InspectMind AI logo InspectMind
Back to Case Studies
Affordable HousingLIHTCMultifamily

147 Issues Found in 96-Unit Affordable Housing Project

UFAS accessibility conflicts, energy code violations, and structural coordination gaps surfaced in a LIHTC-funded garden-style apartment complex—before funding deadlines.

147
Issues Found
96
Units
LIHTC
Funding Type

Key Finding: UFAS Accessible Unit Count Error

Project plans showed 5 UFAS-accessible units (5.2%) but Section 504 requires minimum 5% of 96 units = 5 units, plus 2% hearing/vision = 2 additional units. Total 7 required, only 5 shown.

The Project

A 96-unit garden-style affordable housing development funded through Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) with HUD Section 504 requirements. The project consisted of 8 three-story walk-up buildings with a mix of 1, 2, and 3-bedroom units serving families at 60% AMI.

InspectMind's AI review cross-checked drawings against both IBC requirements and federal accessibility standards (UFAS, Section 504)—identifying compliance gaps that could have jeopardized tax credit funding and required costly redesign.

UFASSection 504IECC 2021Fair Housing

Sample Findings

AccessibilityFederal Accessibility Issues

CriticalUFAS Unit Count Shortage

Section 504 requires 5% mobility-accessible units (5 units) plus 2% sensory units (2 units) for 96-unit project. Plans show only 5 total accessible units—2 units short of federal requirement.

CriticalAccessible Route Grade Violation

Site plan shows accessible route at 6.5% grade for 80 feet—UFAS 4.3.7 limits running slopes to 5% maximum without handrails and level landings every 30 feet.

HighKitchen Clearance Deficiency

Accessible unit kitchen shows 42" between counters—UFAS 4.34.6.1 requires 60" minimum for wheelchair maneuvering in U-shaped kitchens.

EnergyEnergy Code Compliance

HighWindow-to-Wall Ratio Exceeded

Building A elevation calculations show 28% glazing but energy model assumes 25%—IECC prescriptive compliance based on incorrect WWR input.

HighInsulation Schedule Conflict

Wall section shows R-13 cavity insulation but specifications call for R-19 to meet Climate Zone 4 requirements. IECC Table R402.1.2 mandates R-20 or R-13+5ci.

StructuralStructural Issues

HighFoundation-to-Wall Anchor Conflict

Structural details show 1/2" anchor bolts at 48" O.C. but wood wall bracing schedule requires 5/8" anchors at 32" O.C. for shear wall segments.

MediumTruss Bearing Condition

Floor truss bearing shown on 2x4 flat plate but truss manufacturer requires minimum 3-1/2" bearing—need 2x4 on edge or 2x6 flat.

SiteSite & Civil Issues

HighAccessible Parking Count

Site shows 150 parking spaces with 4 accessible spaces (2.6%)—ADA requires minimum 5 accessible spaces for 101-150 total spaces (3.3%).

MediumDumpster Pad Location

Dumpster enclosure shown 15 feet from Building C bedroom windows—local zoning requires minimum 25 feet from residential windows.

Issue Categories

Federal Accessibility (UFAS/504)

Unit counts, accessible routes, kitchen/bath clearances

Energy Code Compliance

Insulation values, window ratios, HVAC efficiency

Structural Coordination

Anchors, bearing conditions, shear wall requirements

Site Development

Accessible parking, routes, grading, setbacks

Unit Design

Room dimensions, fixture clearances, storage requirements

Fair Housing

Adaptable features, accessible common areas, routes

Why These Issues Matter

Tax Credit Risk

LIHTC projects must demonstrate Section 504 compliance to receive tax credits. UFAS violations discovered during investor due diligence can delay or kill funding.

Funding Deadline Pressure

Affordable housing projects have strict funding deadlines. Redesign for accessibility violations can push projects past credit allocation windows.

147 issues surfaced before investor review
Section 504 compliance gaps identified
Energy code conflicts caught early
UFAS unit requirements verified

"The UFAS findings were exactly what we needed to catch before investor due diligence. We were 2 accessible units short of federal requirements—that would have been a major problem at closing. The energy code conflicts also would have come up at permit review."

— Project Manager, Affordable Housing Developer

First $100 covered

Reviewing an Affordable Housing Project?

Catch UFAS violations, Section 504 gaps, and coordination issues before investor due diligence.

  • 5+ issues or full refund
  • Results in hours
  • No demo required

5+ issues or full refund · No demo required

Sample report: 282 issues found|Pricing after first check

227,181+ customer-visible issues across 2,000+ customer accounts