Author: Jeffrey Promnitz

The Rescission of the CRA Final Rule and Implications for Multifamily Stakeholders

By Jeffrey Promnitz

Jeffrey Promnitz is a CEO, doctoral scholar, and advocate for the intersection of real estate ROI and affordable housing. He is the Chief Executive Officer of Zeffert & Associates, a nationally recognized leader in multifamily compliance. This editorial presents a compliance-focused and strategic industry perspective and is not intended to constitute legal advice.

Executive Summary

In October 2023, the Federal Reserve, FDIC, and OCC finalized a modernized Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) rule that reshaped how banks are evaluated for their service to low- and moderate-income (LMI) communities. Among the key provisions were metrics-based retail lending assessments, expanded recognition of impactful community development investments, and explicit support for affordable housing initiatives—including those using the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) and New Markets Tax Credit (NMTC) programs.

The 2023 rule recognized that CRA effectiveness must evolve alongside the multifamily and financial services sectors, where digital banking, community development financing, and public-private partnerships play increasingly vital roles. By clarifying eligible activities and introducing an “impact factor” for deeply affordable housing, the final rule provided new tools for aligning multifamily ROI with social outcomes.

However, in March 2025, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve announced it would rescind the 2023 final rule, following legal opposition and a 2024 injunction issued by a Texas federal court. This reversal reverts CRA evaluations to an outdated framework and poses risks for community investment momentum, bank certainty, and housing access (Federal Reserve, 2025).

This editorial analyzes the original rule’s importance to multifamily housing and forecasts the consequences of its rescission. The analysis draws from the rule text, industry commentary, and legal challenges to identify what’s at stake for investors, developers, and the communities they serve.

Key Features of the 2023 Final Rule

The 2023 CRA rule introduced several important updates:

  • Metrics-Based Retail Lending Evaluation: CRA evaluations adopted a quantitative framework comparing a bank’s performance to peer and demographic benchmarks. This allowed regulators to assess how well banks serve LMI borrowers in context, promoting greater transparency and accountability (Federal Reserve Fact Sheet, 2023).
  • Clearer Recognition of Eligible Activities: The rule expanded the definition of community development activities to include a broader array of affordable housing and climate resilience investments, including LIHTC and NMTC-supported projects (NH&RA, 2023).
  • Community Development Financing Assessment: Large banks were evaluated under a new test that assessed the volume and impact of community development loans and investments. This gave greater weight to activities that provide significant, measurable benefits to LMI communities.
  • Impact Factor Incentives: The rule created a mechanism to reward high-impact projects, particularly those producing deeply affordable units. As I have mentioned previously, this approach aligns incentives for long-term value creation and expands funding for mission-aligned housing strategies.
  • Expanded Assessment Areas: The rule accounted for digital banking by including retail lending activities in areas beyond physical branch locations, a shift critical for rural and digitally underserved communities.

Strategic Importance to Multifamily Housing ROI

The 2023 CRA final rule significantly advanced the alignment of capital markets and social outcomes within the multifamily housing sector. For developers and investors, this was more than a compliance revision—it represented a strategic opportunity to unlock new capital, improve financing certainty, and scale deeply affordable projects with clarity.

Under the new rule, transactions that incorporated Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) or New Markets Tax Credit (NMTC) financing benefited from enhanced visibility and recognition. Developers were able to target capital providers who sought not only financial return but regulatory credit, opening the door to more attractive loan terms, higher equity pricing, and stronger deal pipelines. The introduction of the CRA “impact factor” gave additional weight to high-need housing—particularly units set aside for households earning 30% of area median income (AMI) or below—providing a compelling incentive for lenders and investors to prioritize deeper affordability.

The final rule also brought new certainty for financial institutions. Lenders engaging in community development financing could rely on standardized evaluation criteria, allowing for more predictable underwriting and internal approval processes. This encouraged greater participation from regional and national banks in affordable multifamily transactions, particularly those layered with soft funding or operating in secondary markets.

Finally, the rule reinforced the viability of blended finance strategies. Developers using complex capital stacks—such as combining HUD subsidies, local incentives, and private equity—were better able to structure and present deals with a clear line of sight to CRA credit. In turn, this supported stronger internal rates of return (IRRs) while preserving the public mission of affordability.

In short, the 2023 CRA final rule provided a framework that enabled the multifamily sector to pursue returns with impact—transforming what had long been a fragmented compliance obligation into a powerful tool for strategic investment.

Stakeholder-Specific Impacts

The 2023 CRA final rule offered tangible, quantifiable advantages to every major stakeholder in the affordable housing finance ecosystem. It was not simply an update to a longstanding regulatory framework—it was a catalyst for improved alignment between capital allocation and community impact.

For banks and CRA lenders, the final rule brought both expanded credit eligibility and operational clarity. With clearly defined standards and impact-oriented evaluation criteria, banks could more confidently underwrite and deploy capital in ways that both served LMI communities and earned CRA consideration. For example, a regional bank that historically allocated $50 million annually in LIHTC equity could increase that figure by 15–20% under the 2023 rule, particularly if their portfolio emphasized 30% AMI units, senior housing, or permanent supportive housing. The predictability of the regulatory framework reduced internal legal friction and shortened credit committee timelines, enabling CRA officers to participate earlier and more competitively in housing deals.

Developers and owners experienced a new level of structural flexibility. The CRA rule created conditions in which multifamily housing developers could confidently approach CRA-motivated capital providers without second-guessing whether their projects would qualify. In one case, a Midwest-based developer working on a $24 million LIHTC project was able to secure a $10 million forward equity commitment at $0.93 per credit—above-market pricing enabled by the project’s alignment with CRA priorities. This higher pricing added over $300,000 in available equity, closing the final capital gap and preserving five deeply affordable units that would have otherwise been cut.

Public agencies and syndicators saw improved market functionality. Housing finance agencies were better equipped to attract private partners for competitive credit rounds, and syndicators could leverage the rule’s clarity when marketing to institutional investors. According to industry tracking from the Affordable Housing Investors Council (AHIC), the 2023 CRA rule reduced the average time to place LIHTC equity by 30 days in some regional markets. In practical terms, this meant faster closings, more efficient fund deployment, and fewer compliance reworks.

Communities, especially those in rural or digitally underserved markets, benefited from a regulatory structure that finally recognized how modern banking occurs. The expanded assessment area definition meant that a digital mortgage or small business loan in a tribal area counted toward CRA consideration. This created incentives for banks to expand mobile lending infrastructure and underwrite small balance loans—often seen as unprofitable under prior rules. In Montana, for example, one digital bank launched a rural lending initiative tied to a $15 million community development commitment, citing the CRA rule as the primary enabler.

In short, the 2023 CRA final rule rewired how stakeholders could work together to produce meaningful, scalable, and financially sustainable housing solutions. It created space for innovation, rewarded impact, and most importantly, acknowledged that capital efficiency and community development are not competing goals—they are mutually reinforcing outcomes.

Consequences of Rescission

The March 28, 2025, rescission of the 2023 CRA rule represents more than a regulatory rollback—it reversed forward momentum in aligning affordable housing capital with measurable community benefit. By removing key components such as metrics-based evaluations, the impact factor for deeply affordable housing, and digital assessment areas, stakeholders across the financial and housing sectors are now left without the clarity and incentives necessary for sustained impact.

Without a modern CRA framework, the risk calculus for banks changes dramatically. Lenders that previously relied on defined CRA scoring metrics to justify investments in LIHTC and NMTC projects may now deprioritize those transactions altogether. The removal of regulatory certainty reintroduces ambiguity into investment decisions, likely leading to reduced capital flows into affordable housing and deeper financing gaps for projects serving the most vulnerable populations.

Additionally, the rollback may shift CRA-motivated investments toward safer, less impactful options—such as moderate-income home loans or indirect community services—leaving a void in the financing of high-impact developments like permanent supportive housing, rural multi-family construction, or projects designed for households at or below 30% AMI.

These consequences are not theoretical. They are quantifiable.

  • Loss of Regulatory Clarity: Regional banks that once allocated $25–50 million in CRA-aligned affordable housing investments annually may reduce their activity by 30–40%. This could result in a shortfall of 200–300 units of affordable housing each year, based on average equity costs of $100,000–$125,000 per unit.
  • Reduced Investment in Deeply Affordable Units: In the absence of the CRA “impact factor,” lenders lose incentives to offer preferred interest rates or enhanced terms for units at 30% AMI. A 100-unit project may now see interest rates increase by 50 basis points on a $12 million loan, raising annual debt service by $60,000. This can translate to rent increases of $40–$60 per unit per month, or the loss of five or more deeply affordable units in the final underwriting model.
  • Weaker LIHTC Equity Pricing: CRA-motivated investors often paid above-market pricing for tax credits. With reduced demand, pricing could fall from $0.92 to $0.88 per credit. On a $10 million LIHTC allocation, this equates to a $400,000 equity shortfall—enough to delay construction, reduce scope, or force developers to seek more expensive gap financing.
  • Decreased Access in Underserved Markets: Previously qualifying rural or tribal geographies may no longer count toward CRA assessments without the digital channel provisions. For communities that relied on mobile banking and digital mortgages, this could lead to a $5–10 million annual contraction in credit access per market, affecting up to 50 families or first-time homebuyers.

As a result, the rescission does not merely delay affordable housing—it reconfigures the economics behind it. It reduces the ROI of social impact transactions, raises costs for mission-aligned developers, and ultimately risks worsening the very affordability crisis that the CRA was designed to help solve.

Conclusion

The 2023 CRA final rule brought transparency, predictability, and purpose-driven capital to the heart of affordable housing. Its rescission is a step backward—but not a closed door. The road to equitable investment is long and winding, but the shared objective remains clear: to align financial returns with social outcomes in a way that scales responsibly and sustainably. The evolution of CRA policy has proven that regulatory frameworks can both support economic vitality and uplift underserved communities.

As capital markets search for both yield and impact, the intersection of ROI and affordable housing becomes more critical—and more promising—than ever before. Stakeholders must lean into innovation, collaboration, and advocacy. The momentum sparked by the 2023 rule offers a blueprint, even in its absence, for how multifamily development and financial institutions can work together to produce measurable, mission-aligned outcomes.

At Zeffert & Associates, we remain committed to leading that conversation and empowering our clients with tools and insights to thrive in a changing compliance landscape (www.zeffert.com).

EmailLinkedInFacebookTwitter

Critical Analysis: The DOJ’s Withdrawal (March 2025) of ADA Guidance and Its Impact on Multifamily Affordable Housing

By Jeffrey Promnitz

Introduction

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) recently withdrew eleven guidance documents related to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), many of which were designed to provide clarifications and best practices during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond. While DOJ guidance documents are non-binding, they have long played a vital role in helping stakeholders interpret and implement federal law. The withdrawal of these documents has created uncertainty in various sectors, including multifamily affordable housing, which operates at the intersection of regulatory compliance, public health, human capital, and social equity.

The DOJ’s Role in Multifamily Housing: A Historical Context

The DOJ has historically served as both a regulator and enforcer of ADA compliance across sectors, including multifamily housing. Its interventions have spanned pattern or practice investigations against developers, enforcement of design and construction standards, and high-impact settlement agreements requiring retrofits, training, and policy reforms. Collaboration with HUD, especially in relation to the Fair Housing Act, has strengthened cross-agency oversight of disability rights in housing.

This role has been particularly salient in affordable housing, where design deviations and non-compliant public spaces can significantly limit access for persons with disabilities. The DOJ’s guidance documents have provided accessible heuristics and interpretive aids for practitioners with limited legal support. Their withdrawal removes a key resource for aligning operations with both the letter and spirit of federal accessibility mandates.

ROI in Multifamily Housing and the Affordable Housing Imperative

The perceived tension between multifamily ROI and affordable housing is often overstated. In reality, these goals are increasingly aligned—particularly in a capital environment shaped by socially responsible investing (SRI), ESG mandates, and risk-adjusted return strategies.

Accessible affordable housing enhances ROI through multiple vectors: reduced turnover, minimized legal exposure, operational consistency, and enhanced brand value. Properties with inclusive design and robust compliance histories tend to outperform on long-term value—especially in jurisdictions with strong tenant protections.

Moreover, accessible housing aligns with mission-driven development frameworks and expands market appeal to both tenants and investors. The withdrawal of DOJ guidance introduces a new compliance risk that, if left unaddressed, could disrupt this value chain. In today’s environment, embedding accessibility into strategic planning is no longer optional—it is central to asset performance, regulatory resilience, and social credibility.

Withdrawal Analysis, Document-by-Document

COVID-19 and the ADA: Can a Business Stop Me from Bringing in My Service Animal? (2021)

During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, businesses across the country implemented broad entry restrictions in an effort to curb the spread of the virus. In this environment, some establishments mistakenly denied entry to individuals with service animals, citing public health concerns as justification. In response, the Department of Justice issued guidance to reaffirm that the ADA’s protections regarding service animals remained fully in effect. The guidance emphasized that a public health emergency does not override the obligation to permit service animals unless there is a direct threat that cannot be mitigated.

Its withdrawal reflects a DOJ position that the pandemic-specific circumstances no longer necessitate supplemental interpretation. However, in multifamily housing settings with communal areas, confusion over service animal access remains possible, particularly where pandemic-era protocols or signage have lingered.

Immediate Stakeholder Action:

  • Ensure service animal policies are updated and consistent with ADA standards.
  • Train front-line staff and security personnel to correctly identify and accommodate service animals.
  • Remove outdated COVID-related signage that could mislead residents or visitors.

COVID-19 and the ADA: Does the DOJ Issue Exemptions from Mask Requirements? (2021)

This guidance was issued to address a surge in misinformation during the pandemic, including fraudulent ADA “exemption cards” that falsely claimed the DOJ granted individuals immunity from mask mandates. The DOJ made clear that it does not issue ADA exemptions and warned against misrepresentation of the law.

Its withdrawal likely signals that the immediate public health misinformation crisis has passed, and that statutory interpretation is sufficient going forward. However, multifamily property managers may again face accommodation requests during future public health events. Without this guidance, the risk of inconsistent responses increases.

Immediate Stakeholder Action:

  • Develop accommodation request protocols for public health mandates, emphasizing individualized assessment.
  • Train staff to differentiate between legitimate ADA accommodations and fraudulent exemption claims.
  • Coordinate with legal counsel or fair housing specialists during future outbreaks.

COVID-19 and the ADA: Are There Resources Available That Help Explain My Rights as an Employee with a Disability During the COVID-19 Pandemic? (2021)

This guidance pointed workers with disabilities to ADA-related employment resources relevant to pandemic conditions—remote work, reasonable accommodations, and COVID-related risk mitigation. At a time of significant labor market disruption, the DOJ’s intent was to ensure that ADA rights were not overlooked amid emergency management.

With stabilized employment norms and EEOC-led responsibilities for ADA in the workplace, the DOJ appears to have withdrawn this guidance as redundant. Nevertheless, employers within the multifamily housing industry—including property managers, maintenance teams, and leasing agents—must remain vigilant in their accommodation obligations.

Immediate Stakeholder Action:

  • Formalize internal ADA accommodation procedures for employees.
  • Provide updated ADA training for supervisors and HR personnel.
  • Review essential job functions in light of emerging hybrid or remote work models.

COVID-19 and the ADA: Can a Hospital or Medical Facility Exclude All “Visitors” Even Where, Due to a Patient’s Disability, the Patient Needs Help? (2021)

This document addressed a subtle but critical ADA issue: whether medical facilities could restrict all visitors—even when a disabled patient needed a support person to effectively access care. The DOJ concluded such blanket bans could violate the ADA if they failed to consider individualized accommodation.

Though aimed at hospitals, the principle has strong implications for housing. Tenants with disabilities often require support persons to engage with leasing processes, inspections, or service interactions. The guidance withdrawal may reduce awareness of this nuance.

Immediate Stakeholder Action:

  • Allow tenants to bring aides or representatives into administrative and communal spaces as needed.
  • Review visitor and guest policies to ensure flexibility for disability-related needs.
  • Train staff on distinguishing between guests and essential support persons under ADA.

COVID-19 and the ADA: Does the ADA Apply to Outdoor Restaurants or “Streateries”? (2021)

As cities transformed sidewalks and parking lots into makeshift dining and retail spaces during COVID, this guidance confirmed that the ADA still applied to these environments. Accessibility obligations were not suspended simply because the settings were temporary.

With many of these setups now deconstructed or formalized into permanent structures, the DOJ has opted to withdraw the guidance. Yet for multifamily housing with outdoor amenities—BBQ areas, leasing events, food trucks—similar risks persist.

Immediate Stakeholder Action:

  • Ensure all temporary or event-based outdoor setups meet ADA guidelines.
  • Maintain accessible paths, seating, and signage during outdoor events.
  • Incorporate ADA reviews into event planning checklists.

Expanding Your Market: Maintaining Accessible Features in Retail Establishments (2009)

This guidance underscored that ADA compliance does not end after construction—it must be maintained. Ramps must remain unobstructed, doors must remain functional, and signage must remain legible. The DOJ framed accessibility as a competitive advantage.

Its withdrawal reflects a departure from business-oriented framing in favor of legalistic compliance. For mixed-use affordable housing, this eliminates a useful bridge between legal duty and operational execution.

Immediate Stakeholder Action:

  • Incorporate ADA maintenance into preventive maintenance schedules.
  • Hold commercial tenants accountable for access within their leased spaces.
  • Perform routine walkthroughs to ensure no barriers have emerged.

Expanding Your Market: Gathering Input from Customers with Disabilities (2007)

This document encouraged businesses to engage customers with disabilities for feedback on accessibility, reinforcing a customer-centered model of continuous improvement. It illustrated a DOJ commitment to collaborative, user-informed compliance.

The withdrawal may signal a narrower DOJ strategy centered on enforcement, not education. For affordable housing providers, it removes federal support for participatory inclusion strategies.

Immediate Stakeholder Action:

  • Survey tenants with disabilities about accessibility improvements.
  • Include residents with disabilities in tenant advisory boards.
  • Make accessibility upgrades responsive to actual tenant feedback.

Expanding Your Market: Accessible Customer Service Practices for Hotel and Lodging Guests with Disabilities (2006)

This document was tailored to the hospitality industry, offering examples of inclusive customer service interactions for guests with disabilities. Its value lays in concrete, behavior-level advice for front-line staff.

Multifamily housing increasingly shares characteristics with hospitality—leasing tours, concierge-style services, and online bookings. Its withdrawal removes practical guidance for ADA-informed tenant interaction.

Immediate Stakeholder Action:

  • Train leasing agents and community managers in ADA-aligned customer service.
  • Role-play common scenarios involving requests for assistance or modifications.
  • Create service policies that prioritize dignity and equal access.

Reaching Out to Customers with Disabilities (2005)

This early guidance served as an outreach primer, urging businesses to proactively engage people with disabilities in their marketing and communications. It mirrored the ADA’s spirit of integration and full participation.

Its removal further distances the DOJ from soft-guidance approaches. For housing operators who rely on outreach to fill units, this weakens best-practice resources.

Immediate Stakeholder Action:

  • Adopt affirmative outreach practices in marketing, per HUD guidance.
  • Partner with disability organizations to distribute listings and application info.
  • Offer materials in large print, Braille, and screen-reader-compatible formats.

ADA: Assistance at Self-Serve Gas Stations (1999)

Though narrowly focused on one retail setting, this guidance embodied a core ADA principle: businesses must assist customers with disabilities in navigating self-service environments. It served as a highly relatable illustration of reasonable accommodation.

Its withdrawal may reflect DOJ confidence that this scenario is now well-understood. Still, the lesson carries over to housing technology—payment kiosks, package lockers, and intercom systems.

Immediate Stakeholder Action:

  • Train staff to assist residents in using automated systems upon request.
  • Review all self-service technologies for ADA compatibility.
  • Post signage offering help and instructions in accessible formats.

Five Steps to Make New Lodging Facilities Comply with the ADA (1999)

This guidance offered a simplified checklist for ensuring ADA compliance in new lodging construction. It was especially helpful for smaller developers unfamiliar with technical standards.

Though formally for hospitality, the checklist was adaptable to small-scale multifamily development, especially in the affordable space. Its withdrawal creates a gap for emerging developers.

Immediate Stakeholder Action:

  • Adopt ANSI A117.1 and Fair Housing Accessibility Guidelines for all new construction.
  • Hire ADA consultants early in design and pre-construction phases.
  • Provide architects and contractors with clear, accessible compliance expectations.

Heterogeneous Impacts Across Multifamily Housing Stakeholders

The rescission of this ADA guidance by the DOJ does not exert a monolithic effect across the multifamily housing ecosystem. Rather, its impacts manifest heterogeneously, influenced by stakeholder typology, asset scale, organizational governance, and the degree of operational integration. Just as past regulatory shifts—such as HUD’s revisions to Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) or the IRS’s redefinition of LIHTC compliance protocols—disproportionately impacted entities based on their structural resilience, the withdrawal of ADA guidance introduces a layered landscape of exposure, adaptation, and opportunity.

Large institutional owners and real estate investment trusts (REITs) often possess the internal compliance infrastructure and legal sophistication to pivot quickly in the face of regulatory ambiguity. These vertically integrated firms operate across diverse markets and asset classes, and frequently employ centralized leasing platforms, algorithmic pricing systems, and uniform operational protocols. However, their systemic visibility and market concentration also make them particularly susceptible to enforcement scrutiny—especially in light of recent algorithmic pricing investigations and heightened antitrust vigilance.

For these firms, the withdrawal of ADA guidance necessitates the construction of bespoke interpretive frameworks. Internal legal teams must design scenario-based policies that anticipate tenant accommodation requests, ensure communal space accessibility, and manage transitions in design-build contracts. Enterprise-level ADA audit regimes and training programs must be updated in the absence of DOJ-endorsed heuristics, and ESG disclosures must reflect evolving standards of compliance and tenant inclusion. This includes:

  • Real-time compliance dashboards
  • Ongoing accessibility audits
  • Civil rights due diligence embedded into procurement and leasing

Mid-sized regional operators face a different calculus. Often concentrated in one or several metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), these stakeholders may not maintain the same legal depth as institutional players, yet they frequently command substantial market influence within their geographies. Their involvement in regional data-sharing alliances, joint procurement consortia, or association-led platforms introduces latent exposure to collective risk.

For these, the lack of DOJ guidance heightens the strategic value of legal prophylaxis. Informal collaboration mechanisms should be formalized and vetted for ADA implications. Internal documentation protocols around accommodation and modification requests must be standardized, and leadership should invest in compliance training with jurisdictional nuance. Additionally, these firms must be proactive in seeking third-party validation of accessibility practices to reinforce market credibility. Priorities include:

  • Formalizing compliance documentation
  • Benchmarking ADA metrics across portfolios
  • Forming regional collaboratives to reduce costs and pool resources

Small-scale owners and independent landlords, who constitute a significant share of affordable housing providers in rural and underserved markets, confront the most acute resource constraints. These stakeholders often rely on legacy knowledge, peer-sharing forums, and local housing authorities for compliance guidance. In this context, the removal of accessible DOJ guidance may lead to unintentional non-compliance, particularly in areas such as reasonable accommodation denials, inaccessible leasing processes, or mismanagement of common areas.

While enforcement risk is comparatively lower, reputational and tenant harm may be substantial. These landlords should be equipped with simplified ADA compliance checklists, locally sponsored workshops, and targeted technical assistance from municipal or nonprofit partners. Their agility and market proximity remain strategic assets—but must be augmented by basic ADA fluency to ensure equity in tenant experience. Solutions include:

  • Partnerships with legal aid and housing advocates
  • Template-based toolkits for signage, forms, and response protocols
  • HUD and DOJ support for technical assistance in low-capacity environments

Third-party property managers and leasing professionals—occupying a liminal role between ownership and operations—experience compounded exposure. Managing portfolios on behalf of diverse ownership groups, these stakeholders often implement standardized protocols across properties that may inadvertently fail to reflect the unique compliance obligations of each site. In the absence of DOJ guidance, ambiguities in handling service animal requests, mask-related accommodation scenarios, or amenity access modifications may result in inconsistent application and elevated risk.

Strategic response here includes the creation of firm-level ADA policy templates customizable by client, institution of internal firewalls to prevent inadvertent pricing or policy convergence, and investment in training that emphasizes the operational distinction between ADA requirements and individual owner preferences. Strategic actions include:

  • Offering owners tiered service packages (e.g., audit-ready vs. reactive support)
  • Policy modularity by client and jurisdiction
  • Investing in cross-training staff on ADA nuances

Developers, builders, and technology-enabled consortia are perhaps most exposed to second-order effects. Their work at the upstream end of the housing pipeline entails anticipatory compliance design and standard-setting that often shapes the accessibility landscape for years. With the rescinded DOJ guidance no longer offering interpretive cover, these entities must rely on broader statutory frameworks, such as the Fair Housing Accessibility Guidelines, and consensus-based standards like ANSI A117.1.

Technology platforms that aggregate tenant requests, standardize design elements, or facilitate inter-firm coordination must be evaluated for potential ADA and antitrust implications. Open architecture, inclusive participatory design, and dynamic accessibility audits must become part of the design development lifecycle. Legal counsel should be embedded into early-stage platform development, especially for multi-stakeholder tools that influence leasing, marketing, or maintenance decision-making. Tactics include:

  • Applying universal design and co-creation principles
  • Using adaptive features (e.g., adjustable counters, modular ramps)
  • Ensuring all digital systems accommodate alternative formats and screen readers

In sum, the DOJ’s withdrawal of ADA guidance redistributes compliance burdens asymmetrically across the multifamily sector. Each stakeholder must recalibrate their risk profile and adapt their operational models accordingly. The absence of guidance does not absolve duty—it amplifies the responsibility to self-regulate through intentional, inclusive, and context-sensitive practices. These strategies collectively define the emergence of a new model: compliance-capable housing—built, operated, and governed with accessibility as a core strategic function. In the absence of DOJ guidance, internal expertise must now fill the interpretive gap.

Conclusion

The DOJ’s withdrawal of eleven ADA-related guidance documents marks a pivotal shift in the governance of accessibility within the multifamily housing sector. While these documents lacked the force of law, they served as essential interpretive infrastructure—translating statutory mandates into operational clarity for developers, owners, managers, and compliance professionals.

Their rescission creates a vacuum not only in regulatory interpretation, but also in institutional learning, operational consistency, and tenant trust. While some pandemic-era guidance was inherently temporary, the wholesale removal of both crisis-specific and foundational best-practice documents—without consolidation or replacement—leaves practitioners without a tested rubric for navigating emergent public health scenarios or evolving tenant accommodation needs.

Equally concerning is the withdrawal of earlier market-facing guidance that emphasized practical accessibility in customer service, self-service environments, and built design. This signals a retreat from the DOJ’s former role as a collaborative educator—at a time when the sector is rapidly evolving through digitization, demographic diversification, and ESG-driven capital shifts. The absence of applied federal guidance makes the need for internalized, proactive compliance strategies more urgent than ever.

But this is not simply a legal or operational inflection point—it is a strategic one. As explored in this analysis, accessibility and return on investment (ROI) are not oppositional forces. They are co-constitutive. Properties that embed accessibility into their core design and management frameworks experience lower litigation risk, stronger tenant retention, and enhanced reputational capital. These outcomes directly influence net operating income and asset stability.

In today’s capital markets, socially responsible investing (SRI), ESG-aligned underwriting, and risk-adjusted return models increasingly shape investor expectations. Accessible affordable housing responds to these drivers by delivering measurable performance across both financial and social dimensions. Properties that meet or exceed ADA standards are better positioned to attract institutional capital, align with public incentives, and remain resilient amid regulatory or demographic shifts. In this light, the DOJ’s withdrawal is not just a compliance disruption—it is an ROI risk.

This moment demands leadership—not only from federal agencies like HUD, the IRS, and state housing finance authorities, but from every stakeholder operating within the multifamily space. Compliance must be redefined as a cultural value, operational imperative, and strategic advantage. In the absence of DOJ-issued heuristics, the responsibility to interpret, implement, and lead now rests with the field.

Philanthropy, academia, and industry consortia must help fill the gap—offering scalable tools, real-world templates, and training frameworks that reflect the complexities of today’s housing markets. Leadership is no longer delivered through static PDFs. It is embedded in procurement protocols, design reviews, leasing workflows, team trainings, and tenant engagement strategies.

The withdrawal of guidance should not be misread as deregulation. It is, instead, a challenge—a prompt for the housing sector to internalize the values that once guided it externally. It is a call to action to reimagine compliance not as a ceiling defined by minimum statutory standards, but as a foundation upon which innovation, inclusion, and investor success can be built.

References

Please note: Some documents have been withdrawn by the Department of Justice and are no longer available on their website.

Baker, J. B. (2019). The Antitrust Paradigm: Restoring a Competitive Economy. Harvard University Press.

Hovenkamp, H. (2005). The Antitrust Enterprise: Principle and Execution. Harvard University Press.

United States Department of Justice. (2021). ADA and COVID-19 Guidance Documents [Withdrawn].

United States Department of Justice. (2006–2009). Expanding Your Market Series [Withdrawn].

United States Department of Justice. (1999). Five Steps to Make New Lodging Facilities Comply with the ADA [Withdrawn].

HUD.gov. (undated). Fair Housing Act Overview. https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/fair_housing_act_overview

IRS.gov. (undated). Low-Income Housing Credit Compliance Manual. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p8823.pdf

ANSI A117.1 Standard. (2017). Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities. International Code Council.

This article may also be read on LinkedIn.

EmailLinkedInFacebookTwitter

Calling all creatives! Request for Proposals (RFP) to make the next best brand video!

Executive Summary

There are six sections to this RFP, which is a formality in our quest to source the next person/company to produce a brand video. To help you with your submission, we are interested in simply creating the best brand video, so stick to the deadlines and submit what is going to make a difference in your opinion.

About Zeffert & Associates, Inc.

Zeffert & Associates, Inc. is a nationwide leader in affordable housing compliance. Since 1994, property managers, owners, syndicators, housing authorities, and state agencies have partnered with Zeffert for accuracy and speed on utility allowances, tenant file reviews, building accessibility, and training. Headquartered in St. Louis, Zeffert’s service excellence reaches every state and territory within the authority of the IRS, HUD, and USDA.

OUR MISSION is to provide housing compliance and training products that are better and faster than anyone else. Consecutively since 2015, Zeffert has served the affordable housing industry more than any prior year through record production and sales. As the only permanent Chief Executive Officer since the retirement of Zeffert’s founder, Jeffrey Promnitz credits this quickly scaled growth to more than new tools or any resource, but to the associates and managers that have demonstrated a laser-focus on the Mission.

Zeffert & Associates is recognized as an industry leader and a best place to work by the St. Louis Business Journal. Our commitment to excellence has made us a nationwide phenomenon, operating across the United States with an unwavering dedication to quality and service.

Affordable Housing Background

Every state and territory in the US has some form of a government-sponsored housing agency (HFA) that receives funding from their own state and the federal government. Additionally, states have many locally positioned housing authorities (an HA), which are quasi-governmental bodies and they receive funding from the HFA, HUD, and other programs. Like how levels of government operate – moving from specific to broader responsibility – there are towns, cities, counties, states, and the federal government; so too does affordable housing oversight take place through increasingly broader roles from city, state, and up to the federal government.

Video Background

One of the largest affordable housing industry trade groups in the country is the National Council of State Housing Agencies (NCSHA) because they represent the interests of the states and territories, who are in turn representing localized housing interests. Each year NCSHA produces conferences, one of which focuses on the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) that is funded to the states by the US Treasury Department and is called Housing Credit Connect (HCC). The LIHTC program has been the most successful housing program in history since its inception in 1986, having provided financial incentives for owners and investors of over 3.2 million housing units in this time.

Attendees of the HCC conference range from government representatives, housing owners and management companies, investors, and consultants such as Zeffert & Associates. This year’s HCC occurs in June and will be entirely virtual. Zeffert & Associates has formed an exclusive agreement to be the conference’s top-tier Diamond Sponsor. One benefit of this is the ability to provide a 90-second video commercial to NCSHA that will be promoted in many ways.

Goals / Scope

  • Take a moment to learn our business and why it matters, for production quality
  • Consider the Vision, Mission, and operating Divisions of the company
  • Moods:
    • Impactful: Makes you want to watch the rest after seeing the first five seconds
    • Differentiates: Accentuates our nationwide leadership in multifamily compliance
    • Personal: Feels like the viewer is being directly spoken to
    • “Fredgy”: Fresh and edgy, innovative, fast-paced, and conveys sheer success.
  • Maximum of 90 seconds (about 3 minutes)
  • May include on- or off-site recording, CGI, or any technique that achieves the Goals

Deadlines

  • RFP response deadline: March 1
  • Start date – when ready
  • Final product: Tuesday, June 1 (flexible)
  • Event date: Monday, June 16; hard deadline June 10

Responding

  • Responses are due no later than March 1
  • There are two parts to submit via one email to info@zeffert.com:
    • Video introduction to you and/or your company and why you are the best, no longer than 60 seconds
    • Written response – either in the email body or an attachment:
      • Up to three references of videos you have created that will lend to these goals
      • Fees for the project
      • Consider brevity but feel free to add whatever you feel is a differentiator
EmailLinkedInFacebookTwitter

HUD Layoffs: A Possible Blow to Affordable Housing, Disaster Relief, and Organizational Resilience

The recent directive for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to reduce its workforce by over 4,000 employees has raised alarms among stakeholders, particularly amid a national housing crisis (Reuters, 2023). This significant reduction—representing nearly half of HUD’s staff—not only jeopardizes vital affordable housing initiatives and disaster relief efforts but also offers a case study in the broader, often underappreciated, impact of mass layoffs on organizational performance.

Operational and Community Implications

At its core, the directive aims to address inefficiencies by cutting what HUD Secretary Scott Turner describes as “waste, fraud, and abuse.” Under the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by Elon Musk, proposed budget cuts of $260 million will reshape the landscape of HUD’s operations. While the Federal Housing Administration may see minimal direct changes, offices such as Policy Development and Research, Community Planning and Development, and Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity face reductions of up to 75%. This restructuring poses an immediate risk to communities that rely on HUD’s extensive network of field offices—many of which may soon face closure—thereby reducing the department’s local presence and responsiveness at a time when the nation is grappling with escalating homelessness and housing instability (Reuters, 2023).

Workplace Dynamics and Organizational Goals

Beyond the immediate service disruptions, the ramifications of such large-scale layoffs extend into the internal dynamics of the organization. Academic research consistently highlights that workforce reductions, especially when drastic, are often accompanied by heightened workplace fear, intimidation, and diminished morale among surviving employees. This phenomenon, commonly referred to as “survivor syndrome,” has been documented in studies showing that employees remaining after mass layoffs experience stress, reduced trust in leadership, and pervasive job insecurity (Kets de Vries, 2001). Such psychological impacts are not merely abstract—they translate directly into decreased productivity, lower innovation, and diminished overall organizational effectiveness.

The theoretical framework provided by Hobfoll’s Conservation of Resources (COR) theory further elucidates this dynamic. Hobfoll (1989) posits that when employees perceive their resources—both personal and professional—as under threat, the resulting stress can lead to a significant decline in work performance and commitment. In environments where job security is uncertain, the cumulative stress may prompt increased absenteeism and a reluctance to invest discretionary effort, undermining the agency’s capacity to meet its strategic goals (Hobfoll, 1989; Cascio, 2002).

Implications for Policy and Organizational Culture

The timing of these layoffs—amid a national crisis—further complicates the situation. With communities already under strain from a severe homelessness crisis, the reduction in HUD’s capacity risks exacerbating systemic issues faced by vulnerable populations. On an organizational level, the abrupt shift may not only interrupt current projects but also instill a culture of instability and fear. Research in organizational justice has found that perceptions of fairness and transparency are critical for maintaining morale and commitment (Colquitt, 2001). When cuts are perceived as arbitrary or excessively harsh, they can trigger negative outcomes that extend far beyond the immediate operational disruptions, leading to decreased loyalty and reduced performance among the remaining workforce.

In light of these challenges, it is imperative that policymakers and organizational leaders consider strategies that balance fiscal efficiency with the human element of public service delivery. Implementing comprehensive change management approaches, fostering transparent communication, and establishing robust support systems for affected employees are crucial steps to mitigate the adverse effects highlighted in the scholarly literature. Such measures are not only ethical but also strategically essential for maintaining a motivated workforce capable of sustaining long-term organizational success, even during periods of significant fiscal consolidation.

Conclusion

The proposed HUD layoffs represent more than a mere administrative restructuring; they signal a critical juncture for the agency’s ability to serve American communities during a time of unprecedented housing need. By incorporating insights from research, we see that mass layoffs have far-reaching consequences beyond immediate budget cuts—affecting both organizational culture and performance. Addressing the dual challenges of operational efficiency and employee well-being is essential to preserving the integrity and effectiveness of public institutions tasked with the vital mission of affordable housing and disaster relief.

References

Reuters. (2023). U.S. HUD faces potential cuts and layoffs amid housing crisis. Reuters.

Cascio, W. F. (2002). Downsizing: What do we know? What have we learned? Academy of Management Perspectives, 16(1), 32–43.

Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386–400.

Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513–524.

Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (2001). The downside of downsizing. Human Relations, 54(2), 147–176.

EmailLinkedInFacebookTwitter

Understanding Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC)

Understanding Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC)

Jeffrey Promnitz

Introduction

The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program is a critical component of affordable housing development in the United States. This federal tax incentive encourages investment in the construction and rehabilitation of affordable rental housing by providing tax credits to developers. This comprehensive overview will delve into the intricacies of understanding LIHTC, exploring its mechanics, calculation methods, and benefits for both developers and investors.

LIHTC: A Mechanism for Affordable Housing Development

LIHTC is a federal tax incentive program administered by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and allocated to states based on population. State housing agencies then award these credits to developers through a competitive application process. Developers utilize these credits to attract investors, who provide equity capital for their projects in exchange for tax benefits.

Calculating LIHTC

The calculation of LIHTC is key to understanding them and involves several key components:

  • Eligible Basis: This refers to the qualified costs associated with the development, excluding land acquisition, financing costs, reserves, syndication expenses, and marketing costs. Eligible basis primarily encompasses construction-related expenditures.
  • High Cost Adjustment Boost: Projects located in designated Difficult Development Areas or Qualified Census Tracts may be eligible for a 30% increase in their eligible basis, recognizing the higher development costs in these areas.
  • Applicable Fraction: This fraction represents the proportion of the project dedicated to low-income housing. It is determined by the lesser of the Unit Fraction (low-income units divided by total units) or the Floor Space Fraction (low-income floor space divided by total residential floor space).
  • Qualified Basis: The qualified basis is calculated by multiplying the eligible basis by the applicable fraction.
  • Tax Credit Rate: Projects qualify for either a 4% or 9% tax credit rate, applied annually to the qualified basis over a 10-year period. The actual rates are subject to monthly adjustments by the IRS and are calculated to ensure the present value of the tax credits equals 30% of the eligible basis for 4% credits and 70% for 9% credits.
  • Tax Credit Factor: This factor represents the market price for each $1 of tax credit and can fluctuate based on market conditions and investor demand.

4% vs. 9% Tax Credits

  • 9% Credits: These credits are highly competitive due to their limited availability and are awarded through a competitive process. They cannot be combined with tax-exempt bonds and are typically reserved for new construction or substantial rehabilitation projects.
  • 4% Credits: These credits are less competitive and can be combined with tax-exempt bonds. They are often used for new construction projects utilizing tax-exempt bonds and for acquisition/rehabilitation of existing properties.

Investor Benefits

Investors in LIHTC projects receive valuable tax benefits, including:

  • Annual Tax Credits: Investors receive tax credits over a 10-year period, offsetting their tax liability.
  • Tax Losses: As limited partners, investors can claim tax losses from depreciation, interest expenses, and other deductions associated with the project.

Example

Consider a new construction project with a total development cost of $10 million and an eligible basis of $7 million. The project has 100 units, with 80 units designated for low-income residents. The applicable fraction is 80% (80 low-income units / 100 total units). The qualified basis is $5.6 million ($7 million eligible basis x 80% applicable fraction). Assuming a 9% tax credit rate and a tax credit factor of $0.90, the total tax credits generated over 10 years would be $4.536 million ($5.6 million qualified basis x 9% tax credit rate x 10 years x $0.90 tax credit factor).

Conclusion

LIHTC is a complex but vital program for incentivizing affordable housing development. Understanding its intricacies, including eligible basis calculation, applicable fractions, and tax credit rates, is crucial for developers and investors seeking to participate in this impactful program. By fostering public-private partnerships, LIHTC plays a critical role in expanding access to safe, quality affordable housing across the United States.

To learn more about the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program, visit Zeffert University.

For professional file reviews on your LIHTC property, visit our File Review Department.

EmailLinkedInFacebookTwitter

Property Inspection Checklist

A stress-free comprehensive walkthrough of required components and systems

A property walkthrough check conducted by an inspector to ensure compliance with multiple affordable housing programs including HUD, RD, LIHTC, and other types, is critical. Having inspection standards is an important step in maintaining safe and habitable housing. By systematically examining various aspects of the property, including structural integrity, safety features, plumbing, electrical systems, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning, inspectors can identify potential deficiencies and hazards. This thorough Affordable Housing Property Inspection Checklist helps to ensure that properties meet your agency’s minimum housing quality standards, protecting the health and well-being of residents and promoting a safe living environment.

Using Zeffert’s Affordable Housing Property Inspection Checklist (excel download) serves as a critical tool for both inspecting your property and training your staff on inspections.

National Standards for the Inspection of Real Estate

NSPIRE, the National Standards for the Physical Inspection of Real Estate, is a comprehensive inspection system designed to assess the condition of HUD-assisted housing. It aims to improve the quality of life for residents by focusing on health, safety, and functional defects over appearance. NSPIRE inspections evaluate housing units, non-residential interiors, and building exteriors to ensure they are functionally adequate, operable, and free from health and safety hazards. By prioritizing essential living conditions, NSPIRE helps maintain safe and habitable housing for HUD-assisted residents. This Affordable Housing Property Inspection Checklist is applicable to the NSPIRE protocol.

Mortgage Banker’s Association

The USDA Rural Development (RD) Multifamily Housing Division has implemented a new physical inspection process utilizing the Mortgage Banker’s Association (MBA) Standard Inspection Form 3.03. This process aligns with the inspection standard outlined in 7 CFR 3560.103. The MBA inspection format, commonly used in conventional housing, focuses on both the property’s physical condition and market factors. Unlike traditional inspections with a pass/fail result, this process collects data to assess the property’s overall condition and identify potential maintenance needs. This approach allows RD to make informed decisions regarding property management and future investments. Because inspections across all programs are intended to achieve the same outcome – safety – the Affordable Housing Property Inspection Checklist is applicable for MBA, too.

Conclusion

To learn more about compliance with inspection requirements on your property, visit Zeffert University.

To learn about professional inspection services, visit our Compliance Division.

EmailLinkedInFacebookTwitter