AJJCS
Products News Help
Client Sign In

Apartments & Pets - To Allow or Not

person A.J. Johnson today 04/09/2022

Owners of multifamily housing often struggle with whether or not to permit pets at their properties. Until recently, in some areas, it was nearly impossible to find apartment communities that permit pets. While that has begun to change,  there are still a lot of properties that do not permit pets. This article will outline the pros and cons of permitting pets at apartment complexes and if the decision is made to allow pets, we will provide some recommended policies to make the experience the best possible for both landlords and renters.

A November 2020 survey by PetScreening and J. Turner Research showed that nearly 40% of renters have a pet. Another 21% planned to get a pet in 2021. Since March 2020 (the start of the pandemic), based on a study by the SPCA, about 20% of U.S. households have obtained a pet.

Surveys in July 2021 found that 75% of rental properties allow pets - this is a big increase since 2005 when only 50% accepted pets.

There is no doubt that landlords who do not accept pets are at a competitive disadvantage to those who do.  The question remains - do the benefits of allowing pets in an apartment community outweigh the disadvantages?

Perhaps the best comprehensive study of pets in rental housing is the "Pet-Inclusive Housing Initiatives Report," published by Michelson Found Animals and The Human Animal Bond Research Institute in 2021. Here are some of the major findings of the study:

  • 72% of tenants said that pet-friendly housing was hard to find (which seems at odds with the 75% figure cited above) and 59% said it was too expensive.
  • Residents in pet-friendly housing stay 21% longer.
  • 83% of pet-friendly landlords say that vacancies are filled more quickly.

Clearly, there are concerns with allowing animals to live in communal housing and many of the objections are what non-pet-friendly landlords hang their hats on.  Some of the most common concerns are -

  • Damage: animals may certainly damage property, but these concerns are easily offset by (1) careful screening of the animals; and (2) requiring high upfront deposits {with most of the deposit being refundable}. These high initial deposits will separate the serious from the casual pet owner. Serious pet owners are much more likely to be responsible pet owners. It should be noted that virtually all affordable housing programs - including LIHTC, HUD, and Rural Development allow for pet fees or, in the case of HUD and RD, refundable deposits.
    • Important Reminder: No fees or deposits may be charged for assistance animals for the disabled.
  • Odor: This issue is dealt with by making tenants responsible for any disturbance by their animal - including odor - and dealing with problems quickly.
  • Liability: All landlords that accept pets should require renter’s insurance with pet riders.

Other concerns are a disturbance of neighbors, possible allergies of other residents (making sure everyone knows this is a pet-friendly property can alleviate this concern), and insurance policy exclusions for certain dog breeds.

Despite these negative issues, the advantage of allowing pets far outweighs the disadvantages. By far the most important benefit to allowing pets is increased income.  In addition to the extra income from upfront or monthly fees, properties will have happier tenants (people with pets have been shown to have less stress), increased renewals (due to the scarcity of pet-friendly rentals, there is a built-in advantage - especially when owners do away with weight limits in the pet policies), and a larger tenant pool.

It is also true that in general, responsible pet owners make for responsible tenants. If someone is mature enough to take care of an animal - and put up the large deposit for having the animal - there is a good chance they will treat your property with the same respect.

Allowing pets will also go a long way in eliminating the problem of fake "support" animals since applicants will not have to find a way to get the animal into the property by showing that the animal is needed due to a disability. While some pet owners will still attempt this in pet-friendly properties in order to avoid the pet fees and deposits, it is much less a problem in pet-friendly apartments.

While the pet fees will increase property revenue, the real cost savings comes from a lowered turnover rate and a decrease in vacancy losses.

Owners who decide to allow pets should develop a comprehensive and strict pet policy. Again, serious pet owners will not object because the policy will not require more than they would normally do with regard to their animal(s). Following are some elements of a good pet policy that should be considered (always note that the pet policy does not apply to assistance animals):

  • Allow only common household pets. The following language is typical:
    • One four-legged, warm-blooded pet (two cats are often permitted);
    • Two birds or small caged animals; and
    • A ten-gallon fish tank (the number of fish is not limited).
  • Request that residents not feed or house stray animals.
  • Define a "pet:"
    • A common household pet is defined as a domesticated animal, such as a dog, cat, bird, rodent (including a rabbit), fish or turtle that is traditionally kept in the home for pleasure rather than for commercial purposes. Common household pets do not include reptiles (except turtles). If this definition conflicts with any applicable state or local law or regulation defining the pets that may be owned or kept in dwelling accommodations, the state or local law or regulation will apply.
  • Location of Pets in the Building
    • Pets are not allowed in public lobbies, dining areas, playgrounds, or other public gathering areas. When dogs or cats are moved through the building, they must be moved from the resident’s apartment to the nearest outside exit, avoiding public areas. Pets may not be left tied or unattended on any part of the property.
  • Sizes & Breeds
    • There is no size limit for dogs. However, the following breeds are prohibited: Presa Canaro, Chow Chow, Doberman Pinschers, Rottweilers, Cane Corsos, Malamutes, Wolf-Dog Hybrids, and Pit Bulls. (I also recommend in this section that you check with the locality for any prohibited animals (e.g., NYC prohibits ferrets), and check your insurance policy for any prohibitions).
  • Licensure & Tags
    • Every dog and cat must wear the appropriate local animal license, a valid rabies tag, and a tag bearing the owner’s name, address, and phone number. All licenses and tags must be current.
  • Registration
    • Every dog and cat must be registered with the manager prior to admission and annually during the resident’s re-certification and/or lease renewal. Registration of dogs and cats requires (1) proof of licensure; (2) proof of up-to-date inoculations; (3) verification that the pet has been spayed or neutered (or documentation from a veterinarian that such surgery would be detrimental to the animal’s health); (4) evidence of a flea control program; and (5) verification of alternate caretakers.
  • Prior to the admittance of a pet into a community, residents should be required to complete the following forms:
    • Pet Application
    • Kennel Release
  • Residents may keep only the pet described in the Pet Application with no substitution or addition of other pets without the prior consent of management. Management will maintain a photograph of the pet in the household file. Fish are not covered under this rule.
  • Pet Deposit
    • Each dog or cat owner must provide a pet deposit of $300.00 (or an amount required by state law, whichever is less), in addition to the standard rental security deposit. This deposit will be maintained in a separate account as provided for by state law and applicable agency regulations for the maintenance of security deposits. Upon termination of residence by the pet owner or removal of all dogs or cats from the owner’s apartment, all or part of the pet deposit will be refunded minus reasonable expenses directly attributable to the presence of the pet. HUD-based communities - If the resident is unable to provide the complete deposit at the time the pet enters the community, then a payment schedule can be used.
  • For HUD properties, the initial deposit cannot exceed $50 at the time the pet is brought into the community. Installments of $10 may be made until the deposit is reached. A resident must be allowed to pay the entire amount or in increments that are greater than $10 if he or she chooses to do so.
    • Tax Credit communities - the pet deposit may exceed $300, and management may require the entire deposit at one time.
  • Sanitation
    • Dogs and cats are required to be "house-broken." Cats must be litterbox trained and dogs must be able to eliminate outside the building in designated pet exercise locations. Pet owners are responsible for the immediate clean-up of the feces of their dogs. Resident dog owners must bag and securely tie dog feces and deposit it in outside trash receptacles or other specified locations if applicable. Fines may apply if this requirement is not met. Cat owners must change litter frequently. It is not acceptable to drop pet waste down the trash chute. Litter must be placed in a bag, tied securely, and dropped in outside trash receptacles or other specified locations if applicable.
  • Noise
    • Pets that make noise that disrupts other residents are unacceptable.
  • Pet Behavior
    • No pet that bites, attacks or demonstrates other aggressive behavior toward humans may be kept in the community. Pet owners shall assume liability for any injury sustained by residents, guests, or staff members that are caused by the owner’s pet.
  • Control of Pets
    • Dogs and cats must be effectively restrained and under the control of a responsible individual at all times outside the confines of the pet owner’s apartment and while in the community.
  • Alternate Caretaker
    • Resident must not leave a pet unattended for more than 24 consecutive hours. When applicable, the pet owner must provide the names of at least two people who are willing to assume immediate responsibility for the pet in case of an emergency, such as when the pet owner is absent or unable to adequately maintain the pet. Written verification of the willingness of these people to assume alternate caretaker responsibility is required. It is the responsibility of the pet owner to inform the manager of any change in the names, addresses, or telephone numbers of alternate caretakers.
    • In cases of emergency, when management is unable to reach the alternate caretakers, the pet owner must agree to allow management to enter the unit and place the pet in an appropriate boarding facility for a maximum of 30 days. The pet owner will be responsible for the cost of the animal care facility. Within 30 days of such an emergency, the resident, his agent, family, or estate must make arrangements with the animal care facility as to the disposition of the pet and will be responsible for all obligations, financial and otherwise, in such disposition.
  • Sick or Injured Animals
    • No sick or injured pet will be accepted for occupancy without consultation and written acknowledgment of a veterinarian as to the condition of the pet’s ability to live in an apartment situation. Acceptance regardless of documentation and consultation is the prerogative of the manager. Admitted pets that suffer illnesses or injury, must be immediately taken for veterinarian care at the pet owner’s expense.
  • Refusal
    • Management can refuse to admit a pet for the following reasons:
      • The pet is not a common household pet
      • Pet does not comply with the pet policy
      • Pet owner fails to provide complete registration information or fails to annually update the pet registration
      • It is reasonably determined based on the pet owner’s habits and practices, that the pet owner will be unable to keep the pet in compliance with the pet rules and other lease obligations.
  • Notices
    • In the case of a violation of these rules, including management’s refusal to register a pet, management will give the applicant/resident a written notice with an explanation in accordance with HUD requirements.

For the sake of full disclosure, I am an animal lover and have multiple animals living under my roof. Having said that, I am also a businessman, and every apartment community I owned allowed pets. Not just because I love animals, but because I enjoyed the financial benefit of permitting animals at my properties. A well-thought-out and comprehensive set of pet policies will present a financial benefit to any property.

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.