At NAC, we walk through multifamily properties every day. And one thing we hear regularly — from owners, operators, and yes, sometimes even auditors — are confident statements about accessibility compliance that simply aren’t accurate. The problem isn’t that people don’t care. It’s that the rules are genuinely complex, and the stakes for getting them wrong are high. Misunderstanding which law applies to your property can lead to expensive remediation of problems that don’t legally exist — or worse, overlooking real exposure. Here are four of the most common misconceptions we encounter, and what the law actually says.

Misconception 01

All apartment properties have ADA units

This is probably the most persistent myth in multifamily accessibility: the idea that residential apartment buildings are required to have Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) units. They’re not. Apartment properties do not have ADA units — full stop.

The ADA governs public accommodations: hotels, restaurants, convention centers, convenience stores, and government-owned housing like university dormitories. While the ADA does technically apply to multifamily properties, its reach is limited to common areas that function as public accommodations — the leasing office, for example, and community rooms that are open to the general public or leased out for external events.

One area where the ADA does have teeth at multifamily properties: parking. The law requires a certain number of van-accessible spaces, with access aisles of at least 96 inches (8 feet) wide, versus the standard 60-inch (5-foot) aisle. Van-accessible signage is also required. If your leasing office parking area lacks a van-accessible space, there’s a good chance you’re out of compliance — and a fair housing tester can identify that without ever getting out of their car.

When someone references “ADA units” at a multifamily property, that’s a signal that they may not have a full grasp of accessibility law. It’s not a technicality — it’s a fundamental distinction that affects what remediation is actually required.

Misconception 02

Section 504 applies to all properties that receive government subsidies

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 is another area where well-meaning professionals frequently overapply the rules. The common assumption is that if your property has any form of government subsidy, Section 504’s design requirements kick in across the board. That’s not quite right.

Section 504’s physical design requirements — including the requirement that five percent of units be fully accessible and two percent be hearing and visually impaired accessible — were tied to specific construction dates. For Rural Development properties, that date was 1982. For HUD properties, it was 1988. Properties built and placed in service before those dates are not required to meet those unit percentage thresholds unless they have undergone substantial rehabilitation.

That said, Section 504 does still impose meaningful obligations on older properties. Common areas must be fully accessible regardless of construction date, and owners are required to make reasonable accommodations or modifications when requested by an applicant or resident. So while the wholesale unit conversion requirement may not apply, the obligation to respond reasonably to accessibility requests does.

Don’t assume a pre-1982 Rural Development property or a pre-1988 HUD property needs five percent fully accessible units. But do make sure your common areas are accessible and that you have a process for handling reasonable accommodation requests.

Misconception 03

The Fair Housing Amendments Act doesn’t distinguish between accessible and adaptable units

The Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (FHAA) extended federal civil rights protections to include disability and familial status. For properties built after March 13, 1991, the FHAA requires that all ground-floor units and all units in elevator buildings be constructed with seven specific design features — and that these units be adaptable, not necessarily fully accessible.

That distinction matters enormously. An adaptable unit is designed and built so that it can be modified quickly and cost-effectively to meet an individual resident’s needs — for example, reinforced walls near toilets and tub/shower areas to allow for grab bar installation if needed. A fully accessible unit, by contrast, already has those grab bars in place.

Adaptability is a design standard, not a deficiency. A building that meets the FHAA’s seven design requirements for adaptability is in compliance — it doesn’t need to be retrofitted to add grab bars or other features proactively.

One additional nuance worth knowing: townhouses and units with living spaces on multiple floors are not covered by the FHAA’s adaptability requirements — unless the building they’re in has an elevator (but the UFAS 504 criteria

The FHAA does not require fully accessible units in new construction — it requires adaptable ones. Understanding that distinction can prevent expensive and unnecessary retrofits.

Misconception 04

If a building passed permitting, it’s FHAA compliant

This is the misconception that catches developers and owners most off guard — and it’s the one with the longest fuse. The reasoning sounds logical enough: the project went through plan review, the building department signed off, the certificate of occupancy was issued. If there were an accessibility problem, wouldn’t someone have caught it?

Not necessarily. Here’s the critical distinction: the Fair Housing Amendments Act is a federal civil rights law, not a building code. It is not enforced by the Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) — the local building department that reviews your plans and inspects your construction. The AHJ is checking for compliance with the International Building Code, local amendments, fire and life safety requirements, and similar code-based standards. FHAA compliance is not part of that checklist.

That means a project can sail through permitting and certificate of occupancy with FHAA deficiencies that no reviewer ever flagged — because no reviewer was looking for them. The responsibility falls on the design team, and specifically on the architect, to ensure that the seven design requirements are correctly incorporated from the earliest stages of design. A missed threshold, a bathroom that doesn’t meet maneuvering clearances, a common area route that isn’t accessible — these don’t get caught at permit review. They get caught when a resident files a complaint, or when a fair housing organization conducts a compliance audit, potentially years after the building opened.

The retrofit costs for FHAA violations in an occupied building can be substantial — and in some cases, the remediation required by a consent decree goes well beyond what would have cost a fraction of that amount during design and construction.

A certificate of occupancy is not a clean bill of health for FHAA compliance. Because the FHAA is a civil rights law rather than a building code, it falls entirely outside the AHJ’s scope. If FHAA compliance isn’t explicitly verified during design — by an architect or consultant who knows what to look for — there may be no second chance until a complaint arrives.

Conclusion

These four misconceptions come up repeatedly in the field, and they carry real financial consequences — in both directions. Misapplied rules lead to unnecessary spending. Overlooked obligations lead to fair housing complaints and costly litigation. The best protection is a clear-eyed, property-specific assessment of which laws apply, when they apply, and what they actually require.

That’s exactly the kind of analysis NAC provides as part of our due diligence and compliance review services. If you’re unsure where your property stands — or want a second opinion before a refinancing, acquisition, or renovation — we’re happy to take a look.

Not sure where your property stands on FHAA compliance?

NAC provides clear, code-grounded accessibility reviews for multifamily properties at every stage — design, acquisition, and renovation. Reach out here.