radio, DVD players, gaming systems;
  • Clothing;
  • Personal effects that are not luxury items (e.g., toys and books);
  • Wedding & Engagement rings;
  • Jewelry used in religious or cultural celebrations or ceremonies;
  • Medical equipment & supplies;
  • Musical instruments used by the family;
  • Personal computers, tablets, phones, and related equipment;
  • Educational materials; and
  • Exercise Equipment

Non-Necessary Personal Property

  • RVs not needed for day-to-day transportation, including motor homes, campers, and all-terrain vehicles;
  • Bank accounts or other financial investments (e.g., checking/savings account, stocks/bonds);
  • Recreational boats or watercraft;
  • Expensive jewelry without cultural or religious significance or which has no family significance;
  • Collectibles, such as coins or stamps;
  • Equipment/machinery that is not part of an active business; and
  • Items such as gems, precious metals, antique cars, artwork, etc.

Trusts

Any trust (both revocable and non-revocable) that is not under the control of the family is excluded from assets.

For a revocable trust to be excluded from net family assets, no family or household member may be the account’s trustee.

A revocable trust that is under the control of the family or household (e.g., the grantor is a member of the assisted family or household) is included in net family assets, and, therefore, income earned on the trust is included in the family’s income from assets. This also means that PHAs/MFH Owners will calculate imputed income on the revocable trust if net family assets are more than $50,000, as adjusted by inflation, and actual income from the trust cannot be calculated (e.g. if the trust is comprised of farmland that is not in use).

Actual Income from a Trust

If the Owner determines that a revocable trust is included in the calculation of net family assets, then the actual income earned by the revocable trust is also included in the family’s income. Where an irrevocable trust is excluded from net family assets, the Owner must not consider actual income earned by the trust (e.g., interest earned, rental income if the property is held in the trust) for so long as the income from the trust is not distributed.

Trust Distributions & Annual Income

A revocable trust is considered part of net family assets: If the value of the trust is considered part of the family’s net assets, then distributions from the trust are not considered income to the family. 

Revocable or irrevocable trust not considered part of net family assets: If the value of the trust is not considered part of the family’s net assets, then distributions from the trust are treated as follows: (1) All distributions from the trust’s principal are excluded from income. (2) Distributions of income earned by the trust (i.e., interest, dividends, realized gains, or other earnings on the trust’s principal), are included as income unless the distribution is used to pay for the health and medical expenses for a minor.

Actual & Imputed Income from Assets

The actual income from assets is always included in a family’s annual income, regardless of the total value of net family assets or whether the asset itself is included or excluded from net family assets unless that income is specifically excluded.

Income or returns from assets are generally considered to be interest, dividend payments, and other actual income earned on the asset, and not the increase in market value of the asset.

Imputed income from assets is no longer determined based on the greater of actual or imputed income from the assets. Instead, imputed asset income must be calculated for specific assets when three conditions are met: (1) The value of net family assets exceeds $50,000 (as adjusted for inflation); (2) The specific asset is included in net family assets; and (3) Actual asset income cannot be calculated for the specific asset. Imputed asset income is calculated by multiplying the net cash value of the asset, after deducting reasonable costs that would be incurred in disposing of the asset, by the HUD-published passbook rate. If the actual income from assets can be computed for some assets but not all assets, then PHAs/MFH Owners must add up the actual income from the assets, where actual income can be calculated, then calculate the imputed income for the assets where actual income could not be calculated. After the PHA/MFH owner has calculated both the actual income and imputed income, the housing provider must combine both amounts to account for income on net family assets with a combined value of over $50,000. When the family’s net family assets do not exceed $50,000 (as adjusted for inflation), imputed income is not calculated. Imputed asset income is never calculated on assets that are excluded from net family assets. When actual income for an asset — which can equal $0 — can be calculated, imputed income is not calculated for that asset.

Owners should not conflate an asset with an actual return of $0 with an asset for which an actual return cannot be computed, such as could be the case for some non-financial assets that are items of nonnecessary personal property. If the asset is a financial asset and there is no income generated (for example, a bank account with a 0 percent interest rate or a stock that does not issue cash dividends), then the asset generates zero actual asset income, and imputed income is not calculated. When a stock issues dividends in some years but not others (e.g., due to market performance), the dividend is counted as the actual return when it is issued, and when no dividend is issued, the actual return is $0. When the stock never issues dividends, the actual return is consistently $0.

Self-Certification of Net Family Assets Equal to or Less Than $50,000

Owners may determine net family assets based on a self-certification by the family that the family’s total assets are equal to or less than $50,000, adjusted annually for inflation, without taking additional steps to verify the accuracy of the declaration at admission and/or reexamination. Owners are not required to obtain third-party verification of assets if they accept the family’s self-certification of net family assets. When Owners accept self-certification of net family assets at reexamination, the Owner must fully verify the family’s assets every three years. Owners may follow a pattern of relying on self-certification for two years in a row and fully verifying assets in the third year.

The family’s self-certification must state the amount of income the family anticipates receiving from such assets. The actual income declared by the family must be included in the family’s income unless specifically excluded from income under HUD regulations. Owners must clarify, during the self-certification process, which assets are included/excluded from net family assets.  Owners may combine the self-certification of net family assets and questions inquiring about a family’s present ownership interest in any real property into one form.

Bottom Line

Owners and managers of properties that are subject to HOTMA should familiarize themselves with these new asset rules and ensure they are in place. HUD properties will be required to implement the rules when they put the HOTMA changes into effect in 2024. LIHTC properties should consult the appropriate HFA to determine when the new rules must be followed.

Latest Articles

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

HUD Inspector General Reports Major Financial Recoveries and Oversight Improvements

Federal watchdog agency identifies nearly $500 million in recoveries while addressing critical housing challenges across America. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development s Office of Inspector General (HUD OIG) has published its semiannual report to Congress, highlighting significant financial recoveries and systemic improvements across federal housing programs during the six-month period that ended on March 31, 2025. Record Financial Impact and Enforcement Actions The HUD OIG s oversight activities generated significant financial returns for taxpayers, with audit and investigative efforts yielding nearly half a billion dollars in recoveries and recommendations. Audit activities alone led to collections of $387.4 million, while identifying an additional $42.3 million in funds that could be better utilized and questioning $8.1 million in costs. Investigative efforts produced equally impressive outcomes, with over $61 million in recoveries and receivables. The enforcement actions were thorough, leading to 36 arrests, 58 indictments, and 92 administrative sanctions, including 60 debarments from federal programs. Among the most notable prosecutions, a landlord received a 17-year prison sentence for fraudulently obtaining federal rental assistance while violating the Fair Housing Act. Similarly, a businessman was sentenced to 17 years for orchestrating a reverse mortgage fraud scheme that specifically targeted elderly homeowners. Addressing Systemic Housing Quality Concerns The report highlights ongoing challenges in maintaining adequate housing conditions within HUD-assisted properties. Inspections revealed that 65% of the observed housing units had deficiencies, with 63 life-threatening issues identified. These findings underscore the continued struggle to ensure that federally subsidized housing meets basic safety and health standards. Under the Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) program, initial inspections of converted properties experienced significant delays, with 50% lacking timely management and occupancy reviews. The OIG has recommended improvements to the timing and completion processes of inspections to address these critical gaps. One investigation led to a civil lawsuit against a management company for lead paint safety violations impacting over 2,500 apartments, highlighting the serious health risks faced by residents in certain assisted housing properties. Fraud Risk Management Needs Enhancement The report highlights fraud risk management as a vital area needing attention, especially within large public housing authorities. An audit of the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) showed a lack of a comprehensive fraud risk strategy, despite some existing anti-fraud measures. The authority s approach was described as mainly reactive instead of proactive. This finding has led the OIG to recommend evaluating fraud risk management practices at other large public housing authorities across the country, indicating that NYCHA s challenges may reflect broader systemic issues. Progress in Resolving Past Recommendations Collaboration between HUD and the OIG has produced positive outcomes in addressing previously identified issues. During the reporting period, HUD resolved 135 open recommendations, bringing the total number of outstanding recommendations down to 693. This trend shows a consistent decrease in unresolved audit findings. However, although not part of the report, it should be noted that the recent and planned cuts to HUD staff may slow the pace of corrective activity. Since October 2022, the OIG has identified 283 non-monetary benefits resulting from its recommendations, including 77 guidance enhancements, 64 process improvements, 112 increases in program effectiveness, and 30 enhanced accuracies. These improvements highlight the broader impact of oversight activities beyond direct financial recoveries. Challenges in FHA Program Oversight The Federal Housing Administration continues to face challenges in managing counterparty risks with mortgage lenders and servicers. The OIG found that Carrington Mortgage and MidFirst Bank misapplied FHA foreclosure requirements in over 18% and 14% of cases, respectively. Additionally, other lenders, including CMG Mortgage and loanDepot.com, demonstrated deficiencies in their quality control programs for FHA-insured loans. These findings underscore the necessity for improved oversight of the private entities on which HUD depends to effectively deliver housing assistance programs. Disaster Recovery and Grants Management HUD s administration of disaster recovery grants continues to encounter monitoring challenges. Although grantees under the National Disaster Resilience Program faced delays in completing activities, they remain on track to achieve their overall goals. The OIG has recommended enhanced action plans and improved documentation of collaboration with partners. In broader grants management, the OIG identified compliance issues with federal transparency requirements, noting that prime award recipients did not consistently report subawards as mandated by the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act. Technology and Cybersecurity Improvements HUD s information security program has achieved maturity level 3, but it has not yet reached full effectiveness. Penetration testing uncovered significant weaknesses in data protection and website security, prompting recommendations for comprehensive enhancements to safeguard sensitive information and systems. Whistleblower Protections and Transparency The OIG continues to underscore the significance of whistleblower protections in ensuring program integrity. During the reporting period, 10,214 hotline intakes were processed, with 6,631 referred to HUD program offices for action. The Public and Indian Housing office received the highest number of referrals at 5,250, highlighting ongoing concerns in this program area. Notably, the report found no attempts by HUD to interfere with OIG independence, and no instances of whistleblower retaliation were reported, indicating a healthy oversight environment. Looking Forward The semiannual report illustrates both the ongoing challenges that federal housing programs face and the effectiveness of independent oversight in addressing these issues. With nearly $500 million in financial impact and numerous process improvements, the HUD OIG s work continues to yield substantial returns on taxpayer investment while ensuring that federal housing assistance reaches those who need it most safely and effectively. The findings emphasize the crucial role of strong oversight in preserving the integrity of programs that offer housing assistance to millions of Americans while pointing out areas where ongoing attention and enhancement are vital for program success.

Read full story

HOTMA Compliance Deadline Extended to January 1, 2026 for HUD Multifamily Housing Programs

On May 30, 2025, the Office of Multifamily Housing Programs issued a new Housing Notice extending the mandatory compliance date for the Housing Opportunity Through Modernization Act of 2016 (HOTMA). The previous deadline of July 1, 2025, has now been extended to January 1, 2026, for all owners participating in HUD multifamily project-based rental assistance programs. What This Means for Owners and Agents Full HOTMA compliance is required for all tenant certifications dated on or after January 1, 2026. This includes adherence to both the mandatory provisions and any discretionary policies implemented by owners. Owners and agents may voluntarily adopt HOTMA compliance earlier by utilizing the rent override function in the Tenant Rental Assistance Certification System (TRACS). Interim Compliance Guidance Until a property fully implements HOTMA, HUD advises the following: Continue to follow your current Tenant Selection Plan (TSP) as approved by HUD or your Contract Administrator. Maintain adherence to existing Enterprise Income Verification (EIV) policies and procedures. Ensure any early implementation steps are consistent with TRACS capabilities and accurately documented in tenant files. Key Takeaways New HOTMA compliance deadline: January 1, 2026 Optional early adoption is available through TRACS Existing policies remain in effect until full HOTMA compliance is achieved LIHTC Impact Owners and operators of LIHTC projects should contact the relevant Housing Finance Agency (HFA) for information on the effective date in their respective states. If you have any questions regarding the HOTMA implementation timeline, updating your policies, or the use of TRACS features, please contact our office. We are here to help ensure a smooth transition to full HOTMA compliance.

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.