Hoarding - A Challenge for Housing Managers

person A.J. Johnson today 12/13/2020

In 2013, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) declared hoarding to be a clinical disability, automatically putting the issue of hoarding front and center with housing operators. The Fair Housing Act (FHA) bans discrimination against individuals with disabilities. The FHA defines disability as any physical or mental impairment that substantially affects one or more major life activities.

Hoarding is more than simply having too much clutter. It is characterized by the accumulation of items that are generally viewed as having no value, and the inability to discard those items. The most telling characteristic of hoarding is that it creates a situation in which the home cannot be used for its intended purpose.

According to the APA’s Diagnostic Statistical Manual V (DSM-5), hoarding causes major distress or problems in social, work, or other important areas of functioning (including maintaining a safe environment for self and others). Many people with hoarding disorder also experience other mental disorders, including depression, anxiety disorders, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, or alcohol use disorder.

Professional owners and property managers know the rights of the disabled, especially those rights relating to the requirement that when reasonable to do so, owners are required to accommodate the needs of a disabled person when such accommodation is necessary to afford the person equal use and enjoyment of a property. In most cases, owners are not required to offer accommodations (i.e., changes in policy or practices) unless requested by a disabled person or a person requesting on behalf of a disabled person. Within the context of housing, hoarding is one type of disability where a housing operator may have to offer accommodation without one being requested.

All housing owners and managers should have an established plan relating to dealing with hoarding issues. There are a number of elements that will be present in any good "hoarding plan."

Train Staff to Detect Signs of Hoarding

The goal is to catch hoarding before it seeps out of the unit and affects other residents or common areas. This can usually only be done through visual observation, either by staff or other residents. It may also be detected by the presence of noxious odors in hallways and other common areas. Staff should be trained to immediately report these issues.

Hoarding is not limited to common possessions, such as clothing, newspapers, or plastic bags; some people hoard garbage and rotting food - even animals or human waste products.

Investigate Potential Hoarding Immediately

When the issue is discovered due to odors, a determination of the source is required. Once that determination is made, the resident whose unit appears to be the source of the problem should be contacted. Follow state and local law with regard to a landlord’s right to inspect the unit, but such inspection is a necessity.

Once inside, document the conditions, focusing on violations of lease provisions and applicable health and safety codes. Make notes about the nature and cause of any noxious smells, pest infestations, and other problems that have spread outside the unit. Unless prohibited by state or local law, photos should be taken. Descriptions of hoarding conditions may not adequately describe the problem. However, if the resident is adamant about not having photos taken, it is best not to force the issue. Ultimately, the resident’s cooperation will be required in resolving the problem.

Stay neutral and nonjudgmental in dealing with the resident. Do not take matters into your own hands to clear away the resident’s possessions. That approach will backfire more often than not - especially if the resident has not asked for your assistance. Even if the resident does request your assistance in the cleaning process, it is best not to agree. This sets a bad precedent for what you will do for residents and may create liability if the resident accuses the staff of theft or damage to personal property.

Be Alert for Reasonable Accommodation Needs

If the condition of the unit violates the lease - which it almost certainly will - it is best not to follow standard lease violation procedures with regard to the hoarding problem. This is the one time when it is recommended that housing operators initiate the reasonable accommodation process, without waiting for a specific request.  If a hoarding problem is indicated, the resident almost certainly has a recognized mental impairment and is therefore disabled. In these cases, fair housing law may require the granting of a reasonable accommodation that would give the resident time to restore the unit to an acceptable standard. It is "time" that is the accommodation.

Residents with hoarding problems will almost never specifically ask for an accommodation. While such a request may come from a family member or advocate, it may not come at all. In these cases, it is recommended that the housing provider offer additional time if the resident is willing to cooperate in the preparation of a plan that will improve the condition of the unit. This type of communication should come from the corporate office of the housing owner - not the site staff. It may even be best if it comes from the attorney for the housing provider.

Determine the Accommodations that will Correct the Situation

Following are examples of the types of accommodations that could be offered:

  • Meeting with the resident to identify health and safety issues that need to be addressed;
  • Establishing goals and timelines with the resident to address the health and safety issues;
  • Setting periodic dates for follow up visits;
  • Setting forth the goals, timelines, and re-inspection requirements in a written agreement that the resident signs;
  • Providing the resident with a list of community resources that can assist persons with hoarding issues;
  • Working with a fair housing and/or mental health advocacy group or attorney assisting the resident to develop a plan to bring the unit into compliance; and
  • Extending the time for compliance with a legal notice that has been served or entering into a stipulation agreement in an eviction that gives the resident a final opportunity to address the health and safety issues and preserve their tenancy.

The priority should be solving legitimate health and safety issues rather than trying to achieve ideal housekeeping practices. Residents with hoarding issues may not realize they have a problem - of the severity of the problem -  or be equipped to resolve the problem on their own. Also, hoarding has a high rate of recidivism, so any written agreement made with the resident should include language that provides for periodic unit check-ins to monitor ongoing compliance after the health and safety issues have been remedied and a specific time period for correction of any future health and safety issues.

An "Interactive Process" is Required

There may be times when granting additional time to clean a unit may not be reasonable. If the condition of the unit poses an immediate risk to the health and safety of other residents or to the building itself, giving additional time may not be reasonable. Accommodation may not be required, and termination of the tenancy may be the best approach, if:

  • The condition of the unit is a clear, direct, and immediate threat to the health and safety of other residents or the property and there is no accommodation that will eliminate or sufficiently mitigate the health and safety issues;
  • There are serious health and safety issues that cannot be resolved through accommodation;
  • The resident has caused serious monetary damage to the unit and refuses to reimburse the landlord for the cost of the damage; or
  • The resident will not engage in the accommodation process or cooperate in bringing the unit back into compliance.

However, whenever an accommodation request is denied, owners and managers should enter into an interactive process with the resident to determine if there is an alternative accommodation that may work for both the resident and the property. It is also important to be flexible in terms of timing - especially if the resident exhibits some degree of cooperation. It may take multiple attempts, extended deadlines, or outside help to alleviate problems inside the unit. Remember, any plan to ameliorate a hoarding problem should call for periodic unit visits during the accommodation process - as often as once a month. However, once the resident has brought the unit to an acceptable condition, re-inspections should probably not occur more than quarterly.

If the Process Fails, Protect the Property and Other Residents

If the resident ignores warnings about lease violations or otherwise fails to address hoarding problems, proceedings to recover possession of the unit should be undertaken.

To determine whether a resident with a hoarding problem poses a direct threat, an individualized assessment must be made based on reliable, objective evidence, such as current conduct or recent history of overt acts. The assessment must consider:

  • The nature, duration, and severity of the risk of injury;
  • The probability that injury will occur; and
  • Whether any reasonable accommodation could eliminate the direct threat.

Be Prepared to Give Multiple Chances

Even if it is proven that a resident’s hoarding justifies eviction, owners should be prepared for further delays under certain circumstances. Courts are inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to a disabled person unless it is clear that they are a direct threat to the property. A recent court case illustrates the hesitancy on the part of some courts to remove residents due to hoarding issues. The case is 140 West End Ave. Owners Corp v. Dinah, L., New York, November 2019.

  • Facts of the Case:
    • The resident was an elderly woman who had lived at the community for ten years.
    • In 2017, due to severe hoarding, the landlord undertook eviction proceedings.
    • The resident amassed garbage, books, and newspapers, resulting in infestation, unreasonable odors, and an increased risk of fire.
    • After a year, a court-appointed a guardian with authority to go into her unit, arrange for heavy-duty cleaning, and if necessary, remove the resident from the premises to complete the cleaning.
    • After multiple attempts to resolve the matter, the case went to trial in 2019.
    • An employee of the management company testified that strong urine and garbage odors continued to emanate from the unit as late as the day before the hearing. A 2018 cleaning had eliminated the odors only for a few weeks.
    • A maintenance worker who had been in the unit twice to inspect the HVAC system testified that he observed piles of garbage, clothing, papers, and other debris that made navigating the unit difficult and that there were extreme odors of urine and feces.
    • Management had photos, which showed garbage and clutter strewn throughout the unit.
    • The resident’s next-door neighbor also testified about strong and unpleasant odors coming from the apartment.
  • Ruling:
    • The court ruled that the landlord proved that the resident breached the lease by maintaining a nuisance, which interfered with other residents' use and enjoyment of their homes. Since the condition continued over a two-year period, it was a clear continuity and recurrence of objectionable conduct.
    • However, the court, using its discretion, said that the resident would be likely to suffer extreme hardship if a stay weren’t granted. Furthermore, the guardian was making good faith efforts to secure a safe, affordable dwelling for the resident and that is was reasonable to give the guardian more time to do so. Also, the resident appeared to be cooperating with the owner and guardian.
    • The court granted a stay of execution for 90-days to allow the guardian time to sell her unit and relocate her to a suitable environment, or in the alternative, to allow the guardian an opportunity to cure the nuisance condition, without prejudice to see a further stay upon a showing of good cause.

This case illustrates the difficulty that may be encountered in attempting to remove a resident with a hoarding problem.  While eviction may ultimately be the only solution, "bending over backwards" to assist a hoarding resident in resolving the issue is strongly recommended. In this way, if legal action later becomes inevitable, the courts are more likely to be sympathetic to a landlord’s position.

It is important to understand that fair housing law may protect residents engaged in hoarding behavior, but there are limits to those protections. Having a process in place to deal with hoarding issues as they arise will go a long way toward ensuring a satisfactory outcome for landlords facing this problem.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.