NOTE: In this blog, the editors do not often discuss pending legislation that may not be passed into law. However, the AHCIA represents the most significant revision of the LIHTC program in decades and has been re-introduced several years with the overwhelming support of a majority of members of both the House and Senate. Also, several provisions of past AHCIA bills have been successfully spun off into law. Notable examples are the fixed 4% credit floor and the Average Income Test. For these reasons, the AHCIA proposal itself is newsworthy, and understanding it will likely continue to benefit LIHTC compliance professionals as it, in whole or part, changes the LIHTC program.

Representatives in the House introduced the Affordable Housing Credit Improvement Act (AHCIA) of 2025, to expand and strengthen the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC). The sponsor joins 116 original cosponsors, who have all re-joined. These cosponsors are split evenly between Republicans and Democrats. This large number of initial cosponsors shows strong support for using the LIHTC to address affordable rental housing supply needs. It also provides a framework for part or all of the bill to be included as Congress is working on major tax legislation. The AHCIA has had similarly strong support in the Senate as it has in the House. It is expected that the twin version will also be introduced in the Senate soon as it has in past years. 

The bill is almost identical to the AHCIA as introduced in previous Congresses, with continuing support. Other than an added provision discouraging the use of discriminatory land use policies, the only changes since the prior bill are updates to reflect inflation and other minor technical adjustments. The ACTION Campaign, co-chaired by our friends at the National Council of State Housing Agencies (NCSHA) and Enterprise Community Partners, has developed informational resources, including a bill summary and program fact sheets for every state and congressional district, available at the links at the bottom of this post.

Below is a summary of notable AHCIA provisions, adapted from an ACTION Campaign Summary.

The AHCIA seeks to...

• Change the official name of the program The official name of the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) sometimes triggers "Not In My Backyard" (NIMBY) opposition to proposed LIHTC developments due to misconceived notions about “low-income” housing or individuals. The AHCIA would change the official name to the Affordable Housing Tax Credit. Note: based on the LIHTC model, this would likely be initialized as the AHTC and create AHTC housing. It may also be commonly simply be referred to as Housing Credt Housing. AHCIA 2025 Reference | Section 701
• Expand the 9 Percent Credit by restoring the 12.5 percent cap increase and further increasing allocations by 50 percent over two years. This would restore the 12.5 percent cap increase that expired after 2021, and further increase the annual LIHTC allocation authority by 50 percent, phased in over two years. The 50 percent cap increase would be accomplished by increasing authority (inclusive of the reinstated 12.5 percent cap) by 25 percent in 2025. In 2026, the bill would apply the regular inflation adjustment and the remaining 25 percent cap increase. It is estimated that this additional allocation would increase affordable rental housing production and preservation by 167,000 more homes from 2025 through 2034 than are financed under current law. AHCIA 2025 Reference |  Section 101 
• Allow election of the Average Income Test (AIT) for Bond-financed LIHTC developments. In 2018, Congress modified the LIHTC (Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code) to allow the AIT, but it did not make a AIT change to the Housing Bond program at IRC Section 142. The AHCIA would add the AIT (and AIT for New York City) as a fourth and fifth minimum set-aside option for multifamily Housing Bonds. The current minimum set-aside options for the multifamily bond program require that at least 40 percent of units have an income limit of 60 percent of AMI, at least 20 percent of units have an income limit of 50 percent of AMI, or 25 percent have an income limit of 60 percent of AMI (for properties in New York City). This change would align the Housing Bond program rules with those of the LIHTC and better streamline use of the AIT for bond-financed LIHTC properties. AHCIA 2025 Reference | Section 201
• Provide flexibility for existing tenants’ income eligibility at LIHTC resyndications and rehabs of other affordable housing properties. When the LIHTC is used to rehab and preserve properties, all existing tenants must have their incomes recertified for eligibility. However, problems arise when tenants were eligible when they moved into the property, but their incomes have since exceeded the LIHTC limits. Units with families ineligible for the LIHTC may reduce the eligible basis for a building and the credits allowable for the rehabilitation. IRS guidance currently "grandfatheers" units occupied by over-income tenants to be included in eligible basis if the development is an LIHTC resyndication (a subsequent allocation of credits after an initial allocation). However, that guidance is not codified by law and does not apply to other affordable housing, such as properties originally financed with HUD or other programs. The proposal in the AHCIA would allow existing tenants to be considered low-income for the purpose of determining eligible basis if the tenant met the LIHTC income requirement upon initial occupancy, and their income has not risen above 120 percent of current LIHTC limit. This would apply to all means-tested affordable housing undergoing rehabilitation with the LIHTC, not just properties originally financed with the LIHTC. This eliminates the tension between allowing existing tenants to stay in their homes and recapitalizing affordable housing properties, as long as tenant incomes do not exceed a reasonable limit. AHCIA 2025 Reference | Section 202
• Simplify the LIHTC student rule. When Congress created the LIHTC, it wanted to ensure that Credits were not used to develop dormitory housing, leading to restrictions on households comprised of full-time students. However, the authors of the AHCIA believe that the LIHTC student rule is overly complex and has become even more so as Congress has enacted a growing list of exceptions. Perhaps more importantly, the LIHTC student rule differs from the student rules applied to HUD-financed housing,. The HUD student rules are also used or adapted for HOME Fund and Rural Development student restrictions. This means that properties with LIHTC and other funding sources must comply with multiple student rules. The AHCIA proposes replacing the current LIHTC student rule with an adjusted rule that would achieve the intended purpose of preventing dormitory use while more closely aligning with the HUD student rule. The adjustment would seek to ensure that households composed entirely of adult students under age 24 who are enrolled full-time at an institution of higher education are ineligible to live in an LIHTC apartment, with certain exceptions. Exceptions include single parents, formerly homeless youth, those aging out of foster care, victims of domestic violence and human trafficking, veterans, and others. AHCIA 2025 Reference | Section 203
• Limit tenant-based voucher payments for AIT and other deep-targeted LIHTC developments. Under current law, owners may collect the full value of a Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) from a tenant who is a voucher holder, even if the value of the voucher exceeds the LIHTC rent limit for the tenant’s unit. Any additional rental income is typically used to offset operating expenses, provide services for residents, or make capital improvements to the property. While this may support the financial health of the property and its residents, those funds could otherwise be used to provide rental assistance to households on waitlists for vouchers. The AHCIA proposal is to limit the rent charged (total subsidy plus tenant rent) to the maximum LIHTC rent instead of the full area voucher rent for apartments leased by tenant-based voucher holders at properties with the AIT or that receive the basis boost for extremely low-income tenants provided in the AHCIA, Section 307 (as detailed in a point below), since both of these options already reduce rents for lowest income tenants. By limiting the rental income to the LIHTC maximum rents, the goal of this provision is that the excess rental assistance that the tenant-based voucher would have provided can be used by the public housing authority that issued the voucher to serve other families. The bill does not limit the voucher payment associated with project-based vouchers or other project-based rental assistance, as this is taken into consideration in underwriting, whereas tenant-based vouchers are not. AHCIA 2025 Reference | Section 204
• Clarify protections for LIHTC residents covered by the Violence Against Women Act. The 2013 reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) provided protections for tenants living in LIHTC properties who are victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. However, VAWA made no conforming changes to the LIHTC in Section 42. Because VAWA and Section 42 are not aligned, there are certain circumstances in which their requirements are contradictory. The AHCIA proposes to better align the LIHTC with VAWA by: 1) requiring that all LIHTC extended use agreements include VAWA protections, 2) clarifying that an owner should treat a tenant who has their lease bifurcated due to violence covered under VAWA as an existing tenant and should not recertify the tenant’s income as if they were a new tenant at initial occupancy, and 3) clarify that victims under VAWA qualify under the special needs exemption to the LIHTC general public use requirement. AHCIA 2025 Reference | Section 205
• Clarify the general public use rule for Bond-financed LIHTC properties and its application to veterans. Generally, LIHTC properties must be made available to income-eligible members of the general public. However, to better serve special populations, Section 42 permits occupancy restrictions or preferences that favor tenants with special needs, who are members of a specified group under a federal or state program that supports housing for such groups, or who are involved in artistic or literary activities. A similar rule is not included in Section 142 for Bond-financed properties. In 2019, the IRS issued guidance clarifying that the Section 42 general public use rule applies to Section 142, because, before that, there was ambiguity around its applicability that nearly prevented some veterans’ properties from moving forward. The AHCIA proposes to codify the IRS 2019 guidance by law. It would apply the Section 42 general public use rule to Section 142 multifamily Housing Bond properties. It would also add specific language in Section 42 that will provide that veterans of the Armed Forces are members of a specified group under a federal program that supports housing for such groups. This is in addition to the VAWA protection mentioned in the above AHCIA Section 205 item. AHCIA 2025 Reference | Section 206
• Clarify the ability to claim Credits after casualty losses. At times, an LIHTC property may experiences a casualty loss that causes residents to temporarily vacate the property, such as a flood or fire. To avoid the recapture of Credits, the owner is currently required to have units back in service by December 31 of the calendar year regardless of when during the year the loss occurred. This is especially problematic when the casualty loss occurs near the end of the calendar year because the owner risks losing Credits for the entire year, even though the property was in service for most of that time. The IRS makes an exception to this rule only for casualty losses resulting from federally declared disasters. In these instances, the state agency may set a reasonable period, not to exceed 25 months from the date of the casualty, when the owner must have the property back in service. The AHCIA would clarify that there is no recapture and no loss of the ability to claim Credits during a restoration period that results from any casualty loss (federally declared disaster or otherwise) provided that the building is restored within a reasonable period as determined by the state agency, generally not to exceed 25 months from the date of the casualty. It would also allow the state agency to extend the 25 months by up to 12 months (for a total of 37 months maximum) if the casualty occurred due to a federally declared disaster that makes reconstruction within 25 months impractical. In such cases, the restoration time beyond 25 months will be added to the development’s required program compliance period. The goal is to provide a more predictable and reasonable window to repair and reoccupy properties after damage. AHCIA 2025 Reference | Section 301
• Simplify the “Ten-Year” and “Related Party" Rules. Credits are not allowable for the acquisition of properties placed in service for LIHTC purposes during the most recent ten years. This rule dates to the start of the LIHTC program in 1986, when Congress was concerned about “churning” real estate to take advantage of property appreciation due to 1981 accelerated depreciation rules. Decades later, with longer depreciation rules in effect, the Ten-Year Rule is no longer relevant. Instead, the rule unnecessarily prevents the acquisition of properties that would otherwise be eligible for preservation. Congress partially addressed this in 2008, by providing an exception to the Ten-Year Rule for certain federally- or state-assisted buildings. However, the IRS has not issued regulations implementing this change, so few transactions have utilized this exception. A similar issue is the Related Party Rule, which precludes acquisition credits if a building was owned at any time in the past by a related party (as identified in tax code). While the purpose of the Related Party Rule is to prevent an owner from generating acquisition credits upon a transfer of the property to itself or a related party, there is no time limit on this provision. Investors at times find it difficult to determine the owners of interests from many years ago. Given the limited pool of investors, this rule impedes property rehab. The AHCIA proposes to modify the prohibition on claiming acquisition Credits for properties placed in service in the previous ten years by creating an option to instead limit the acquisition basis of the building to the lowest price paid for the building during the last ten years (with an adjustment for inflation), plus any capital improvements. It would allow properties to qualify for acquisition credit so long as: 1) the property is not acquired directly from a related party, and 2) a related party has not owned the building at any time during the five years before the acquisition date. These changes are intended to simplify and support the preservation of properties needing rehabilitation regardless of when they were placed in service or whether an investor was involved with the property more than five years before its acquisition. AHCIA 2025 Reference | Section 302
• Include relocation expenses in rehabilitation expenditures.  When an occupied building is rehabilitated, it may be safer, more expedient, and more efficient if tenants are relocated while the work is being done. The IRS has taken the position that relocation costs for tenants is deductible and cannot be used for the capitalized. In the case of the LIHTC, this means that relocation costs cannot be considered direct costs of the rehabilitation, and thus cannot be covered by LIHTC equity. This makes rehabilitation more difficult and time-consuming, potentially adding unnecessary cost, and not as safe for residents. In some instances, these obstacles make rehabilitation unworkable. The AHCIA would allow for tenant relocation costs incurred in connection with the rehab of a building to be capitalized as part of the rehab costs, consistent with the treatment of similar costs. As the LIHTC is the most important source of capital for affordable housing rehab and preservation, this would greatly assist national preservation efforts. AHCIA 2025 Reference | Section 303
• Repeal the Qualified Census Tract (QCT) population cap. Currently, properties are eligible for up to a 30 percent basis boost if they are located in a Qualified Census Tract (QCT), meaning 50 percent or more of the households have median incomes at or below 60 percent of the area median income or tracts with at least 25 percent poverty rates. However, the HUD-determined QCT designation may be given to no more than 20 percent of the population of any given metropolitan area, even if additional census tracts within that metropolitan area would qualify based on the QCT income standard. The AHCIA would remove the QCT population cap, enabling properties in all census tracts that meet the QCT income standard to receive additional Housing Credit equity if necessary to make the property financially feasible. AHCIA 2025 Reference | Section 304
• Clarify that states have the authority to define a community revitalization plan with broad parameters. Under current law, state LIHTC agencies must give preference to properties that are located in QCTs and the development of which contributes to a “concerted community revitalization plan.” However, the statute does not specify which entity should define what constitutes a community revitalization plan. The AHCIA would clarify that each state LIHTC agency has the authority to determine what constitutes a concerted community revitalization plan for its state, taking into account any factors the agency deems appropriate, including the extent to which the plan: 1) is geographically specific, 2) outlines a clear implementation plan, 3) includes a strategy for securing commitments of investment in non-housing infrastructure, amenities or services, and 4) demonstrates the need for community revitalization. AHCIA 2025 Reference | Section 305
• Prohibit local approval and contribution requirements. Current law requires state agencies to notify the chief executive officer (or equivalent) of a local jurisdiction where a proposed LIHTC building would be located. Some states have taken this further by requiring developers to demonstrate local support for LIHTC developments or providing points as part of a competitive scoring process for developments that demonstrate such support. While well-intentioned, these provisions have resulted in the unintended consequence of giving local government officials “veto power” over developments, as withholding support could result in the development not getting funded. This can exacerbate "Not In My Backyard" (NIMBY) opposition to proposed developments financed by the LIHTC. The AHCIA would remove the provision that requires state agencies to notify the chief executive officer (or equivalent) of the local jurisdiction where a proposed building would be located. It would also specify that the selection criteria in a state LIHTC  Qualified Allocation Plan (QAP) cannot include consideration of any support for or opposition to a development from local or elected officials or local government contributions to a development. State agencies would be able to develop a competitive scoring process that encourages developers to obtain additional funding sources for their properties, including local financial contributions, so long as states do not prioritize local contributions over any other source of outside funding. AHCIA 2025 Reference | Section 306
• Increase the potential amount of Credits that developments serving extremely low-income tenants receive. To serve extremely low-income tenants – those with incomes at or below the greater of 30 percent of area median income or the federal poverty level – developers must often eliminate or substantially reduce debt on a property so that they are less reliant on rental income from tenants to pay off debt. Although in some cases state allocating agencies can award up to a 30 percent basis boost to provide additional LIHTC equity to developments when needed for financial feasibility, this often still is not enough to reduce rents to levels that extremely low-income families can afford. The AHCIA would provide up to a 50 percent basis boost (if needed for financial feasibility) for developments serving extremely low-income households at rents affordable to such households in at least 20 percent of the apartments. This provision would only apply to the portion of the development reserved for extremely low-income households (as determined by a unit fraction calculation), thereby allowing the LIHTC to target more extremely low-income tenants at rents more affordable to them. This provision would also facilitate the development of more affordable housing for populations with special needs whose incomes are extremely low, such as formerly homeless veterans. AHCIA 2025 Reference | Section 307
• Allow states to award a basis boost to Bond-financed LIHTC developments. Current law allows state agencies the discretion to award up to a 30 percent basis boost to developments financed with Credits from the state’s credit ceiling (9 Percent Credits) if the agency determines the additional equity is necessary for financial feasibility. This basis boost can be provided regardless of whether developments are located in a Qualified Census Tract (QCT) or a Difficult Development Area (DDA), which offer basis boosts also discussed in the AHCIA Sections 304 and 311. However, the general 30 percent basis boost does not currently apply to developments financed with multifamily Housing Bonds and thus the 4 Percent LIHTC. The AHCIA would allow states to provide up to a 30 percent basis boost for multifamily Housing Bond-financed properties if necessary for financial feasibility. This would provide consistency between Housing Bond-financed developments and those that use 9 percent allocated Credits. AHCIA 2025 Reference | Section 308
• Make the LIHTC compatible with energy tax incentives. The Section 179D Energy Efficient Commercial Buildings Deduction is a key energy tax incentive. It requires basis reductions when used with the LIHTC. This means that when affordable housing developers claim the 179D deduction, less LIHTC equity can go into the property. The trade-off makes this tax incentive very difficult to use with the LIHTC. A similar basis reduction formerly applied to Section 45L New Energy Efficient Home Tax Credits and Section 48 Investment Tax Credits, but those basis reductions were eliminated in the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. The AHCIA would eliminate the basis reduction for LIHTC developments that also claim the Section 179D Energy Efficient Commercial Buildings Deduction, allowing developers to build affordable housing that also benefits from this energy efficiency measure. AHCIA 2025 Reference | Section 309
• Better restrict planned foreclosures. By law, LIHTC properties must remain affordable for at least 30 years. The first 15-year period is regulated through the Tax Code under the threat of recapture of tax credits. The second 15-year period is regulated through an extended use agreement administered by the state LIHTC agency. Under current law, if a property is acquired by foreclosure during the second 15-year period, the affordability restrictions terminate unless the Secretary of the Treasury determines that the acquisition was part of an arrangement to terminate those restrictions rather than a legitimate foreclosure. This is noted to be a very rare occurrence. In practice, it is difficult for the Treasury Secretary to make such a determination about individual properties. The AHCIA would ensure that affordability restrictions endure in the case of illegitimate foreclosure by providing state LIHTC agencies, instead of the Treasury Secretary, the authority to determine whether the foreclosure was an arrangement only to revoke the affordability restrictions. It would also require the owner or successor acquiring the property to provide the state with at least 60 days’ written notice of its intent to terminate the affordability period so that the state has time to assess the legitimacy of the foreclosure. This provision's goal is to strengthen oversight of the program and reduce the potential for developments to lose affordability restrictions before the full affordability period has elapsed. AHCIA 2025 Reference | Section 310
• Increase of population cap for Difficult Development Areas (DDA) Currently, properties are eligible for up to a 30 percent basis boost if located in a Difficult Development Area (DDA), meaning areas with high construction, land, and utility costs relative to area median gross income. No more than 20 percent of the aggregate population of the entire country may be located in census tracts that are eligible to receive the DDA designation. The AHCIA would increase the DDA population cap from 20 to 30 percent, enabling properties in more high-cost areas to receive additional LIHTC equity if necessary to make the property financially feasible. The goal of this is to make the production and preservation of LIHTC properties in higher cost areas financially feasible. AHCIA 2025 Reference | Section 311
• Strengthen state oversight capacity related to development costs. Like all developments, LIHTC properties are subject to market forces impacting cost. These include costs for labor, materials, land, and costs stemming from local regulations. These costs have risen substantially in recent years, and state agencies have taken steps to contain those costs to the best of their abilities, recognizing that most cost drivers are beyond their control. However, because the LIHTC program is market-based and competitive, state agencies often use competition to contain costs, while still providing the flexibility needed to construct quality, durable properties that will serve the lowest-income households possible. In practice, state agencies employ numerous strategies to contain costs. This provision would codify these efforts by requiring states to consider cost reasonableness as part of their selection criteria in determining which developments will receive Credit allocations each year. AHCIA 2025 Reference | Section 312
• Lower the bond financing threshold to 25 percent to receive the full 4 Percent LIHTC. For a multifamily Housing Bond-financed development to receive the full amount of 4 Percent Credits it is eligible to receive, at least 50 percent of development costs must be initially financed with tax-exempt multifamily bond authority from the state’s Private Activity Bond (PAB) volume cap. The 50 percent requirement is an arbitrary threshold. In practice, most Housing Credit properties do not need that level of debt financing and would not be able to support it over the long term, given the lower rents paid by LIHTC residents. Further, the 50 percent requirement creates complications and inefficiencies in the financing process, forcing states to waste a significant amount of bond cap. Moreover, a growing number of states have become “bond cap-constrained” in recent years, meaning they have more demand for affordable housing than they can finance with their existing PAB volume cap authority. Because of the high bond financing threshold, states are forced to put more of a scarce resource into each property than what that property needs to unlock the full amount of 4 Percent Credits. The 50 percent threshold works to limits states’ ability to build and preserve affordable housing. The AHCIA would allow states to produce and preserve more bond-financed developments by allowing the full amount of 4 Percent Credits to properties that finance at least 25 percent of eligible land and building costs with tax-exempt multifamily bond authority. This modification will allow states to use their bond authority more efficiently. According to a 2025 estimate, lowering the bond financing threshold from 50 percent to 25 percent could produce or preserve as many as 1.14 million additional affordable rental homes from 2025 to 2034, assuming all of the “freed” bond cap is used for rental housing and sufficient gap financing is available. There is precedent for lowering the bond financing threshold. When the LIHTC was established in 1986, the bond financing threshold for triggering the full amount of 4 Percent Credits was 70 percent. When Congress overhauled the LIHTC program in 1990, it lowered the threshold to 50 percent because the 70 percent debt level rendered most properties financially unfeasible. Today, even 50 percent debt is far more than most properties need or can support. For every $1 million in reduced permanent debt financing, rents can be reduced by $6,000 per month, enabling properties to serve even lower-income households. AHCIA 2025 Reference | Section 313
• Create a selection criteria for housing that serves the needs of Native Americans. Native Americans face a particularly acute affordable housing crisis, yet it has been difficult in many areas of the country for Tribes to access Credits. The AHCIA would require states to consider the affordable housing needs of Native Americans as part of their selection criteria in determining which developments will receive Credit allocations each year. AHCIA 2025 Reference | Section 401
• Provide a basis boost in Indian areas. While some properties in Indian areas may qualify as DDAs and are thus eligible for up to a 30 percent basis boost, most Tribal areas do not qualify under current DDA standards. Given the especially low incomes in Indian areas and resulting limits on rent that can be charged, financing properties in these areas is particularly challenging. The AHCIA would modify the definition of DDAs to automatically include properties located in an Indian area, making these properties eligible for the 30 percent basis boost, if necessary to make them financially feasible. AHCIA 2025 Reference | Section 402
• Provide a basis boost in rural areas. Building affordable housing in rural areas presents challenges that developers in more urban areas are less likely to face. In particular, rural areas often have very low area median incomes. Because LIHTC rents are based on area median income levels, rural properties often cannot generate enough cash flow to support much debt. Therefore, these properties require additional equity to be financially feasible. While some properties in rural areas may qualify as DDAs and are thus eligible for up to a 30 percent basis boost, most rural areas do not qualify under current DDA standards. The AHCIA would modify the definition of DDAs to automatically include properties located in rural areas, making these properties eligible for increased LIHTC equity if needed to make them financially feasible. For this provision, rural areas are defined as nonmetropolitan counties and rural areas designated in state QAPs and defined by Section 520 of the Housing Act of 1949, the Act that governs USDA Rural Development housing. AHCIA 2025 Reference | Section 501
• Standardize income eligibility for rural properties. Under current law, there is a discrepancy in tenant income limits for LIHTC properties located in rural areas based on if the property is financed with multifamily Housing Bonds. The income limits in rural LIHTC properties financed with the 9 Percent Credit are the greater of area median income or the national nonmetropolitan median income. However, the income limits in rural LIHTC properties financed with Bonds and the 4 Percent Credit are based solely on area median income. The AHCIA would base income limits for all rural properties on the greater of area median income or the national nonmetropolitan median income. This would standardize tenant income limit rules for LIHTC properties in rural areas regardless of whether they are financed with multifamily Housing Bonds, making bond-financed developments more feasible in rural areas while aligning program rules. AHCIA 2025 Reference | Section 502
• Expand multifamily Housing Bond recycling. States have a limited amount of Private Activity Bond (PAB) volume cap authority that can be used for different eligible activities, including both multifamily Housing Bonds and Mortgage Revenue Bonds (MRBs), which states use to help lower-income households become first-time homebuyers, as well as other eligible non-housing activities. In recent years, states have devoted a large majority of their bond cap to single-family or multifamily affordable housing. However, because many states do not have enough bond cap to meet their affordable housing needs overall, affordable homeownership and affordable multifamily production compete for those finite resources. In 2008, Congress authorized the use of “recycling” of tax-exempt multifamily Housing Bonds so that states could use the proceeds from the repayments of those bonds to finance more affordable multifamily bond-financed housing. However, the properties that receive the recycled bond authority are not eligible for 4 Percent Housing Credits. Moreover, there are limits impeding the use of multifamily bond recycling and technical challenges that have made recycling difficult in practice. The AHCIA would allow states to use recycled multifamily Housing Bond proceeds to finance not only new multifamily developments, but also affordable homeownership through MRBs. This would allow states to devote more of the “new” bond cap to multifamily production that would be eligible for 4 Percent LIHTC authority. This would provide more flexibility by allowing states 12 months, rather than the 6 months provided under current law, to issue the new loan backed by recycled proceeds and make other technical fixes to streamline multifamily bond recycling. AHCIA 2025 Reference | Section 601
• Facilitate data sharing and transparency. Researchers studying the impact of the LIHTC program are reliant on the two major sources of publicly available LIHTC data, both collected by HUD’s office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R): 1) the LIHTC property database, which includes data on the location of properties, and 2) the LIHTC tenant data collection project. Congress has never provided funding to support these data sources, and data is incomplete for some properties. The IRS also collects property-level data from investors and owners, but this data cannot be made publicly available under current law. More complete, publicly available data would help researchers better understand the impact that the LIHTC program has had across the nation and analyze program outcomes. A “Sense of Congress” is included in the bill saying that Congress should work with Federal agencies to consider ways to supplement existing publicly available data about the LIHTC and increase program transparency. AHCIA 2025 Reference | Section 801(a)
• Encourage inclusive zoning. Certain local zoning and land use policies can create barriers to LIHTC development. These policies often unnecessarily increase project costs or make development impossible in some areas. A “Sense of Congress” is included in the bill on the importance of discouraging discriminatory land use policies and removing barriers to making housing more affordable to further the original intent of the LIHTC program. AHCIA 2025 Reference | Section 801(b)

Further reading: 

The AHCIA Bill is HERE.

NCSHA's blog post HERE.

ACTION Campaign information page HERE.

Be part of the discussion at the 2025 Summit!

Get updates and analysis of the AHCIA and other industry news!

Click the image below for more information