Obama-era mandate slashed after being blamed for ‘skyrocketing’ housing costs
The Trump administration has rescinded an Obama-era housing policy that it blames for pushing up building, buying and renting costs across the United States. The Department of Housing and Urban Development, working with the Department of Justice, has scrapped a rule that allowed third parties to file accessibility-related complaints over original building design flaws indefinitely, meaning current property owners could be held liable for millions of dollars in retrofit costs for flaws introduced by original builders, even decades earlier and even if the current owner had no involvement in the original construction.
Under the new framework, the time limit for such Fair Housing Act design and construction challenges now starts from the date a building receives its certificate of occupancy, with a one-year deadline for administrative complaints to HUD and a two-year limit for civil lawsuits. HUD says the old policy cost property owners more than $112 million in accessibility retrofits over five years to qualify for federal refinancing, with one inspection firm alone identifying nearly $49 million in required fixes across around 500 deals since 2019, while a major lender attributed over $1 billion in lost loan volume to the rule. HUD Secretary Scott Turner said the change removes "unnecessary and expensive liability" while tenants retain the right to seek individual reasonable modifications under existing Fair Housing Act protections.
- HUD and DOJ scrap Obama-era rule on indefinite building accessibility complaints
- New time limits: one year for HUD complaints, two years for lawsuits
- Officials say old rule cost over $112 million in retrofits, curbed housing supply
New here? Start with this
The Fair Housing Act is a US law that bars discrimination in housing, including against people with disabilities. It requires many newer homes and blocks of flats to meet accessibility standards, such as having usable entrances and routes through the building.
The rule at the centre of this story concerned who could be held responsible when a building failed those standards. Under the earlier approach, complaints could be brought long after construction, potentially leaving later owners to pay for changes made necessary by the original design.
The key institutions are the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which oversees federal housing policy, and the Department of Justice, which enforces federal law. The issue matters because accessibility rules affect disabled residents’ ability to use their homes, while the timing of complaints can also affect owners’ costs and decisions about lending or investment.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters of the change argue that owners should not face potentially costly claims decades after a building was completed, particularly when they did not design or build it and had no timely opportunity to address the alleged flaws. They say clear filing deadlines make liability more predictable, could reduce costs tied to financing and retrofits, and still leave tenants able to seek individual reasonable modifications.
The case against
Critics could argue that a short deadline makes it harder to uncover and challenge accessibility defects that may go unnoticed until residents encounter them, especially where building design problems affect many people. They may see the former policy’s broader window as an important way to secure lasting compliance with fair-housing requirements, and worry that limiting claims could leave disabled tenants facing barriers while shifting repair costs away from owners and lenders.