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.