HUD Takes Hard Line on Local "Nuisance" Policies that Target Affordable Housing

A. J. Johnson Partners with Mid-Atlantic AHMA for December Training on Affordable Housing - June 2025

In June 2025, A. J. Johnson will partner with the MidAtlantic Affordable Housing Management Association for three live webinar training sessions for real estate professionals, particularly those in the affordable multifamily housing field. Following the LIHTC webinars, AJ will review testable areas and in-person administration of the Housing Credit Certified Professional (HCCP ) exam. The following sessions will be presented: June 10: Intermediate LIHTC Compliance - Designed for more experienced managers, supervisory personnel, investment asset managers, and compliance specialists, this program expands on the information covered in the Basics of Tax Credit Site Management. A more in-depth discussion of income verification issues is included, as well as a discussion of minimum set-aside issues (including the Average Income Minimum Set-Aside), optional fees, and use of common areas. The Available Unit Rule is covered in great detail, as are the requirements for units occupied by students. Attendees will also learn the requirements for setting rents at a tax-credit property. This course contains some practice problems but is more discussion-oriented than the Basic course. A calculator is required for this course. June 11: Advanced LIHTC Compliance - This full-day training is intended for senior management staff, developers, corporate finance officers, and others involved in decision-making concerning how LIHTC deals are structured. This training covers complex issues such as eligible and qualified basis, applicable fraction, credit calculation (including first-year calculation), placed-in-service issues, rehab projects, tax-exempt bonds, projects with HOME funds, Next Available Unit Rule, employee units, mixed-income properties, the Average Income Minimum Set-Aside, vacant unit rule, and dealing effectively with State Agencies. Individuals who take both training days will be provided with study materials and a practice exam to assist in preparation for the HCCP exam, which will be administered on June 12. June 12: Review of testable areas and administration of the Housing Credit Certified Professional (HCCP ) exam (In-person exam in Richmond, VA). After two days of intensive and comprehensive LIHTC training, AJ will review program requirements and administer the HCCP exam in person. June 24: Developing Smoke-Free Policies for Multifamily Housing - A smoke-free policy in your apartment community will help protect your property and residents from smoke damage and reduce the risk of fires. You will save money on turnover expenses because apartments will cost less to clean, repair, and repaint. Living in a smoke-free environment promotes healthier hearts and lungs. What are the other benefits of smoke-free housing? Your family, guests, pets, and building staff will all find the air more pleasant. This 2.5-hour training will assist owners in understanding the steps necessary to go "smoke-free. It will include (1) a discussion of the legal issues related to prohibiting smoking, (2) the advantages of smoke-free housing, and (3) the steps to implementing such a policy, including details on what to include in the policy. This session is a must for any property looking to go smoke-free and will provide much-needed reinforcement and guidance for those who already have. These sessions are part of the year-long collaboration between A. J. Johnson and MidAtlantic AHMA and is designed to provide affordable housing professionals with the knowledge needed to effectively manage the complex requirements of the various agencies overseeing these programs. Persons interested in any (or all) training sessions may register by visiting either www.ajjcs.net or https://www.mid-atlanticahma.org.

Navigating Solicitation Bans in Apartment Communities: Religious and Political Canvassing Rights

Understanding the Legal Landscape Property managers and apartment community owners often implement solicitation bans to protect residents from unwanted disturbances. However, these policies can create complex legal scenarios when religious groups and political campaigns seek to canvas on the property. The distinction between commercial solicitation and noncommercial canvassing creates important legal boundaries that property managers should understand. The Constitutional Framework The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently ruled that noncommercial canvassing including religious outreach and political campaigning receives substantial protection under the First Amendment. This protection differs significantly from commercial solicitation, which can be more readily restricted. "The mere fact that the ordinance covers so much speech raises constitutional concerns, wrote Justice Stevens in the landmark Watchtower Bible & Tract Society v. Village of Stratton (2002) case, highlighting how requirements to obtain permits before engaging in door-to-door advocacy fundamentally conflicts with our conception of a free society. This case built upon decades of precedent established in cases like Lovell v. City of Griffin (1938), Schneider v. State(1939), and Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940), where the Court consistently struck down ordinances requiring permits for door-to-door solicitations, particularly those involving religious expression. Private Property Considerations The application of these constitutional principles becomes more nuanced in the context of private property, such as apartment communities. While public spaces must generally respect constitutional freedoms of expression, private property owners maintain certain rights to control access and activities on their premises. Key factors affecting an apartment community s ability to restrict canvassing include: 1. Property Access Structure: Communities with truly private roads and gated access may have greater latitude in restricting entry than those with public access points. 2. Local and State Regulations: Regulations vary significantly by jurisdiction. Some municipalities specifically exempt religious and political canvassers from solicitation restrictions, while others include them in "no solicitation ordinances. 3. Reasonable Time, Place, and Manner Restrictions: Even when canvassing must be permitted, property owners may implement reasonable restrictions regarding when and how such activities occur, provided these restrictions don t effectively eliminate the ability to canvas. Best Practices for Property Managers Property managers seeking to balance resident privacy with legal compliance should consider these approaches: 1. Review Local Laws: Understand specific municipal and state regulations governing solicitation and canvassing in your jurisdiction, as these vary widely. 2. Differentiate Commercial and Noncommercial Activities: Policies should clearly distinguish between commercial solicitation (which can generally be prohibited) and protected noncommercial canvassing. 3. Implement Reasonable Restrictions: Rather than blanket bans, consider time limitations (e.g., no canvassing after 8 PM) and registration requirements that don t impose undue burdens. 4. Educate Residents: Inform residents about their individual rights to refuse engagement with canvassers while respecting the broader legal framework permitting such activities. 5. Consult Legal Counsel: Given the complex interplay between constitutional rights and property management, seek legal advice when developing solicitation policies. The Resident Perspective Individual residents maintain the right to refuse interaction with canvassers. While the constitutional framework may permit canvassing within the community, no resident is obligated to engage with canvassers who approach their door. Property managers should ensure residents understand they can: Post individual "No Soliciting signs on their specific units Verbally decline conversations with canvassers Report harassment or persistent unwanted contact to management Conclusion The tension between solicitation bans and constitutional protections for religious and political expression creates an ongoing challenge for apartment community management. While complete prohibition of noncommercial canvassing likely exceeds legal boundaries, thoughtful policies can balance resident privacy concerns with constitutional requirements. Property managers should approach this issue with careful consideration of local regulations, the physical structure of their communities, and the important distinction between commercial solicitation and constitutionally protected expression. By developing nuanced policies rather than blanket prohibitions, communities can navigate this complex legal terrain while maintaining a positive living environment for residents. Disclaimer: This article provides general information for educational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Consult with a qualified attorney for guidance on specific situations.

Federal Budget Cuts Threaten Core Affordable Housing Programs Nationwide

In its latest proposal, the White House has outlined $163 billion in reductions to nondefense discretionary spending, with housing and community development programs bearing a significant portion of the cuts. The proposed budget includes sweeping eliminations and consolidations across HUD and USDA housing initiatives, signaling a dramatic shift in the federal role in affordable housing. Major Reductions and Eliminations 1. HUD State Rental Assistance Block Grant: -$26.7 Billion The proposal restructures HUD s rental assistance programs including tenant-based, project-based, elderly, and disabled housing into a State Rental Assistance Block Grant. States would receive lump-sum funding with broad discretion, capped at two years of rental support for able-bodied adults. This change not only reduces federal oversight but also incentivizes states to assume a greater share of responsibility, potentially resulting in service gaps and uneven access across regions. 2. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG): -$3.3 Billion The complete elimination of the CDBG program would affect over 1,200 local governments that rely on flexible funding to support housing rehabilitation, infrastructure, and neighborhood revitalization. The proposal criticizes CDBG for lack of targeting and misallocation of funds, despite the program s historic value in addressing low-income community needs. 3. HOME Investment Partnerships Program: -$1.25 Billion The elimination of HOME, the largest federal block grant for affordable housing development, would directly impair the ability of localities to build and preserve affordable rental and ownership housing. Eliminating the HOME Program would also significantly impact a major source of secondary financing for LIHTC projects. The justification centers on regulatory burdens and the belief that states can address housing needs more efficiently without federal intervention. 4. Native American and Native Hawaiian Housing Grants: -$479 Million The proposed budget cuts competitive tribal housing assistance and eliminates the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant, citing inefficiencies and the presence of only one grantee. This disproportionately impacts Indigenous populations already facing severe housing shortages. 5. Homeless Assistance Program Consolidations: -$532 Million By consolidating existing homeless assistance programs into a narrower Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) framework with a two-year cap, the proposal risks destabilizing long-term housing solutions and could roll back progress in ending chronic homelessness. The streamlined model focuses on short-term emergency aid, leaving fewer resources for permanent supportive housing. 6. Rural Development Housing Programs: -$721 Million Reductions to USDA rural housing loans, grants, and vouchers would scale back federal engagement in underserved rural areas. The budget prioritizes infrastructure but eliminates smaller, less economically impactful programs such as self-help housing and rural business grants. 7. Additional Cuts Surplus Lead Hazard and Healthy Homes: -$296M - Program labeled as obsolete. Self-Sufficiency Programs: -$196M - Deemed duplicative and ineffective at tracking outcomes. Pathways to Removing Obstacles (PRO) Housing: -$100M - Cut for perceived alignment with DEI-focused policies. Fair Housing Grants (FHIP and Training Academy): -$60M - Eliminated in favor of retaining only enforcement through FHAP. Implications for Housing Access and Equity These proposed cuts reflect a strategic realignment away from federal direct assistance toward state-centered administration and privatized solutions. While proponents argue for efficiency and local control, critics warn of several adverse effects: Reduced Housing Availability: The elimination of HOME and CDBG will shrink the pipeline for new affordable units and rehabilitation projects. Increased Inequity: Block grants without federal regulation risk deepening disparities across states, especially for marginalized populations. Weakened Fair Housing Enforcement: Defunding FHIP undermines outreach, education, and legal advocacy needed to combat discrimination. Vulnerability of Rural and Tribal Communities: Rural America and indigenous populations may lose vital, otherwise inaccessible support. Threat to Homeless Prevention Goals: Shifting focus away from long-term housing solutions could undercut national goals to reduce homelessness. Conclusion If enacted, the budget proposal would represent one of the most significant federal affordable housing support retrenchments in recent history. While it promises state flexibility and fiscal discipline, the risk to vulnerable populations already strained by high housing costs could be severe and lasting. Should these changes advance, stakeholders in the affordable housing sector should prepare for heightened advocacy and strategic adaptation.

Multifamily Housing Projects Subject to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973

Introduction Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 is a foundational federal civil rights law that prohibits discrimination based on disability in programs and activities that receive federal financial assistance (FFA). In the context of multifamily housing, Section 504 imposes critical accessibility and nondiscrimination requirements on housing providers whose properties are developed, operated, or otherwise supported through federal funds. Understanding which multifamily housing projects are subject to Section 504 is essential for ensuring compliance and upholding the rights of individuals with disabilities. Owners and managers often are unsure whether their property falls under Section 504. This article offers a comprehensive list of properties that must comply with the requirements of the Section 504 statute. Applicability of Section 504 in Multifamily Housing Not all multifamily housing developments fall under the purview of Section 504. Only those properties that receive federal financial assistance whether directly from a federal agency or indirectly through a state or local government are subject to its requirements. The following types of multifamily housing projects are covered: 1. HUD-Assisted Multifamily Housing Multifamily projects that receive funding through programs administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) are unequivocally subject to Section 504. This includes: Project-Based Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA) Projects under these programs must comply with both physical accessibility standards and operational nondiscrimination requirements. 2. Mortgage Insurance Programs Section 504 applies to programs and activities that receive federal financial assistance, including housing programs administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). FHA-insured multifamily properties fall under this category because the Federal Housing Administration provides federal financial assistance through mortgage insurance. FHA insured programs subject to Section 504 include: Section 207 Rental Housing Insurance Section 213 Cooperative Housing Insurance Section 220 Rehabilitation and Neighborhood Conservation Housing Section 221(d)(3) and (d)(4) Mortgage Insurance for Rental and Cooperative Housing Section 231 Housing for Elderly Persons Section 232 Mortgage Insurance for Nursing Homes, Intermediate Care Facilities, and Board and Care Homes Section 234 Mortgage Insurance for Condominiums Section 236 Rental Housing 3. USDA Rural Development (RD) Properties Multifamily properties financed through the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Rural Development programs such as the Section 515 Rural Rental Housing Program also fall within the scope of Section 504. These properties must meet physical accessibility standards, ensure non-discriminatory policies and practices, and provide reasonable accommodations to applicants and residents with disabilities. 4. Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Projects (Under Specific Conditions) The LIHTC program itself does not constitute federal financial assistance under Section 504. However, when LIHTC developments are combined with other sources of federal funding (such as HOME or CDBG), the portion of the property funded with such assistance or potentially the entire development becomes subject to Section 504 requirements. 5. Public Housing Agencies (PHAs) Section 504 covers public housing developments and programs administered by PHAs, including the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program. PHAs are responsible for ensuring that sufficient accessible units are available and that reasonable accommodations are provided to individuals with disabilities. Under the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program, when a tenant with a disability requires a modification to a unit to make it accessible, the responsibility for the cost depends on several factors: If the landlord is not receiving federal financial assistance directly (which is typical under the HCV program), they are not subject to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. In this case: The landlord is not required to pay for modifications, but must allow reasonable modifications at the tenant s expense under the Fair Housing Act, unless doing so would pose an undue administrative or financial burden. The PHA may use funds (if available and if policy allows) to pay for modifications as a reasonable accommodation. Other sources, such as state or local programs, nonprofits, or disability advocacy organizations, may also assist with funding. So, unless the PHA steps in or there s an alternative funding source, the cost of a reasonable modification typically falls on the tenant but the landlord cannot legally prohibit the modification if it is reasonable and necessary for the tenant s disability. 6. State and Local Government-Funded Projects Using Federal Pass-Through Funds Any multifamily housing project funded through state or local entities utilizing federal grant programs must comply with Section 504. This includes housing initiatives financed through state housing finance agencies or municipal governments administering federal housing resources. Core Requirements of Section 504 Compliance Multifamily housing projects covered under Section 504 must adhere to various physical, operational, and programmatic accessibility requirements. These include: Accessible Units A minimum of 5% of total units must be fully accessible to individuals with mobility impairments. A minimum of 2% must be accessible to individuals with hearing or visual impairments. Design and Construction Standards New construction and substantial rehabilitation must comply with the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS) or other approved standards. Reasonable Accommodations Housing providers must make reasonable policy and procedural modifications to allow individuals with disabilities equal access to housing and services. Effective Communication Providers must take steps to ensure effective communication with applicants and residents with disabilities, including the provision of auxiliary aids and services when necessary. Conclusion Compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act is not optional for multifamily housing providers receiving federal financial assistance. It is a legal obligation and a moral imperative that helps ensure equal access to housing opportunities for individuals with disabilities. Owners, developers, and managers of covered properties must proactively meet physical and programmatic requirements.