HUD’s regulation at 24 CFR 100.205 requires covered multifamily dwellings for first occupancy after March 13, 1991 to have a building entrance on an accessible route unless terrain or unusual site characteristics make it impractical, accessible public and common use areas, doors wide enough for wheelchair passage, and, inside each covered unit, an accessible route, environmental controls in accessible locations, bathroom wall reinforcement for later grab bars, and usable kitchens and bathrooms. To review a set, confirm which buildings and units are covered and which HUD-recognized safe harbor the design follows, then trace each requirement from the site arrival points through the common areas into the unit plans, elevations, and schedules. AI can flag conflicts; the architect and the owner decide compliance, and a state or local approval is not conclusive.
What do the Fair Housing Act design requirements cover?
The eCFR’s 24 CFR part 100, subpart D defines covered multifamily dwellings by the number of units in a building and whether it has an elevator: in an elevator building all units are covered, and in other buildings the ground floor units are. Section 100.205 sets the requirements and treats a dwelling as designed for first occupancy on or before March 13, 1991 if it was occupied by that date or its last building permit was issued on or before June 15, 1990. It places the burden of showing site impracticality on the people who designed or constructed the housing. Its examples show that a building’s entrance floor defines the ground floor and that covered units need access to each type of public or common use area. The Department of Justice’s Fair Housing Act page lists the same features for newly constructed multifamily dwellings.
Section 100.205(e)(1) says compliance with listed editions of ICC A117.1 and earlier ANSI A117.1, ending with ICC A117.1-2009, satisfies the unit feature requirements, and (e)(2) lists the other HUD-recognized safe harbors: the Fair Housing Accessibility Guidelines of March 6, 1991 with the June 28, 1994 questions and answers supplement, the Fair Housing Act Design Manual, the 2000 Code Requirements for Housing Accessibility, and the 2000 through 2018 editions of the International Building Code, each on the conditions the regulation states. HUD’s December 8, 2020 rule, effective March 8, 2021, added ICC A117.1-2009 and the 2009, 2012, 2015, and 2018 IBC. Later IBC and A117.1 editions are not on the list. The eCFR text, current to October 20, 2026, was read through eCFR’s API on October 22, 2026, because the site’s web pages block scripted access; HUD’s design and construction pages on hud.gov returned errors when checked that day, so HUD guidance beyond the regulation is not summarized here.
Under 100.205(f) through (h), a state or local law that includes the requirements satisfies them, but a state or local determination of compliance is not conclusive in enforcement, and stricter state or local laws still apply. Building code accessibility is covered in the ICC A117.1 guide and the IBC guide, and leasing offices and other public accommodations in a residential project in the 2010 ADA Standards guide.
Gather the site, building, and unit evidence
Collect the site plan with arrival points, parking, passenger loading, and walks, the civil grading plan, a site impracticality analysis if the design relies on one, building floor plans with entrances and elevators, the unit matrix showing which units are covered, unit plans and enlarged kitchen and bathroom plans, interior elevations, the door schedule, electrical plans for switches, outlets, and thermostats, bathroom blocking details, and the amenity and common area plans.
Record the safe harbor the design team names, because each one is complete on its own terms and mixing provisions from different safe harbors weakens the basis.
Trace the design requirements from the site into each unit
| Review question | Sources to compare | Decision to record |
|---|---|---|
| Coverage | Unit matrix, building plans, elevator plans, permit history | Record which buildings and units are covered and the first-occupancy and permit dates that place the project after the regulation’s dates. |
| Safe harbor | Code analysis, general notes, accessibility narrative | Confirm one HUD-recognized safe harbor is named and that notes do not mix provisions from different safe harbors or cite one not on the list. |
| Site and building entrance | Site plan, civil grading, impracticality analysis, building plans | Trace an accessible route from arrival points to each covered building entrance, and flag any reliance on site impracticality without a recorded basis. |
| Public and common use areas | Amenity plans, site plan, mail, trash, laundry, and parking plans | Check that each type of public or common use area connects to the route and is shown on an accessible plan. |
| Doors and route into the unit | Door schedule, unit plans, thresholds and details | Match door types and thresholds at unit entries, patios, and balconies to the schedule and details, and follow the route through each covered unit plan. |
| Controls, reinforcement, kitchens, and baths | Electrical plans, blocking details, enlarged kitchen and bath plans, elevations | Confirm controls are located per the chosen safe harbor, blocking appears at every bathroom that needs it, and kitchen and bath layouts match across plans and elevations. |
Unit doors continue in the door schedule checklist, switches and outlets in the electrical drawing checklist, grab bars and accessories in the toilet accessories specifications guide, the route as a whole in the accessibility checklist, and building types in multifamily projects.
Example: a unit type that changed after the matrix
Hypothetical example. A walk-up garden apartment complex with no elevators has a unit matrix listing every ground floor unit as covered. A late revision adds a step-down patio to one ground floor unit type, the bathroom blocking detail is referenced only on the accessible unit type, and the electrical plan for the revised unit moves the thermostat behind the kitchen counter.
The revised ground floor unit type is covered on the unit matrix but shows a step at the patio door, no reference to the bathroom blocking detail, and a thermostat located behind the counter on the electrical plan. Confirm the safe harbor the project follows and coordinate the unit plan, door details, blocking reference, and electrical plan.
The architect restores the covered unit features and coordinates the revision across disciplines. The finding is a document conflict; whether the building complies is for the design team and owner.
Review Fair Housing Act design requirements with Groundbook
Upload the current drawings and specifications to Groundbook, and state the edition, amendments, and review scope in your instructions. 24 CFR part 100 and HUD’s Fair Housing Act safe harbor documents are free federal publications: upload the regulation from the eCFR and the safe harbor the project follows, adding a licensed ICC copy where the safe harbor is an ICC code or standard and the license permits uploading it. See how Groundbook works with local and licensed codes.
Compare the unit matrix, code analysis and accessibility narrative, site plan, civil grading, any site impracticality analysis, building floor plans, amenity and common area plans, unit plans, enlarged kitchen and bathroom plans, interior elevations, door schedule and threshold details, electrical plans, and bathroom blocking details. Flag covered units missing from the matrix or shown with features that differ from it, a missing or mixed safe harbor, covered entrances with no accessible route from arrival points, common use areas off the route, unit entry, patio, or balcony doors with thresholds or types that conflict with the schedule, controls placed differently between plans, missing bathroom blocking references, and kitchen or bath layouts that differ between plans and elevations. Use the supplied 24 CFR 100.205 and safe harbor and cite both sources.
Groundbook links each potential finding to the sheets and documents involved. It does not decide coverage or site impracticality, measure the built units, or make a legal determination.
Document review does not certify Fair Housing Act compliance, and it does not replace the architect, an accessibility consultant, HUD, or legal advice.