9-15. HUD REVIEW OF RENT COMPARABILITY STUDY
HUD Section 8 Renewal Policy Guidebook · 2026 edition · updated 2026-07-29 · United States
This Section provides guidance to HUD/CAs on how to review an Owner’s RCS prepared and submitted in accordance with Sections 9-7 through 9-14. When referring to a particular staff position, this Section uses titles typically used at HUD. CAs should translate those to their own position titles.
This Section also defines categories of reviewers. Initial reviewers are HUD/CA staff. Substantive reviewers are required to be state-certified appraisers for all reviews conducted by CAs, or HUD appraisers for those completed by HUD’s Multifamily Regional Centers and Satellite Offices (such substantive reviewers are also referred to as RCS review appraisers). For instance, where HUD’s staffing does not permit the availability of a HUD appraiser, a nonappraiser HUD staff person can complete the substantive review, subject to the minimum requirements and process outlined below.
A. Minimum qualifications for reviewers. Each RCS must be reviewed by staff members who possess the requisite knowledge needed for the level of review being performed. Section 9-16 provides guidance on the level of reviews.
Initial Screening. An initial review for timeliness and completeness shall be completed by a HUD/CA initial reviewer using the checklist provided under Appendix 9-5. While completing this review, the HUD/CA initial reviewer must adhere to the policies and timeframes set forth in this Chapter’s guidance. The HUD/CA initial reviewer must also have read this Chapter and Appendices within the preceding 12 months of performing their first initial screening review.
Substantive Review. All substantive reviews conducted by CAs must be completed by a state-certified general appraiser. Substantive reviews completed by HUD staff should ideally be completed by HUD appraisers. However, a non-appraiser
Chapter Nine – Published March 2023
28
substantive reviewer from HUD staff may complete the substantive review if they meet the following minimum qualifications:
- a. Have a minimum of two years’ direct multifamily experience. Besides direct experience in HUD multifamily review, other acceptable qualifying experience would be two years’ employment in multifamily project management or leasing, multifamily loan or acquisition underwriting, or multifamily development. This background is necessary to effectively review the RCS facts, reasoning, and conclusions; and
- b. Have read this Chapter and Appendices within the preceding 12 months of performing their first substantive review.
B. Process for approving non-appraiser substantive reviewers. The Regional Center Director must authorize all non-appraiser substantive reviewers performing substantive reviews on RCSs within their region.
C. Timing requirements. An initial screening review using the checklist in Appendix 9-5 must be completed within 10 calendar days of the date of receipt of an RCS from the Owner. The HUD/CA initial reviewer may contact the RCS appraiser directly unless the Owner has specifically objected to that in the Owner’s cover letter (as required under Section 9-7). The HUD/CA initial reviewer must follow up with the Owner or RCS appraiser, by email or other form of written correspondence, if:
The Owner’s submission is incomplete. The RCS appraiser or the Owner must submit the missing items within 10 calendar days of the HUD/CA initial reviewer’s request. If the materials are not submitted, the renewal process is considered abandoned and the Owner must make a complete submission to initiate the process again. The Owner may request an extension to this deadline in writing, and HUD shall grant it for good cause.
More than 90 calendar days elapsed between the RCS appraiser’s transmittal letter and the date the Owner first submitted the RCS to either HUD or the CA. Under this scenario, the HUD/CA initial reviewer must return the RCS and ask the Owner to have the RCS appraiser update the data to comply with Section 9-8.
D. Recordkeeping. All categories of reviewers must retain the RCS submission, subsequent correspondence with the Owner, and all materials and documentation for 3 years from the date of the Owner’s RCS submission. This retention requirement applies equally to RCS materials that were deemed inadequate and/or incomplete.
Get a plain-English answer with a citation back to this text.
Ask AI about this code▸ Contents — HUD Section 8 Renewal Policy Guidebook
- U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
- SPECIAL ATTENTION OF
- TRANSMITTAL
- A. Purpose
- Explanation of Changes
- Section 8 Renewal Policy Guidebook
- Office of Multifamily Housing
- Table of Contents
- Chapter One
- Introduction
- Chapter 1: Introduction
- Chapter 2: Section 8 Renewals
- Chapter 3: Option One: Mark-Up-To-Market
- Chapter 4: Option Two: Contract Renewals For Other Projects wi…
- Chapter 5: Option Three: Referral to Recap
- Chapter 6: Option Four: Renewal of Projects Exempt from or not…
- Chapter 7: Option Five: Renewal of Portfolio Reengineering Dem…
- Chapter 8: Option Six: Opt-Outs
- Chapter 9: Rent Comparability Studies
- Chapter 10: Residual Receipts
- Chapter 11: Tenant Issues
- Chapter 12: Physical Condition of the Project
- Chapter 13: HUD’s Refusal to Renew Section 8 Contracts
- Chapter 14: Rural Housing Service (RHS) Section 515/8
- Chapter 15: Section 8 Preservation Efforts
- — Chapter 16: “Old Regulation” State Housing Finance Agency Pr…
- 1-2. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
- 1-3. RULEMAKING
- 1-4. ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY
- 1-5. APPLICABILITY
- 1-6. PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT
- Chapter Two
- Section 8 Renewals
- 2-1. INTRODUCTION
- 2-2. OWNER OPTIONS
- 2-3. TYPES OF RENEWALS
- 2-4. EARLY TERMINATION OF A CONTRACT
- 2-5. RENT COMPARABILITY STUDY (RCS)
- Note: The AE/CA shall not lower the comparable market rents in…
- Note: A RCS is not required at any subsequent renewal of an EL…
- 2-6. CONTRACTS
- 2-8. SHORT-TERM CONTRACT RENEWALS
- 2-10. COMBINING CONTRACTS
- 2-11. REQUEST FOR A CONTRACT EXTENSION
- 2-12. DISTRIBUTIONS
- Note: The conditions listed above for receiving access to incr…
- 2-13. RENT ADJUSTMENTS
- 2-14. OPERATING COST ADJUSTMENT FACTOR (OCAF)
- 2-15. BUDGET-BASED RENT ADJUSTMENT REQUESTS
- 2-16. INCREASES IN DEPOSITS TO THE RESERVE FOR REPLACEMENT
- 2-17. PROCESSING INSTRUCTIONS
- Note: If the project has a budget approved by the AE/CA less t…
- Note: HUD does not accept the RHS utility analysis. The owner …
- 2-18. WAIVERS
- 2-19. DUNS NUMBER
- Chapter Three
- 3-1. OVERVIEW
- 3-3. OPTION ONE-A ENTITLEMENT MARK-UP-TO-MARKET ELIGIBILITY
- Note: Nonprofit controlled for profit entities as described in…
- 3-4. 150 PERCENT RENT CAP FOR OPTION ONE-A
- 3-5. EXCEEDING THE 150 PERCENT OF FMR CAP
- 3-6. OPTION ONE-B DISCRETIONARY MUTM ELIGIBILITY
- Note: Non-profit owned projects that meet one of the three cri…
- 3-7. RENEWAL REQUESTS
- 3-8. PROCESSING INSTRUCTIONS
- 3-9. ANNUAL RENT ADJUSTMENTS DURING A MULTIYEAR CONTRACT
- Chapter Four
- 4-1. ELIGIBILITY
- Note: Projects currently renewed under either Option Two or Op…
- 4-2. CONTRACT RENEWAL
- 4-3. ANNUAL RENT ADJUSTMENTS DURING A MULTIYEAR CONTRACT
- 4-4. PROCESSING INSTRUCTIONS
- Chapter Five
- Note: WAIVERS TO CHAPTER FIVE WILL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH RECAP…
- Note: Risk Sharing Projects do not meet the definition of “eli…
- 5-2. BINDING COMMITMENT
- 5-3. ENTRY INTO RECAP
- Note: In cases where a CA makes the determination that contrac…
- 5-4. CONTRACT RENEWALS — RENT OR DEBT RESTRUCTURING
- 5-5. SUBSEQUENT RENEWALS
- 5-6. “WATCH LIST” MTM PROJECTS
- 5-7. GENERAL INFORMATION
- Chapter Six
- 6-1. ELIGIBILITY
- Note: State and local government financed projects that are no…
- Note: In cases where referral to Recap is necessary, CAs must …
- Note: Section 202 and 811 Capital Advance projects are not eli…
- Note: Projects financed under the risk-sharing loan programs u…
- 6-2. RENEWALS
- Reminder: For projects (including 202 projects) that are being…
- 6-3. RENT ADJUSTMENTS FOR MULTI-YEAR CONTRACTS
- 6-4. SECTION 202 REFINANCINGS
- Chapter Seven
- 7-1. ELIGIBILITY
- Portfolio Reengineering Demonstration Program Projects
- 7-2. RENEWAL OF PORTFOLIO REENGINEERING DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS
- FIVE
- Note: Owners can request that the existing Demo Program Use Ag…
- 7-4. PROCESSING INSTRUCTIONS FOR DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS
- 7-5. PRESERVATION PROJECTS (LIHPRHA AND ELIHPA)
- 7-6. OWNER’S SUBMISSION FOR PRESERVATION PROJECTS
- Note: Owners can request that the existing Preservation Use Ag…
- 7-7. PROCESSING INSTRUCTIONS FOR PRESERVATION PROJECTS
- 7-8. PROJECT SPECIFIC RENTS (PSRS)
- Chapter Eight
- 8-1. OVERVIEW
- 8-2. OWNER REQUIREMENTS FOR TENANT NOTIFICATION
- 8-3. PROCESSING INSTRUCTIONS
- Note: If proper notification was not provided, the owner must …
- Chapter Nine
- 9-1. BACKGROUND
- 9-2. APPLICABILITY OF CHAPTER NINE
- 9-3. ROAD MAP TO CHAPTER NINE
- 9-4. ALTERNATIVES TO RENT COMPARABILITY STUDY
- 9-6. METHOD TWO: COMPARING PROPOSED SECTION 8 RENTS WITH RENTS…
- 9-7. PREPARING A RENT COMPARABILITY STUDY
- 9-8. APPRAISER QUALIFICATIONS
- 9-9. ANALYZING THE SUBJECT PROJECT
- Note: Appraisers should not take into consideration demographi…
- Note: Government boundaries like state or county lines often d…
- 9-10. SELECTING COMPARABLE UNITS
- 9-11. COLLECTING AND DOCUMENTING DATA ON COMPARABLE UNITS
- 9-12. COMPUTING ADJUSTED RENTS FOR COMPARABLE UNITS
- 9-13. DERIVING ESTIMATED MARKET RENTS
- 9-14. PROCEDURE FOR MANDATORY MARKET RENT THRESHOLD
- Example Project in ZIP code 76469
- 9-15. HUD REVIEW OF RENT COMPARABILITY STUDY
- 9-16. INITIAL AND SUBSTANTIVE REVIEW OF OWNER’S RCS
- 9-17. COMMUNICATING RESULTS OF HUD/CA REVIEWS
- 9-18. OWNER APPEALS
- 9-19. IMPOSING SANCTIONS ON APPRAISERS
- APPENDICES
- - Instructions for Completing the HUD Form 92273 S8
- Part A: Rents Charged (lines 1 through 5)
- Part B. Design, Location, Condition (lines 6 through 10)
- Part C. Unit Equipment/Amenities (lines 11 through 23)
- Part D. Site Equipment/Amenities (lines 24 through 32)
- Part E. Utilities (lines 33 through 39)
- Part F. Adjustments Recap (lines 40 through 43)
- Part G. Adjusted Rents (lines 44 through 45)
- Required Contents of a Rent Comparability Study
- Comparable Project Profile