Fair housing is more than a compliance issue: It’s an opportunity to modernize the process.

Fair housing is often discussed in broad terms but is perhaps not always clearly defined. At its core, Fair Housing (capital F and H) refers to an interwoven framework of federal, state, and local policies rooted in the Fair Housing Act that prohibits discrimination in housing based on race, color, national origin, religion, gender, familial status, and disability. It originated as Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 and has been further expanded by many states and cities to include at least half a dozen more protected classes.

Fair housing is also a political hot potato, and certain mechanisms attached to it, such as HUD’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) program, requires municipalities and public housing agencies to take proactive measures to identify, address, and reduce segregation and barriers to fair housing. These policies are being tweaked with each successive administration due to concerns over the legality of these proactive efforts and the resources required to maintain compliance. In 2015 the AFFH program was introduced by the Obama administration, only to be terminated in 2020 by the Trump administration. The Biden administration restored AFFH’s main provisions in 2021, and the current administration terminated the rule again in 2025, returning decision-making power to local and state governments. 

The political issues surrounding fair housing are at a fever pitch. One recent example is the case being made by the U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) against the City of Boston’s 2025 Housing Strategy Plan, which claims that Boston’s Fair Housing program violates the civil rights of white people. The memo from HUD to Boston’s Chief of Housing states that the city “is not in compliance” with HUD’s regulations. And according to an article outlining these claims, the mayor of Boston, along with the Housing Chair, are calling the charges “unhinged.”   

This is particularly challenging because in practical terms, important compliance aspects of any affordable housing project, such as site selection, density allowances, funding priority, and even routine landlord-tenant protocols, are likely to change yet again.  These aspects can influence approvals, timelines, and capital availability long before construction begins, so be prepared to learn a new set of rules in the next few years.

I’ve spent most of my career in this sector, and beyond the regulatory details, Fair Housing priorities can dictate how federal funds are allocated for multi-family and affordable housing, especially in public-private partnerships. Typical financing packages require several layers of subsidy financing by local and state governments, as well as CBDG, HOME, Housing Trust Fund (HTF), and housing choice or project-based vouchers (Section 8) from HUD. 

As you can see, although Fair Housing has most often been viewed through the legal,  ethical and political lenses, it also has serious capital implications. Federal loans with attractive terms, along with state and local incentives, and how they are integrated into the capital stack, can significantly impact cost basis and all the risk allocation calculations that follow.

According to data published by Moody’s, affordably priced and income-restricted rental housing has continued to post attractively low vacancy rates, while higher-end multifamily segments have seen significantly (like 200%) higher vacancy levels.

Further, a new proposal, called the American Housing and Economic Mobility Act, aims to address the affordable housing inventory shortfall through fiscally responsible legislation that empowers Fair Housing programs already in place. Moody’s ran a simulation that took this new program into account and concluded that it would mean the building of 3,000,000 units of affordable housing in the next decade. 

So yes, cozying up with federal funds that carry attractive terms, lower vacancy rates and goals that include building more inventory is very appealing indeed. But it also means inviting levels of complexity into every deal. Fair Housing–aligned projects often require the coordination of multiple capital sources: federal programs, state credits, county or municipal abatements, and private investment from multiple sources. Each layer carries its own eligibility requirements, compliance obligations, and timing considerations. Aligning them, or to state it more accurately, juggling them, is no small task and is widely recognized as a messy process.

The ability to navigate this dense and complicated environment also changes depending on who sits in the sponsor seat. Whether it’s a large national developer, or a more locally focused sponsor, what matters tends to be market knowledge, local policy priorities, and community engagement. In a Fair Housing-driven scenario, the projects that succeed usually prioritize such factors.  

We have an opportunity to modernize fair housing and AFFH compliance in a way that preserves the core civil rights mandate while reducing unnecessary regulatory burden and taxpayer cost. By shifting from paperwork-heavy planning requirements to outcome-based metrics, creating safe harbors for jurisdictions that adopt proven reforms, and providing greater accessibility to fair housing data, we can redirect limited public resources away from onerous compliance exercises and toward tangible improvements in housing access. 

Done correctly, simplifying compliance is not a retreat from fair housing values, but a chance to achieve more meaningful, measurable outcomes for the people these protections are intended to serve.

Victoria Gousse is Senior Vice President of Investments at A. Walker & Co.
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of HousingWire’s editorial department and its owners. To contact the editor responsible for this piece: zeb@hwmedia.com.