The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) is the United States’ largest funding source for new construction or rehabilitation of affordable housing, creating nearly 3 million units since its creation in 1986. Despite its enormous success, the program has many flaws. Federal legislation like the Affordable Housing Credit Improvement Act (AHCIA) and the Decent, Affordable, Safe Housing for All (DASH) Act aim to improve its effectiveness. However, these bills do not fix one of LIHTC’s biggest shortcomings – production of enough accessible housing to keep up with rising demand. 11.1% of adults have serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs, but less than 1% of our nation’s housing stock is accessible to wheelchair users, and less than 5% is accessible to people with mobility difficulties. 

The shortage of affordable, accessible housing means disabled people and older adults are more likely to be rent-burdened, and experience higher rates of homelessness and institutionalization. One year after the COVID-19 pandemic, nearly 40 percent of renters with any disability experienced housing insecurity, in that they either deferred paying their rent or reported no or slight confidence in their ability to pay next month’s rent. This is substantially higher than the national average of 25 percent. Disabled Black and Hispanic renters were especially likely to be housing insecure, at 52 percent and 50 percent, respectively. Consequently, there is a critical need for the federal government to reform LIHTC and for housing finance agencies (HFAs) to reform its administration with accessible design and disability as a forethought rather than an afterthought. 

The VITAL Act, introduced in Congress earlier this year, would be monumental in closing the supply gap of affordable, accessible housing by adding new requirements and incentives to LIHTC, and providing states with a technical assistance budget to help developers in financing and constructing accessible units. This legislation will not only drastically increase the supply of affordable, accessible, and transit-oriented housing, but it will also foster uniformity and clear guidelines for the affordable housing industry regarding accessibility.   

In early 2023, as part of The Kelsey’s advocacy campaign for the VITAL Act, an analysis was conducted of the requirements and incentives that each state has for their LIHTC program in the area of accessible design. This research is useful not only to advocate for federal legislation, but also to support changes at the state and local level. Ultimately, the results revealed the progress that several states have already made to require or encourage the construction of accessible LIHTC units. They also show that most states are lagging in the advancement of LIHTC accessibility.

Because the IRS allocates the tax credits to HFAs, LIHTC is not necessarily subject to federal civil rights laws. This includes Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, which protects individuals from discrimination based on their disability. It also requires developers to make at least 5% of their units accessible to people with mobility disabilities and 2% accessible to people with sensory disabilities. As a result, LIHTC-funded developments are not required to construct any accessible units, unless their state’s QAP mandates otherwise or the developers pair the funding with a federal funding source, such as the HOME Investment Partnerships Program or the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program.

To see which states fall under each category, view our factsheet. 

Deciphering the LIHTC accessibility standards for each state posed a unique challenge due to the intricate and inconsistent legal language scattered throughout the QAPs. When language was unclear, The Kelsey reached out to HFA staff with clarifying questions and often did not receive straightforward answers. For example, Idaho’s QAP uses vague language like “if applicable” throughout, including when referencing Section 504. We emailed the Idaho Housing and Finance Association and asked if their LIHTC developments require the 5% mobility units and 2% sensory units set by Section 504, and they responded saying that they could not give us a definitive answer and to ask our legal counsel. Unclear standards add unnecessary costs to housing development, create a regulatory burden on lower resources for organizations building housing for their target populations, and put the onus on residents to take legal action to attain accessible housing.

The QAP is a relatively untapped area of advocacy. Each year, states release a draft QAP for public comments, and many HFAs hold workshops or public hearings to gather feedback on the proposed changes. Unfortunately, most of the comments they receive are from large, legally-savvy housing developers and architectural firms. Often, these companies are more interested in adjusting rules ensuring their projects will be awarded tax credits; resident experience, the living environment, and ensuring that people with disabilities and older adults can live and thrive in the communities of their choosing is not often discussed. 

To make an impact on the supply of accessible housing, disability advocates must debunk the myths around accessible design and educate HFA staff. The Kelsey’s analysis revealed that incorporating accessibility in the beginning stages of development is not only cost-neutral, but also prevents unexpected costs from arising at later stages or after completion. Advocates should explain the importance of incorporating disability-forward housing solutions into LIHTC programs, both as requirements and incentives. Submitting comments during the QAP draft process is one avenue to make an impact, but advocates should also schedule meetings with their state and federal policymakers to educate them on this issue. Integrating local statistics into talking points will help emphasize the need for more accessible housing. Lived experience is also a powerful tool advocates can use to shift the dominant narrative that accessible design is too expensive or there is not a demand for it. Letter-writing campaigns can be used as a strategy to influence decision-makers. Organizations can circulate a sign-on letter to send to HFA staff, or they can draft a template letter for partner organizations to modify and send to HFA staff on their own.

Disability advocates looking to increase the supply of affordable, accessible housing in their communities should equip themselves with a base level understanding of the LIHTC program – especially the structure and contents of their state’s QAP – and the tools to advocate for structural changes. Our research on LIHTC accessibility is one of those tools, but we hope more research will be conducted to emphasize the importance of disability-forward LIHTC reform.

To stay up to date on your state’s LIHTC program and to get notifications of public comment periods, you can subscribe to your HFAs newsletter. You can find a directory of their websites here.

Housing advocates should dream big about the LIHTC reforms we can accomplish. While the VITAL Act still has a chance of being enacted by Congress, states can get a jump start and require that all developers adhere to Section 504 of the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards, regardless of funding source, would be an enormous step in the right direction, but it should be the minimum requirement. HFAs should go much further to incorporate disability-forward housing solutions in their QAPs. For example, the District of Columbia grants maximum points to LIHTC projects that construct units according to Universal Design or that utilize The Kelsey’s Inclusive Design Standards at either the Silver, Gold, or Platinum level. Every state should implement this type of incentive because it is not enough to just increase the supply of accessible units. Developers should provide cross-disability access in their buildings because designing for overall accessibility ultimately benefits everyone.