HUD now measures the one-year administrative complaint deadline for original design and construction violations from a covered dwelling’s initial certificate of occupancy, under its August 31 memorandum. That interpretation does not settle the deadline for every private lawsuit or excuse an owner’s separate discriminatory conduct. Acquisition teams therefore need both the occupancy history and the details of any alleged violation.

What HUD announced on September 1

HUD announced replacement guidance on September 1, 2026. The memorandum, dated August 31, took effect immediately and superseded contrary limitations guidance, including in HUD’s Design Manual. HUD and DOJ had already rescinded the limitations answer—Question 59—in their 2013 joint statement, effective August 13, 2026.

Congress already provided a one-year administrative filing period after a discriminatory housing practice occurs or terminates. What changed is HUD’s interpretation of when an original design and construction violation ends. The memorandum treats construction as a discrete act: under HUD’s reading, an inaccessible feature’s continued existence does not keep that violation alive indefinitely.

For teams following housing regulatory developments, the change concerns the clock’s starting event. An expired filing period does not establish that a building meets accessibility standards.

Which construction complaints does the guidance address?

The guidance addresses alleged violations of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(C). The underlying requirements cover multifamily dwellings designed and constructed for first occupancy after March 13, 1991: all units in buildings with four or more units and an elevator, and ground-floor units in buildings with four or more units without an elevator. Public and common-use areas are also covered, as described in questions 1–2 of the HUD–DOJ joint statement.

The statute requires accessible common areas, sufficiently wide doors and specified features inside covered units, including accessible routes, reachable controls, bathroom-wall reinforcement and usable kitchens and bathrooms. Those substantive construction requirements remain relevant when evaluating plans and completed work.

Private lawsuits have a separate clock

A private Fair Housing Act action generally has a two-year filing period after the discriminatory practice occurs or terminates. The statute excludes time during which an administrative proceeding concerning the same practice is pending; that exclusion does not apply to actions arising from a conciliation-agreement breach. 42 U.S.C. § 3613(a).

HUD also advocates an initial-occupancy trigger for private construction claims in footnote 36 of its memorandum, but that position does not bind courts. Courts exercise independent judgment on statutory interpretation, as the Supreme Court explained in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo in 2024.

For readers tracking court decisions affecting housing, two opinions show why the precise triggering event matters:

• Garcia v. Brockway: The Ninth Circuit’s 2008 en banc decision measured completion of the design-and-construction phase by the last certificate of occupancy. It rejected treating an uncorrected defect as a continuing violation, while preserving the possibility of extending the deadline through equitable tolling when its requirements are met. Court opinion.
• Fair Housing Council v. Village of Olde St. Andrews: The Sixth Circuit’s unpublished 2006 decision used the sale of the last noncompliant unit for the development-wide practice alleged there. It expressly limited its holding to the facts and did not decide the limitations issue for rentals of newly constructed multifamily housing. Court opinion.

HUD’s instruction uses the initial certificate for the covered dwelling; Garcia refers to the last certificate. Preserve the full certificate sequence so counsel can evaluate the governing rule and construction history.

Which accessibility duties and claims remain?

Owners still must assess requests for necessary reasonable accommodations in policies, practices or services, and for permission to make necessary reasonable modifications. Under the Fair Housing Act’s modification provision, the resident generally bears the expense; other applicable laws can impose different requirements. These duties are stated separately from the original construction requirements in § 3604(f)(3)(A)–(C).

An owner’s involvement also matters. In Harding v. Orlando Apartments in 2014, the Eleventh Circuit rejected an attempt to establish a subsequent owner’s discrimination merely by pointing to original construction deficiencies when that owner had no role in design or construction. That holding does not excuse an owner’s independent discriminatory acts.

HUD’s memorandum preserves two further qualifications: timely acts within an alleged pattern or practice may permit consideration of related older conduct, and the guidance does not alter the Attorney General’s enforcement timeframe. See footnote 35 and the conclusion. The Attorney General retains separate authority over qualifying pattern-or-practice and general-public-importance cases.

Other accessibility laws may also apply, including the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and state or local requirements. Their coverage needs separate assessment; DOJ’s building-code guidance explains how these obligations can overlap.

What an acquisition team should establish

For multifamily ownership and investment decisions, obtain the actual occupancy documents for each relevant building. A marketing brochure’s construction year cannot resolve which certificate covered which dwelling, whether construction occurred in phases, or what an earlier temporary certificate authorized.

The certificate is not conclusive proof of Fair Housing Act compliance, either. Section 3604(f)(6)(B) expressly says state and local compliance determinations are not conclusive in enforcement proceedings.

Hypothetical acquisition: A buyer acquires a building in August 2026. Its initial certificate was issued June 1, 2024. A HUD complaint filed September 3, 2026 alleges only an original inaccessible doorway. Assuming no separate timely conduct or tolling issue, applying HUD’s stated interpretation places that complaint outside the one-year window. The acquisition date does not restart the original construction clock.

Suppose instead that the complaint challenges the manager’s August 2026 refusal of a disability-related parking-policy accommodation. That allegation concerns a later decision under the Act’s reasonable-accommodation provision; the 2024 construction date does not resolve it.

Ask the seller for the underlying complaints and responses, accommodation and modification records, accessibility assessments, and any settlement or correction commitments. Those documents help identify conduct and obligations that an occupancy date alone cannot establish.

Before relying on a limitations defense in a purchase, have fair-housing counsel assess the specific allegations, occupancy history, governing precedent and prior proceedings. Keep the physical accessibility review alongside that legal analysis.