You fill out HUD Form 935.2A by completing all 10 parts of the Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plan (AFHMP), starting with applicant identity, project details, the housing market area demographics, the groups “least likely to apply,” and your specific outreach plan. You then sign, date, and submit it to your local HUD Multifamily Regional Center for approval before marketing begins.
The form exists because the Fair Housing Act of 1968 requires owners of HUD-assisted or HUD-insured multifamily housing with five or more units to actively reach renters who would be least likely to apply without special outreach. According to HUD’s 2023 fair housing data, more than 34,000 housing discrimination complaints were filed that year, showing why this affirmative marketing duty matters more than ever.
Here is what you will learn in this guide:
- 📋 How to complete every line of Form HUD-935.2A without triggering rejection
- 🏘️ How to define your Housing Market Area and identify “least likely to apply” groups using census data tools
- ⚖️ How federal rules under 24 CFR Part 200 Subpart M shape your duties
- 🧑💼 Real examples from a nonprofit sponsor, a for-profit syndicator, and a rural developer
- 🚫 The seven biggest mistakes that get AFHMPs sent back for revision
What HUD Form 935.2A Is and Who Must File It
Form HUD-935.2A is the Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plan for multifamily housing projects with five or more units. The form puts into action the affirmative marketing duty that comes from Section 808(e)(5) of the Fair Housing Act. HUD uses the plan to confirm that an owner will reach every protected class, not only the renters who walk in on their own.
The duty applies to a broad list of projects under federal law, including FHA-insured multifamily loans like Sections 221(d)(4) and 223(f), Section 8 project-based contracts, Section 202 elderly housing, Section 811 disability housing, and projects layered with Low-Income Housing Tax Credits. Owners who skip the form can lose financing, face program suspension, and trigger an investigation by the HUD Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity.
A common myth is that the plan is “one and done.” In reality, HUD Handbook 8025.1 requires owners to review the plan at least every five years, and to update it sooner if the market changes, ownership shifts, or HUD asks for revisions. Sarah, a nonprofit sponsor in Ohio, learned this when her 2019 AFHMP triggered a REAC finding because she never refreshed it after a 2024 census update.
Who Signs and Files the Form
The owner of record signs the form, not the management agent, although the agent often drafts the content. The signature line in Part 10 certifies that the owner takes personal responsibility for the affirmative marketing duties. Filing happens through the assigned HUD Multifamily Regional Center, and the plan must be approved before any marketing or leasing starts.
Owners using HUD’s iREMS system upload a scanned copy. Carlos, a for-profit syndicator in Arizona, missed his closing date because he submitted the form after his marketing began, which violated 24 CFR § 200.620. The consequence was a 60-day delay and a forced republishing of his outreach materials.
Programs That Trigger Form 935.2A
The form covers nearly every multifamily HUD program. That includes new construction, substantial rehab, refinancing, and resyndication when the federal involvement crosses HUD’s thresholds in 24 CFR § 200.610. Even a risk-share loan with a state housing finance agency can trigger the duty.
A misconception is that LIHTC alone triggers the form, but tax credits without HUD involvement only require state agency marketing rules, not Form 935.2A. However, when HUD financing layers onto LIHTC, the federal rule controls. James, a rural developer in Kentucky, learned this when his USDA Section 538 loan combined with a HUD risk-share refinance, which dragged the project into 935.2A territory.
Part-by-Part Walkthrough of Form HUD-935.2A
The form is divided into 10 numbered parts, plus a signature block. Each part feeds the next, so skipping a line in Part 5 makes Part 7 impossible to defend. Following HUD’s 935.2A instructions line by line is the safest way to keep your plan moving.
The plan must match what the owner actually plans to do. HUD reviewers compare the words in the plan to the marketing receipts during a later Management and Occupancy Review. If your plan promises Spanish-language radio ads but your file shows only English flyers, the consequence is a finding of noncompliance and a corrective action plan.
Part 1: Applicant and Project Identification
Part 1 asks for the applicant’s legal name, address, and contact details. You also list the project name, the FHA project number, the number of units, the unit mix, and the rent levels. The plain meaning is simple: HUD must know exactly which project the plan covers.
The consequence of mismatched names between Part 1 and the loan documents is automatic rejection. Maria, a developer in Texas, listed her management company as the “applicant” instead of the ownership LLC, which triggered a 30-day re-review. A misconception here is that the project name can be a marketing nickname, but HUD requires the legal project name as filed in iREMS.
Part 2: Type of Affirmative Marketing Plan
You check whether the plan is for a new project, an updated plan, or a plan submitted because of a change in ownership or marketing strategy. You also list the date of the previous plan if any. This box drives how HUD assigns the review tier.
The plain meaning is that HUD treats new plans, five-year updates, and emergency revisions differently. Skipping this box means HUD assumes a brand-new submission and may demand more demographic backup. A misconception is that a “minor update” lets you avoid resubmission, but HUD Handbook 8025.1 says even small changes require a fresh submission.
Part 3: Direction of Marketing Activity
Part 3 asks which protected classes you will direct outreach toward. The classes mirror the Fair Housing Act protected classes: race, color, religion, national origin, sex, familial status, and disability. Many states add more, like California’s FEHA protected classes of source of income, gender identity, and immigration status.
The plain meaning is that you check the boxes for groups least likely to apply without special outreach. The consequence of leaving boxes blank is that HUD assumes you have no outreach plan and rejects the form. A misconception is that owners can pick the easiest groups, but the data in Part 7 must justify each box you check.
Part 4: Housing Market Area
You define the Housing Market Area, often shortened to HMA. The HMA is the geographic zone from which the project draws most of its renters. Most owners use a county, a Metropolitan Statistical Area, or a city as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau.
The consequence of a wrongly drawn HMA is fatal: if the HMA is too small, you exclude protected groups; if too large, your “least likely to apply” math becomes meaningless. A common myth is that HUD always accepts the county, but HUD’s AFHMP guidance says the HMA must match the actual renter draw shown in waitlists or local studies.
Part 5: Demographics of the Housing Market Area
In Part 5 you list the racial, ethnic, and other demographic breakdowns of the HMA. Most owners pull figures from American Community Survey data at the five-year estimate level. You compare project demographics to the wider HMA.
The consequence of using stale data, like 2010 census figures, is rejection on the spot because HUD requires the most recent five-year ACS pull. James, the rural Kentucky developer, used a 2015 ACS file in 2024 and had to redo the entire section. A misconception is that owners can skip Part 5 if the project is “small,” but every project of five units or more must complete it.
Part 6: Projected Resident Profile
Part 6 asks who you expect to live in the project once it is leased. You estimate by race, ethnicity, family status, age, and disability. These projections must connect to the demographics in Part 5 and the marketing in Part 8.
The consequence of inflated projections is a HUD finding that the plan is not credible. Sarah, the Ohio nonprofit, projected 95% white residents in a county that was 60% Black, which triggered a HUD FHEO referral. A misconception is that projections must “match” the HMA exactly, but HUD only wants reasonable, evidence-based estimates.
Part 7: Least Likely to Apply Analysis
Part 7 is the heart of the form. You name which protected groups are least likely to apply for housing at this project and explain why. This is where Cook County, Illinois data, for example, shows that white renters are less likely to apply to a Section 8 building in a majority-Black census tract.
The plain meaning is that HUD wants the owner to predict which protected groups will not hear about the unit through ordinary channels. The consequence of skipping this analysis is automatic rejection because every later part depends on it. A misconception is that the analysis can be a single sentence, but HUD’s AFHMP Toolkit calls for a paragraph of demographic reasoning per group.
Part 8: Marketing Program
Part 8 lists the specific outreach steps you will take. This includes media outlets, community contacts, brochures, languages, and timelines. Each step must connect to a “least likely to apply” group from Part 7.
The consequence of vague language like “we will advertise widely” is rejection. HUD wants names of newspapers, radio stations, and community groups, plus dates. A misconception is that a Facebook ad covers all groups, but HUD’s 2022 advertising guidance warns that algorithmic ad delivery can violate the Fair Housing Act.
Part 9: Fair Housing Poster and Equal Housing Opportunity Logo
Part 9 confirms that the Fair Housing Poster is displayed in the rental office and that all marketing carries the Equal Housing Opportunity logo, tagline, and slogan. You also confirm staff training on fair housing.
The consequence of a missing poster is a separate violation under 24 CFR § 110, with a fine for each day the poster is missing. A misconception is that a small website logo is enough, but the poster itself must hang in a visible place inside the leasing office.
Part 10: Evaluation, Records, and Signature
Part 10 promises to keep records of every outreach action for at least three years. You also agree to evaluate the plan and update it after five years or sooner if the market shifts. The owner signs and dates the form here.
The consequence of missing records during an audit is a finding of noncompliance plus a corrective action plan, often costing thousands in legal fees. A misconception is that emails count as records, but HUD wants tear sheets, screenshots, mailing lists, and dated logs. Carlos, the Arizona syndicator, lost his low-income housing tax credit allocation for one year because he could not show three years of marketing records.
Three Real-World Scenarios
The form’s rules feel abstract until you see them in action. The three named scenarios below show how owners apply the same form to different situations. Each row uses two columns to keep the logic clear.
Scenario 1: Nonprofit Sponsor Building Family Housing in Cook County, Illinois
Sarah’s nonprofit plans a 60-unit Section 202/811 mixed building in a Cook County tract that is 70% Black and 20% Hispanic. She must reach white, Asian, and disabled renters under HUD’s 2024 Cook County demographic profile.
| Step Sarah Takes | Consequence If Skipped |
|---|---|
| Pulls five-year ACS data from data.census.gov | HUD rejects Part 5 for outdated numbers |
| Lists Polish-language radio on WPNA 1490 AM | Polish renters never hear about the project |
| Adds Asian Americans Advancing Justice Chicago as a partner | Asian community remains “least likely to apply” |
| Trains staff on Section 504 disability rules | Disability complaint risk under Section 504 |
Scenario 2: For-Profit Syndicator Refinancing in Phoenix, Arizona
Carlos refinances a 120-unit Section 223(f) deal in a Phoenix tract that is 50% Hispanic. He must reach Black, white, and Native American renters listed in the Phoenix MSA ACS data.
| Action Carlos Takes | Risk If Skipped |
|---|---|
| Advertises in The Arizona Informant Black weekly | Black “least likely to apply” group ignored |
| Posts flyers at Native American Connections | Native American outreach gap |
| Uses bilingual leasing staff with HUD LEP guidance | Limited English Proficiency violation |
| Updates AFHMP within 90 days of refinance | Loan-level finding under 24 CFR § 200.620 |
Scenario 3: Rural Developer Doing New Construction in Eastern Kentucky
James builds 40 units of FHA 221(d)(4) housing in a county that is 96% white. He must focus outreach on Black, Hispanic, and disabled renters using the Kentucky Office of Vital Statistics demographic data.
| Plan Element | Outcome If Ignored |
|---|---|
| Partners with Kentucky Commission on Human Rights | No referral pipeline for protected classes |
| Advertises on WLOU 1350 AM Louisville Black radio | Black renters in regional draw miss listing |
| Adds Spanish flyers through Maxwell Street Legal Clinic | Hispanic LEP audience excluded |
| Logs every outreach contact for three years | HUD Handbook 8025.1 record violation |
Mistakes to Avoid When Filing Form 935.2A
Owners lose months and tens of thousands of dollars to AFHMP errors. The list below covers the most frequent traps that show up in HUD Office of Inspector General audits.
- Mistake 1: Using outdated census data. Pulling 2010 figures triggers automatic rejection because HUD requires the most recent five-year ACS file from data.census.gov.
- Mistake 2: Naming a vague Housing Market Area. Saying “the region” instead of a county or MSA leaves Part 4 unenforceable and breaks Part 7.
- Mistake 3: Vague marketing language. Phrases like “we will advertise widely” violate HUD’s specificity rule and lead to rejection.
- Mistake 4: Skipping the Equal Housing Opportunity logo. Leaving the logo off flyers violates 24 CFR § 109 and can void marketing.
- Mistake 5: Forgetting Limited English Proficiency outreach. Ignoring HUD’s LEP guidance creates a Title VI violation under 42 U.S.C. § 2000d.
- Mistake 6: Failing to keep three years of records. Missing logs and tear sheets create a finding during the next Management and Occupancy Review.
- Mistake 7: Submitting the plan after marketing begins. Marketing before HUD approval violates 24 CFR § 200.620 and forces a republishing of all materials.
- Mistake 8: Using only digital ads with algorithm targeting. Algorithmic delivery can exclude protected classes, as warned in HUD’s online advertising guidance.
- Mistake 9: Ignoring the five-year update rule. Failing to refresh the plan every five years violates HUD Handbook 8025.1 and can trigger contract termination.
Do’s and Don’ts of Form 935.2A
The do’s and don’ts below come from real HUD audit findings and reviewer feedback. Each point includes the why so the rule sticks.
Do’s:
- Do pull demographics from the latest five-year ACS, because HUD checks the data for currency before approving Part 5.
- Do list named newspapers and radio stations, because HUD’s AFHMP Toolkit requires specifics.
- Do partner with at least three community-based organizations, because diverse referral pipelines protect against bias claims.
- Do log every outreach action with date, contact, and result, because HUD Handbook 8025.1 requires three years of records.
- Do train all leasing staff annually on fair housing, because Part 9 ties staff training to plan compliance.
Don’ts:
- Don’t copy a plan from another project, because each Housing Market Area has unique demographics that drive the analysis.
- Don’t use the words “all races welcome” alone, because the Fair Housing Act demands affirmative outreach, not passive openness.
- Don’t omit the Equal Housing Opportunity slogan from flyers, because 24 CFR § 109 treats omission as a violation.
- Don’t begin marketing before HUD approval, because 24 CFR § 200.620 treats early marketing as noncompliance.
- Don’t ignore disability outreach, because Section 504 duties run alongside the Fair Housing Act.
Pros and Cons of Filing the AFHMP Yourself vs. Hiring a Consultant
Owners often debate whether to draft the AFHMP in-house or hire a fair housing consultant. The points below help you decide based on cost, speed, and risk.
Pros of doing it yourself:
- You save consultant fees, often $2,000 to $7,500, which is helpful for small nonprofits.
- You learn the HUD AFHMP Toolkit directly, which builds long-term compliance skill.
- You control the timeline, avoiding consultant scheduling delays.
- You know the local market better than an out-of-state consultant ever will.
- You build internal records that match your day-to-day marketing data.
Cons of doing it yourself:
- You risk rejection because in-house staff often miss the five-year ACS requirement.
- You may overlook LEP guidance and Title VI duties.
- You face longer review times when HUD asks for revisions.
- You could face personal liability if the owner signs off on a flawed plan.
- You may miss state overlays like California FEHA or New York Human Rights Law.
Key Federal Rules and Court Rulings That Shape Form 935.2A
The legal backbone of the form is the Fair Housing Act, reinforced by court decisions and HUD regulations. Knowing these rulings helps you defend your plan if a complaint is filed.
In Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, 576 U.S. 519 (2015), the Supreme Court confirmed that disparate impact claims are valid under the Fair Housing Act. The consequence is that an AFHMP that unintentionally excludes a protected group can still create liability. A misconception is that good intent is a defense, but the Court ruled that effects, not intent, drive disparate impact.
In Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (1982), the Court allowed fair housing testers to sue, which means an owner’s marketing can be tested by undercover applicants. The consequence is that vague AFHMPs invite testers from groups like the National Fair Housing Alliance. The plain meaning is that your marketing is always being watched.
The Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing rule under 42 U.S.C. § 3608 also pushes HUD recipients to take active steps to integrate housing. The consequence of ignoring AFFH duties is a Title VI compliance review by HUD. James, the Kentucky developer, faced AFFH questions when his project sat in a high-poverty census tract.
How HUD Reviews and Approves the Plan
After you submit Form 935.2A, the HUD Multifamily Regional Center reviews the plan within 30 days, although busy regions may take longer. Reviewers check Parts 4 through 8 most carefully because those parts drive enforcement.
The consequence of a rejected plan is a written deficiency letter, which usually gives the owner 30 days to fix the gaps. Common deficiencies include outdated census data, missing LEP outreach, and vague advertising lists. A misconception is that approval is permanent, but HUD can demand a revision at any time if the market shifts.
Approval letters arrive by email or through iREMS. The owner must keep the approval letter with the project’s permanent records under HUD Handbook 4350.3. Maria, the Texas developer, lost her approval letter and had to wait 45 days for a duplicate, which delayed her closing.
Recordkeeping and the Five-Year Update Cycle
The recordkeeping rule is one of the most-missed parts of the AFHMP world. 24 CFR § 200.625 requires owners to keep AFHMP records for at least three years and to update the plan at least every five years.
Records include tear sheets from newspapers, screenshots of digital ads, signed community partner letters, and dated outreach logs. The consequence of missing records during a Management and Occupancy Review is a corrective action plan, with possible referral to FHEO. A misconception is that digital records “live forever,” but cloud accounts can lapse, so HUD wants printed or PDF copies in the project file.
The five-year update is more than a refresh of the date. You must repull demographics, recheck “least likely to apply” groups, and update partner lists. Sarah’s nonprofit uses an annual calendar reminder so the five-year mark never sneaks up.
State Law Overlays You Cannot Ignore
While Form 935.2A is federal, state law adds extra duties in many places. California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act protects source of income, gender identity, and immigration status, which means a California AFHMP must reach those groups too.
New York’s Human Rights Law adds lawful occupation and military status as protected classes, while Texas Property Code Chapter 301 tracks federal classes but adds state enforcement teeth. The consequence of ignoring state overlays is a parallel state complaint on top of any HUD finding. A misconception is that HUD approval shields you from state law, but state agencies enforce their own rules independently.
Owners in Massachusetts, Washington, and Minnesota face especially detailed marketing rules. Carlos plans his Phoenix and Boston deals separately because Massachusetts requires extra outreach to LGBTQ+ renters. The plain meaning is to always check your state human rights agency before signing off on Part 8.
FAQs
Is HUD Form 935.2A required for all HUD-assisted projects?
Yes. All HUD-insured or HUD-assisted multifamily projects with five or more units must file Form 935.2A under 24 CFR Part 200 Subpart M.
Can a property manager sign Form 935.2A instead of the owner?
No. The owner of record must sign because Part 10 makes the owner personally responsible for affirmative marketing duties under HUD Handbook 8025.1.
Does the plan need updating if ownership changes?
Yes. Any change in ownership triggers a fresh AFHMP submission, even if the project’s marketing strategy looks identical to the prior plan.
Is a five-year review the only required update cycle?
No. Owners must also update sooner if the market shifts, demographics change, or HUD requests revisions during a Management and Occupancy Review.
Can digital advertising alone satisfy Form 935.2A?
No. HUD’s online advertising guidance warns that algorithmic targeting can exclude protected classes, so plans need print, radio, and community partner outreach too.
Is the Fair Housing Poster mandatory in the leasing office?
Yes. 24 CFR Part 110 requires the Fair Housing Poster to hang in a visible spot in every rental office.
Does LIHTC alone trigger Form 935.2A?
No. Tax credits without HUD financing follow state agency marketing rules, but LIHTC layered with HUD financing pulls the project under Form 935.2A.
Can owners use the same plan across multiple projects?
No. Each project has its own Housing Market Area and demographics, so HUD’s AFHMP Toolkit requires a tailored plan per project.
Is Limited English Proficiency outreach required?
Yes. HUD’s LEP guidance and Title VI require meaningful access for non-English speakers in your housing market area.
Can HUD reject a plan even after initial approval?
Yes. HUD can demand revisions at any time if demographics shift, marketing fails, or a fair housing complaint is filed under 42 U.S.C. § 3610.
Does the plan apply to projects refinancing into HUD?
Yes. Refinancing under programs like Section 223(f) crosses 24 CFR § 200.610 thresholds and triggers a fresh AFHMP submission.
Is owner self-certification of fair housing training enough?
Yes. Owners self-certify staff training in Part 9, but HUD reviewers may still ask for sign-in sheets or course completion records during audits.
Related reading
- How to Fill Out HUD Form 903.1 (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out HUD Form 903 (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out HUD Form 92417 (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out HUD Form 92433 (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out HUD Form 935.2 (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out HUD Form 9839-A (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out HUD Form 92005 (w/Examples) + FAQs