# Fair Housing Guidelines Vs. Fair Housing Act



## hughdint (May 14, 2018)

I was wondering is anyone else has had this issue come up.
I am in a state that has adopted ANSI/ICC A117.1-2003 as its Accessibility Code.
I have a 3rd party HC consultant that keeps holding us to the Fair Housing Act Design Manual (aka FHA Guidelines) because he says it is federal law.
If you read the actual Fair Housing Act and read the plain language interpretation  (Federal Register in the back of the guidelines) it is clear that If you apply ANSI or a state code that addresses the seven accessibility items, then you are in compliance with the Fair Housing Act.
Sections 4 and 5 from the Fair Housing Act (actual law):
(4) Compliance with the appropriate requirements of the American National Standard for buildings and facilities providing accessibility and usability for physically handicapped people (commonly cited as "ANSI A117.1") suffices to satisfy the requirements of paragraph (3)(C)(iii).
(5)
(A) If a State or unit of general local government has incorporated into its laws the requirements set forth in paragraph (3)(C), compliance with such laws shall be deemed to satisfy the requirements of that paragraph.
(B) A State or unit of general local government may review and approve newly constructed covered multifamily dwellings for the purpose of making determinations as to whether the design and construction requirements of paragraph (3)(C) are met.​For reference the "seven items" from section (3)(C):
(C) in connection with the design and construction of covered multifamily dwellings for first occupancy after the date that is 30 months after the date of enactment of the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, a failure to design and construct those dwelling in such a manner that--
(i) the public use and common use portions of such dwellings are readily accessible to and usable by handicapped persons;
(ii) all the doors designed to allow passage into and within all premises within such dwellings are sufficiently wide to allow passage by handicapped persons in wheelchairs; and
(iii) all premises within such dwellings contain the following features of adaptive design:
(I) an accessible route into and through the dwelling;
(II) light switches, electrical outlets, thermostats, and other environmental controls in accessible locations;
(III) reinforcements in bathroom walls to allow later installation of grab bars; and
(IV) usable kitchens and bathrooms such that an individual in a wheelchair can maneuver about the space.​Surely if a state has adopted a version of ANSI as its accessibility code and we follow that, then we fully compliant with the Fair Housing Act, right? I know that following both could be a "better safe than sorry" type approach, but I really want to know once and for all what is actually correct.


----------



## RLGA (May 14, 2018)

The 2003 ANSI A117.1 is a safe harbor (http://www.fairhousingfirst.org/faq/safeharbors.html). However, they also include the Act and the Guidelines, because Section 804(f)(4) states that ANSI A117.1 suffices for the four design characteristics within a dwelling per Section 804(f)(3)(C)(iii)--you still have to provide for the other two features of a covered facility per Section 804(f)(3)(C)(i) and (ii).

So, yes, ANSI A117.1 is acceptable to a point--you still have to follow the guidelines for all features outside of the dwelling unit per the Guidelines.


----------



## hughdint (May 14, 2018)

For features outside of the unit wouldn't 2010 DOJ ADA Guidelines suffice to cover FHA site issues?
FHA Guidelines will never be updated or clarified and there are better codes with more back-up that meet all of the requirements of FHA. The tendency to apply every single code that was ever written is cumbersome and, I believe, not the intent of the law.


----------



## RLGA (May 14, 2018)

hughdint said:


> For features outside of the unit wouldn't 2010 DOJ ADA Guidelines suffice to cover FHA site issues?
> FHA Guidelines will never be updated or clarified and there are better codes with more back-up that meet all of the requirements of FHA. The tendency to apply every single code that was ever written is cumbersome and, I believe, not the intent of the law.


Not entirely. Section 233 of the ADA Standards for residential facilities only requires a certain number of dwelling units to comply with the ADA Standards (5%), which is contrary to the FHA Guidelines regarding "covered" dwellings; and Section 203.8 of the ADA Standards exempts common areas that do not support required accessible dwelling units from the ADA requirements. 

There is plenty of overlap, but i don't believe there was any intent for one standard to be the controlling standard over all others.


----------



## hughdint (May 14, 2018)

RLGA said:


> Not entirely. Section 233 of the ADA Standards for residential facilities only requires a certain number of dwelling units to comply with the ADA Standards (5%), which is contrary to the FHA Guidelines regarding "covered" dwellings; and Section 203.8 of the ADA Standards exempts common areas that do not support required accessible dwelling units from the ADA requirements.
> 
> There is plenty of overlap, but i don't believe there was any intent for one standard to be the controlling standard over all others.


I guess I am still not clear about what parts of a site would not be covered if one were to apply both ANSI-2003 and/or ADA? What I am saying is that if you have these two codes you are covered in every way under the FHA without also having to apply the FHA Guidelines.


----------



## ADAguy (May 14, 2018)

Want to have some real "fun", consider a 1910 YMCA upgraded in 1995 to an SRO (which receives Section 8 vochers) under Section 504 which differs to UFAS; what applies to the 95' remodel, CBC 91' or UFAS?


----------



## hughdint (May 14, 2018)

Don't get me started on UFAS (but I will anyway) I do a lot of low income tax credit jobs. We have to apply both UFAS and ANSI-2003 (for inside the units) and ADA (for site and common areas).
Fun fact: when applying UFAS and ANSI-2003 there are confusing contradictions, for example, the WC centerline is alternatively labeled as being 18" min. and 18" max. from the wall (or possibly one of those might be the side grab bar distance) so that means when applying both codes it must be exactly 18" from the wall with no construction tolerance.
Also, handrail heights are listed as 34" max. in one and 34" min. in the other, so again an exact measurement is required. There are others as well .
When two codes apply you have to follow both or "the most stringent". I don't know what is more stringent, having extra space next to the WC or having the grab bar not too far away form the WC?


----------



## RLGA (May 14, 2018)

hughdint said:


> Fun fact: when applying UFAS and ANSI-2003 there are confusing contradictions, for example, the WC centerline is alternatively labeled as being 18" min. and 18" max. from the wall (or possibly one of those might be the side grab bar distance) so that means when applying both codes it must be exactly 18" from the wall *with no construction tolerance*.
> Also, handrail heights are listed as 34" max. in one and 34" min. in the other, *so again an exact measurement is required*.


ANSI A117.1-2003, Section 104.2: "...All dimensions are subject to conventional industry tolerances."
UFAS, Section 3.2: "All dimensions are subject to conventional building industry tolerances for field conditions."


----------



## conarb (May 14, 2018)

hughdint said:


> For features outside of the unit wouldn't 2010 DOJ ADA Guidelines suffice to cover FHA site issues?
> FHA Guidelines will never be updated or clarified and there are better codes with more back-up that meet all of the requirements of FHA. The tendency to apply every single code that was ever written is cumbersome and, I believe, not the intent of the law.


Every law school has a course called "Conflict of Laws", it can get complex and many conflicts are argued in courts, a general principle is that Federal Laws supersede state laws (called statutes), and statutes supersede municipal ordinances.  In addition to that later laws supersede earlier laws, a good example of that was we have a 10th Amendment that was part of the original Bill of Rights, it gave most jurisdiction to the individual states, the 14th Amendment was passed after the Civil War that pretty much gave the Federal government unlimited power rendering the 10th Amendment useless, but it's still there, after the Civil Rights legislation was passed in 1964 the Southern Democrats were screaming 10th Amendment, you can't do that, ironically today the California Democrats are screaming 10th Amendment you can't do that at the Federal Government.  

Similarily the ADA has in all probability superseded all prior state and Federal laws about Fair Housing,  I suspect in today's legal environment even the courts are going to disagree on this one, it should go to the Supreme Court, but in the meantime CBOs should not be making these legal determinations without consulting with their City Attorney or County Counsel.


----------



## hughdint (May 15, 2018)

RLGA said:


> ANSI A117.1-2003, Section 104.2: "...All dimensions are subject to conventional industry tolerances."
> UFAS, Section 3.2: "All dimensions are subject to conventional building industry tolerances for field conditions."


That section says that it only applies to dimensions that are not listed as having a maximum or minimum. If you have a max/min range it must fall within that range. When applying two codes that have the same dimension but with one showing it as a max. and the other showing it as a min., you are stuck with an exact dimension.


----------



## hughdint (May 15, 2018)

conarb said:


> Every law school has a course called "Conflict of Laws", it can get complex and many conflicts are argued in courts, a general principle is that Federal Laws supersede state laws (called statutes), and statutes supersede municipal ordinances.  In addition to that later laws supersede earlier laws, a good example of that was we have a 10th Amendment that was part of the original Bill of Rights, it gave most jurisdiction to the individual states, the 14th Amendment was passed after the Civil War that pretty much gave the Federal government unlimited power rendering the 10th Amendment useless, but it's still there, after the Civil Rights legislation was passed in 1964 the Southern Democrats were screaming 10th Amendment, you can't do that, ironically today the California Democrats are screaming 10th Amendment you can't do that at the Federal Government.
> 
> Similarily the ADA has in all probability superseded all prior state and Federal laws about Fair Housing,  I suspect in today's legal environment even the courts are going to disagree on this one, it should go to the Supreme Court, but in the meantime CBOs should not be making these legal determinations without consulting with their City Attorney or County Counsel.


My original point is not that the FHA (law) is in any conflict with the state law (ANSI-2003). To the contrary, the FHA law makes a provision that by following state accessibility code, especially one based on ANSI, you _are_ following FHA law without having to _also_ follow the FHA Design Guidelines book.
I am just trying to express that the LAW and the GUIDELINES are not the same thing.


----------



## ADAguy (May 15, 2018)

Thank you all for responding to this, have a case in Oakland specific to this issue.


----------



## cjshumate (Aug 3, 2020)

I, too, deal with low-income projects funded by federal dollars so am often running into the UFAS and ANSI codes. It's a pain in the butt. ANSI allows a handrail on one side of a stair and does not require handrail extensions inside a dwelling unit. UFAS makes no differentiation for inside a dwelling unit and requires handrails on BOTH sides of a stair and both sides need handrail extensions (which is tread + 12", a huge waste inside a unit).


----------



## Paul Sweet (Aug 4, 2020)

I thought that the 2010 ADASAD superseded UFAS.  Maybe some agencies haven't gotten the word yet.


----------



## RLGA (Aug 4, 2020)

The UFAS is still used by HUD, but only for HUD government facilities. For HUD-funded housing, only the FHA requirements apply, which allow the use of the ANSI standards as safe harbors in lieu of the FHA Design Manual. The currently approved standards by HUD as reference documents per 24 CFR § 100.201a(b)(1) are:

ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003

ICC/ANSI A117.1-1998

CABO/ANSI A117.1-1992

ANSI A117.1-1986
"Safe harbor" documents per 24 CFR § 100.205(e)(2) include:

Fair Housing Accessibility Guidelines, March 6, 1991, in conjunction with the Supplement to Notice of Fair Housing Accessibility Guidelines: Questions and Answers About the Guidelines, June 28, 1994;

Fair Housing Act Design Manual, published by HUD in 1996, updated in 1998;

2000 ICC Code Requirements for Housing Accessibility (CRHA), published by the International Code Council (ICC), October 2000 (with corrections contained in ICC-issued errata sheet), if adopted without modification and without waiver of any of the provisions;

2000 International Building Code (IBC), as amended by the 2001 Supplement to the International Building Code (2001 IBC Supplement), if adopted without modification and without waiver of any of the provisions intended to address the Fair Housing Act's design and construction requirements;

2003 International Building Code (IBC), if adopted without modification and without waiver of any of the provisions intended to address the Fair Housing Act's design and construction requirements, and conditioned upon the ICC publishing and distributing a statement to jurisdictions and past and future purchasers of the 2003 IBC stating, “ICC interprets Section 1104.1, and specifically, the Exception to Section 1104.1, to be read together with Section 1107.4, and that the Code requires an accessible pedestrian route from site arrival points to accessible building entrances, unless site impracticality applies. Exception 1 to Section 1107.4 is not applicable to site arrival points for any Type B dwelling units because site impracticality is addressed under Section 1107.7”;

2006 International Building Code; published by ICC, January 2006, with the January 31, 2007, erratum to correct the text missing from Section 1107.7.5, if adopted without modification and without waiver of any of the provisions intended to address the Fair Housing Act's design and construction requirements, and interpreted in accordance with the relevant 2006 IBC Commentary;
HUD is currently in the process of revising its safe harbor documents to include ICC/ANSI A117.1-2009 with the 2009, 2012, 2015, and 2018 IBC editions (https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/safe_harbor_rule_making).


----------



## cjshumate (Aug 4, 2020)

That's fantastically helpful information. Whenever I search the web I find a preponderance of conflicting information. Most likely web pages that have not been updated, like this one https://www.access-board.gov/guidel...d-sites/about-the-aba-standards/aba-standards that says HUD continues to apply the UFAS on residential facilities.
Or this one https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/disabilities/accessibilityR that says all federally assisted new construction housing must use UFAS.
Where do you get your information? I'd like to be able to use it, I currently have a project under construction where we have some townhouse units and if we could build those with just ONE handrail instead of two it would make it easier to get furniture up and down the stair!


----------



## RLGA (Aug 4, 2020)

I think I may have misspoken, they use the UFAS as a minimum for residential construction that uses federal funds but allow other standards that are equal to or more restrictive than the UFAS--so it still requires a comparison between the UFAS and whatever standard that is intended to be used. 

Other housing projects not supported by federal funds must comply with the FHA requirements, which include the safe harbors.


----------



## cjshumate (Aug 4, 2020)

What do you make of this document? https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/5784_N_01_NOTICE_5_15_14.PDF


----------



## RLGA (Aug 4, 2020)

cjshumate said:


> What do you make of this document? https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/5784_N_01_NOTICE_5_15_14.PDF


That's interesting--I haven't seen this before. It sure makes it easier than doing a side-by-side comparison each time if you can just use one standard.


----------



## ADAguy (Aug 4, 2020)

cjshumate said:


> I, too, deal with low-income projects funded by federal dollars so am often running into the UFAS and ANSI codes. It's a pain in the butt. ANSI allows a handrail on one side of a stair and does not require handrail extensions inside a dwelling unit. UFAS makes no differentiation for inside a dwelling unit and requires handrails on BOTH sides of a stair and both sides need handrail extensions (which is tread + 12", a huge waste inside a unit).



Handrails on both sides are safer.


----------



## cjshumate (Aug 4, 2020)

RLGA said:


> That's interesting--I haven't seen this before. It sure makes it easier than doing a side-by-side comparison each time if you can just use one standard.


Right? But what makes me nervous is that this document doesn't seem to be well-known. If 2010 ADA is an acceptable alternative, then one would expect to see a notice posted on the UFAS guidelines website saying as much. 
It would make our jobs much easier if they just had ONE unified accessibility code!


----------



## RLGA (Aug 4, 2020)

cjshumate said:


> Right? But what makes me nervous is that this document doesn't seem to be well-known. If 2010 ADA is an acceptable alternative, then one would expect to see a notice posted on the UFAS guidelines website saying as much.
> It would make our jobs much easier if they just had ONE unified accessibility code!


Remember, this is the government...."easy" is definitely not its middle name. It took the DOJ six years to adopt the ADA/ABA Standards that were revised in 2004.


----------



## Yikes (Aug 4, 2020)

cjshumate said:


> What do you make of this document? https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/5784_N_01_NOTICE_5_15_14.PDF



The most important thing in that document are the UFAS "exceptions" where HUD exceeds the requirements of ADAS, even though the rest of ADAS is considered "safe harbor".

The most significant exception that I run across is that 100% of the washers and dryers must be accessible.  In other words, no stacking appliances allowed in any UFAS-accessible units or in any common area laundry rooms on a federally-funded project.


----------



## ADAguy (Aug 5, 2020)

Good point.


----------

