From: Abajian, Suzie
To: Cortes, Karen
Cc: Adjemian, Aram
Subject: FW: Agenda Item 8b on the City Council Agenda for January 30, 2023.
Date: Monday, January 29, 2024 5:15:24 PM
Attachments: 85e1ba6e-ed24-4d12-afa7-bfd072f4711f.png
Ownership-and-Management-of-Small-Multifamily-Rental-Properties-January-2024-Final.pdf image001.png
image002.png
image005.png
Suzie Abajian, Ph.D.| City Clerk | City of Glendale
613 East Broadway, Suite 110 | Glendale, CA | 818-548-2090 [email protected] | www.glendaleca.gov | Follow us!
From: Golanian, Roubik <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2024 3:30 PM
To: Garcia, Michael <[email protected]>; Calvert, Bradley <[email protected]>; Zovak, Peter <[email protected]>; Varpetian, Lucy <[email protected]>; Zadoryan, Sipan <[email protected]>
Cc: Abajian, Suzie <[email protected]>; Takhtalian, John <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Agenda Item 8b on the City Council Agenda for January 30, 2023.
Roubik Golanian , P.E. ● City Manager ● City of Glendale 613 E. Broadway, Suite 200 ● Glendale, CA 91206 ● 818-548-4844 [email protected] ● www.glendaleca.gov ● Follow us!
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Greg Astorian <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 2:49 PM
Subject: Agenda Item 8b on the City Council Agenda for January 30, 2023.
To: Brotman, Daniel <[email protected]
>, Kassakhian, Ardashes
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Paula Devine <[email protected]>, Najarian, Ara <[email protected]>, Roobik Goulanian <[email protected]>, David Kissinger <[email protected]>, Sevak Sohrabian ([email protected]) <[email protected]>, Carmen Arom ([email protected]) <[email protected]>
Honorable Mayor Brotman and Esteemed Members of the Glendale City Council:
The Glendale Association of Realtors® (GAOR) has thoroughly examined the proposed potential changes to the Rental Rights Program, as outlined in Exhibit One (1), Exhibit Two (2), and the Staff Report for Agenda Item 8b on the City Council Agenda for January 30, 2023.
Before delving into our stance on the proposed changes, considering previous discussions on the definition of Mom-and-Pop owners and ownership structures, we find it imperative to provide you with the UC Berkeley’s Terner Center Report dated January 2024, which offers insights into Mom-and-Pop ownership of small multifamily rental properties. The report is attached for your careful consideration. Three key extrapolations from the report are as follows:
First, the Terner Center categorizes Mom-and-Pop owners as those who own between five and 49 units. Therefore, a case could be made for the potential exemption of properties with 20 units and below from the ordinance. We support, at the very least, the exemption of two to four units from Rental Rights Ordinances without the owner residency requirement.
Second, the report reveals that 70 percent of the properties are owned by either individuals or more than one individual under an LLC. Only 9 percent of properties were held by an LLC where the majority owner was a corporate entity. Hence concern about corporations playing a significant role in the ownership of Mom-and-Pop rental properties is overstated.
Third, small multifamily properties often rent units at below-market-rate (BMR). 49 percent of property owners believe most, or all their units, are rented below market rate. This provides further rationale for exemption from the Rental Rights Ordinance(s).
Now, turning to GAOR’s stance on the proposed Rental Rights changes:
Uninhabitable Period under Just Cause for Eviction Renovation: We oppose any time over and above 30 days.
Notice Period: We support the state law, which mandates a 30-day notice for less than one year of residency and a 60-day notice for residency exceeding one year.
Pre-renovation assessment: We oppose this provision. The time for any assessment by a city-designated inspector should be the time of submission of the renovation application to the City of Glendale. A review by a professional city inspector should be a straightforward undertaking, eliminating the need for additional bureaucracy.
Appeals right by the Tenant: We oppose this provision. If a city-chosen professional inspector has reviewed and approved the permit application, the need for an appeal becomes moot. The scope of work and corresponding permit would have already been attached to a notice of eviction for major renovation.
City Oversight Permit for Major Rehabilitation: We support this provision.
Renovation Impact Assessment: Your staff has already recommended against this provision.
Notice to City and Tenant: We support this provision.
Financial Assistance Programs: We support the City of Glendale’s financial assistance to qualified tenants.
Legal Aid and Representation: We support this provision.
Qualified Tenant Definition: We are open to hearing more about this provision.
Thank you for your careful consideration of the points raised in this letter. We respectfully urge the City Council not to proceed with this proposal in the absence of recommendations made herein.
Sending you my best regards,
Greg Astorian, CCIM
Government Affairs Director | GAOR
Glendale Association Of Realtors®
C: 818-807-7428
O: 818-409-0040 Ext. 115
E: [email protected]
2016 President Glendale Association Of Realtors®
2015 Realtor Of The Year Glendale Association Of Realtors®
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: Sender intends this e-mail message and any attachments to be used only by the person(s) or entity to which it is addressed. This message may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. If the reader is not the intended recipient of this message or an employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you are prohibited from printing, copying, storing, disseminating or distributing this communication. If you received this communication in error, please delete it from your computer and notify the sender by reply e-mail.
Copyright 2024 Terner Center for Housing Innovation
For more information on the Terner Center, see our website at www.ternercenter.berkeley.edu
A TERNER CENTER REPORT - JANUARY 2024
The Ownership and
Management of Small
Multifamily Rental
Properties
New Insights on an Overlooked Part of the
Rental Market
AUTHORS:
SHAZIA MANJI, RESEARCH ASSOCIATE
NATHANIEL DECKER, TERNER AFFILIATE
A TERNER CENTER REPORT - JANUARY 2024
2 landlords responded to late or missed rent
payments during the pandemic; and 5)
small multifamily property maintenance
practices.
We find that small multifamily proper -
ties operate in a middle space between
the largely non-professionally-owned
single-family rental property market and
the largely professionally-managed large
multifamily sector. Our analysis also
underscores the role that these proper -
ties play in providing lower-cost rental
housing options in the U.S. and the impor-
tance of targeting preservation efforts to
this part of the market. We conclude with
implications and recommendations for
policymakers and practitioners seeking to
support housing stability for renters and
to ensure both housing quality and finan -
cial viability for small multifamily rental
properties.
Methodology
To better understand the characteris -
tics of the small multifamily rental stock,
the Terner Center surveyed the owners
and managers of 5- to 49-unit properties
nationwide. We sent surveys to a random
sample of 75,000 owners of small multi -
family properties across the country, solic-
iting landlords by mail and conducting
the survey online. Our sample of owners
was generated from a national dataset of
land parcels provided by ReGrid, sourced
from each county, and standardized using
the United States Postal Service database
of addresses. The survey was open for
a period of two months, with responses
recorded between July 1, 2022 and
September 1, 2022.
A total of 1,481 property owners and
managers responded, for a response
rate of about 2 percent. Approximately
42 percent of respondents did not fit the
Introduction
Small multifamily properties—which we
define as properties with five to 49 units—
make up about 17 percent of the nation’s
rental housing, totaling about 8.2 million
units across nearly 500,000 properties. 1
These properties are a significant source
of unsubsidized affordable housing. Rents
tend to be lower in small multifamily
properties compared to larger multifamily
properties of similar age and building
quality, and small multifamily proper -
ties are more likely to house low-income
tenants.
However, research on this segment of
the U.S. rental housing stock is scarce in
comparison to single-family rentals and
large multifamily properties. For poli -
cymakers and practitioners seeking to
preserve the affordability and financial
viability of this part of the rental market,
it is important to understand landlord
management practices, as well as who
owns these properties and their financial
motivations. For example, it is unclear
why landlords who own 5- to 49-unit prop-
erties charge lower rents than those who
own and manage larger properties. More
information is also needed to inform strat-
egies for meeting the capital needs of small
multifamily properties, given their distinct
ownership and management structures.
To better understand this part of the
housing market, the Terner Center fielded
a survey of the owners and managers of
small multifamily properties across the
country. This report provides a brief over-
view of our research methods, followed
by key findings from the survey in the
following areas: 1) who owns small multi -
family rental properties and why they own
them; 2) how landlords of small multi -
family properties screen and select tenants;
3) owners’ rent-setting practices; 4) how
A TERNER CENTER REPORT - JANUARY 2024
3 criteria for inclusion in our analysis. Some
no longer owned the property in question,
some sampled properties had fewer than
5 or more than 49 units, and some were
property types that were not multifamily
rentals, such as owner-occupied manufac-
tured housing communities. The findings
reflected in this paper come from anal -
ysis of 764 respondents who fit the survey
criteria and completed at least 50 percent
of the survey. All statistics in this brief were
weighted by property size to reflect the
national distribution of small multifamily
rental properties, using the U.S. Census’
2021 Rental Housing Finance Survey
(RHFS) data as the benchmark. However,
survey responses were not geographically
representative; small multifamily rental
properties in California were overrepre -
sented, while properties in New York were
underrepresented.2
The survey asked respondents to answer
questions about one specific property they
owned or managed. The survey asked
about a range of topics, including owner
and property characteristics, financing
and financial performance of the prop -
erty, property management practices, and
perceptions of public policies regulating
rental units. The survey sometimes asked
owners to reflect on the prior two years
(roughly mid-2020 to mid-2022); as a
result, responses capture owner practices
and experiences during the COVID-19
pandemic. Where relevant, we break down
responses according to the portfolio size
(9 units or less, 10–24 units, 25–49 units,
and 50 units or more), or the number of
units in the property (5–9, 10–14, 15–24,
25–49) to help distinguish between
owners of different scales and properties
of different sizes. Unless otherwise indi -
cated, comparisons between subgroups
are statistically significant at a p-value of
0.05 or 5%. Tests of statistical significance
are weighted and usually take the form
linear WLS regressions or χ² tests.
Findings
Owner Characteristics of Small
Multifamily Rental Properties
Properties’ ownership structures—such
as sole-proprietorships, limited liability
companies (LLCs), and real estate invest -
ment trusts (REITs)—affect how proper -
ties are taxed and managed. Large-scale
corporate apartment investors have typi -
cally shied away from small multifamily
properties, in part because small prop -
erties tend to have lower-income tenants
who move more frequently, and because
these properties are bought and sold less
often, and thus are less liquid, compared
to larger properties. 3 Even so, national
data suggests that the share of small
multifamily properties that are held by
individuals has been steadily diminishing
over time. 4 For example, the 2021 RHFS
reports that approximately a third of 5- to
24-unit properties were held by individ -
uals, compared to 65 percent of properties
in 2001. However, it is unclear whether
rising levels of corporate ownership are
driven by corporate consolidation within
the market or by small-scale owners estab-
lishing LLCs to shield themselves from
personal liability. To better understand the
ownership characteristics of small multi -
family rentals, our survey asked a series
of questions about property acquisition,
legal structure, and owner demographics.
Most small multifamily properties
were owned by individuals, although
they often established an LLC to hold
the property.
Like the RHFS, we found that 32 percent of
small multifamily properties were directly
held by one or more individuals—usually
one person or a married couple (Figure 1).
However, an additional 38 percent were
held by an LLC where the majority owner
A TERNER CENTER REPORT - JANUARY 2024
4 was one or more individuals. Only about 9
percent of properties were held by an LLC
where the majority owner was a corporate
entity, and another 8 percent were held
by a corporate owner directly without use
of an LLC. This pattern suggests that the
rising share of small multifamily proper -
ties owned by non-individuals has been
primarily driven by individual owners
establishing LLCs to hold their property,
instead of corporate consolidation.
Establishing an LLC offers property
owners a combination of tax flexibility and
protection from personal liability for prob-
lems at the rental property, such as tenant
injury from poor housing conditions.5 The
increase in LLC formation for property
ownership has implications for housing
quality and tenant safety. For example,
research on rental housing in Milwaukee
has found LLC ownership to be associated
with a higher likelihood of both formal
code violations and lasting disrepair,
particularly in lower-income neighbor -
hoods.6 Additional research and reporting
has highlighted the challenges of holding
LLC owners of severely distressed proper-
ties accountable for property neglect.7
Owners of small multifamily proper-
ties were a mix of professional, full-
time property owners and part-time,
non-professional property owners.
We found that about a quarter of proper -
ties were either owned by corporate enti -
ties or by self-described full-time investors
or managers (Figure 2). About a third of
properties were owned by retirees. Most
of the remainder were owned by self-em -
ployed people or people employed either
full-time or part-time in professions other
than the investment and management of
rental properties.
Figure 1. Share of Small Multifamily Properties by Ownership Structure
Notes: “Other corporate” includes Limited Partnerships, General Partnerships, Real Estate Invest- ment Trusts, and non-LLC Real Estate Corporations. “Other” includes non-profits, church-related institutions, labor unions, and a text write-in response option. N = 697. 0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
LLC held by individual(s)
Individual owner(s)
LLC held by corporate entity
Other corporate
Trustee Other
% of Properties
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 0
LLC
held by
individual(s)
LLC
held by
corporate
entity
Individual
owner
Other
corporate
Trustee Other
% of Properties
A TERNER CENTER REPORT - JANUARY 2024
5 Small multifamily rental property owner -
ship is largely a local activity. Around half
of properties (55 percent) were held by
owners who live less than eight miles away
from their rental, and owners of smaller
properties tended to live closer than
owners of larger properties. However,
some properties were owned by distant
owners: about 16 percent of small multi -
family properties were held by owners who
lived 100 miles or more from their rental.
Many owners rely on rents for their
personal income. Among properties where
the majority owner was an individual and
not a corporate entity, about ten percent
were held by owners who rely fully on
rents from the property to support their
income. Another 44 percent were held by
owners for whom rents comprised at least
half of their gross income (Figure 3).
Owners of small multifamily properties
were also often directly involved in the
day-to-day management of their rental
properties. We found that almost half of
properties (45 percent) were managed
entirely by the property owner. The
remainder were managed either by a
hired property management company or
a directly employed agent (e.g., a building
superintendent).
Owners’ descriptions of their reasons for
acquiring their rental property also show
the range of professionalism among this
part of the rental housing stock (Figure 4).
Owners of about 75 percent of properties
purchased their property primarily for the
rental income, and about 25 percent were
purchased for potential capital gains. Many
property owners reported that the income
from ownership of small multifamily prop-
Figure 2. Share of Small Multifamily Properties by Owner Employment Type
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Retired Corporate
entit y or
full-time
investor
Self-employed
(outside of
rental
investment)
E mployed
full time
(outside of
rental
investment)
Other E mployed
part time
(outside of
rental
investment)
% of Properties
Notes: N = 596. “Other” includes owners who described themselves as homemakers, full-time students, unable to work due to illness or disability, and those who are not full-time property managers but are also not currently employed in another job. 35 30
% of Properties
25 20
15 10
5 0
Retired Corporate
entity or
full-time
investor
Self-employed
(other than
rental
investment)
Employed
full time
(other than
rental
investment)
Employed
part time
(other than
rental
investment)
Other
A TERNER CENTER REPORT - JANUARY 2024
6 Figure 3. Percent of Owner Gross Income That Came from Rents in 2020
Notes: N = 599. Data represents owner income from the year 2020 and rental income from total residential property portfolio. Data excludes properties where the owner is a corporation rather than one or more individual investors.
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
None
1 to 9 percent10 to 24 percent25 t o 49 percent50 to 74 percent75 to 99 percent 100 percent
% of Properties
Figure 4. Owner Reason for Rental Property Acquisition
Notes: N = 709. Data does not total to 100 percent because survey respondents could select more than one reason for acquisition. % of Properties
25 20
15 10
5 0 None 1-9% 10-24% 25-49% 50-74% 75-99% 100%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
For rental income
For retirementFor capital gainsFor family security
For affordable housing
Other reason
Inher ite d
For tax shelter
For primary residence
% of Properties% of Properties
80 70
60 50
40 30
20 10
0 For
rental income
For
retirement
For
capital gains
For
family security
For
affordable
housing Other
reason
Inherited
For
tax shelter
For
primary
residence
A TERNER CENTER REPORT - JANUARY 2024
7 erties was part of their long-term financial
plans for their life and family. Forty-two
percent of properties were purchased as
part of the owner’s retirement plans, and
about a quarter were purchased for “family
security,” which included plans for their
family to eventually inherit the property.
About 10 percent of small multifamily
properties were inherited.
Owners of small multifamily prop-
erties were less demographically
diverse and had higher incomes than
the general population.
Among properties where the majority
owner was an individual and not a corpo -
rate entity, owners tended to be older
and were more likely to be male than the
general population. Two thirds of prop -
erties were held by owners 60 years or
older, and nearly 40 percent were held
by owners 70 years or older. Seventy-one
percent of properties were owned by men.
Owners were also less racially and ethni -
cally diverse than the U.S. population.
While 59 percent of the U.S. population in
2022 identified as non-Hispanic White, 82
percent of small multifamily rental prop -
erties were held by non-Hispanic White
owners. The remaining 18 percent were
owned by individuals who identified as
Hispanic (6.8 percent), Asian or Pacific
Islander (5.9 percent), Black (3.7 percent),
or some other race (1.7 percent).
Owners also had on average higher
incomes than that of the typical U.S.
household (Figure 5). The majority (55
percent) of small rental properties were
held by owners with annual gross incomes
at or above $175,000 for the year 2020.
Nearly 20 percent were held by owners
with an annual gross income of $500,000
or above. Only 12 percent were held by
those with an income under $85,000.
The older profile of small multifamily
property owners has implications for
future intergenerational wealth transfers.
Heirs can receive substantial tax benefits
from inheriting real estate, and many of
Figure 5. Owner Gross Income in 2020
Notes: N = 578. Data excludes properties where the owner is a corporation rather than one or more individual investors.
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Less than $15,000$15,000 to $49,999$50,000 to $84,999$85,000 to $124,999$125,000 to $174,999$175,000 to $499,999$500,000 to $999,999$1,000,000 or more % of Properties% of Properties
40 35
30 25
20 15
10 5
0 <$15,000 $15,000-
$49,999
$50,000-
$84,999
$85,000-
$124,999
$125,000-
$174,999
$175,000-
$499,999
$500,000-
$999,999
$1,000,000
or more
A TERNER CENTER REPORT - JANUARY 2024
8 the owners who reported acquiring prop -
erty for family security intend to pass their
property to their heirs.
Tenant Screening and Selection
Rental property owners used a variety
of methods to screen and select poten -
tial tenants when looking to fill a vacant
unit. Existing research shows that these
methods differ by property size and land -
lord type. For example, smaller scale
landlords are more likely to make deci -
sions based on subjective and less formal
screening mechanisms, such as personal
interviews with the applicant and home
visits. Institutional owners, however,
are more likely to use a routine selection
process that prioritizes a potential rent -
er’s income, credit history, and criminal or
eviction court records. 8 We asked owners
and managers a series of questions about
how they screen applicants and ultimately
select a tenant.
Most owners used multiple methods
to screen rental applicants, with vari-
ations based on portfolio size.
Owners and managers relied on multiple
screening methods—on average, five
distinct methods—when evaluating poten-
tial tenants. Employment verification,
responses to rental applications, and credit
checks were the most common methods,
and were each used during screening in
more than two thirds of properties (Figure
6). Personal interviews, proof of meeting
minimum income requirements, refer -
ences from a prior landlord or rental
agent, and criminal background checks
were common—used in more than half of
properties.
Consistent with existing literature, we
found that personal interviews and
personal references were used more often
by owners of smaller properties (those
containing 5 to 9 units), and that crim -
Figure 6. Screening Methods Used by Owners and Managers Notes: N = 751. Data does not total to 100 percent because survey respondents could select more than one screening method.
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 Employment ver ification
Application responses
Cr edit chec ks
Personal interviews
Proof of income
Landlord references
Criminal background check
Personal references
Online screening service
% of Properties% of Properties
80 70
60 50
40 30
20 10
0 Employment
verification
Application
responses
Credit
checks
Proof of
income
Landlord
references
Personal
references
Online screening
service
Criminal
background
checkPersonal
interviews
A TERNER CENTER REPORT - JANUARY 2024
9 inal background checks were used more
often by owners of larger properties (those
containing 25 to 49 units). 9 Owners with
larger rental property portfolios (50 or
more units across multiple buildings)
were more likely to use third party online
screening services (such as RentPrep or
RentSpree) that bring together data on a
renter’s income, credit, evictions and crim-
inal records, and then produce a report or
score that describes how “risky” the appli-
cant would be to rent to.
When asked which screening method
was most important, property owners
were split. Owners of about a quarter of
properties said that credit checks were the
most important tool they use, followed
by proof of income (17 percent), personal
interviews (15 percent), and references
from prior landlords or rental agents
(11 percent). While credit checks were
the most important screening method
among properties of all sizes, owners of
smaller properties were more likely to
prioritize what they learned from personal
interviews with applicants than owners
of larger properties. Among the 5- to
9-unit properties surveyed, 20 percent
of owners said personal interviews were
the most important screening method
used, compared to 7 percent among 25- to
49-unit properties surveyed.
Descriptively, we also found that the
importance of credit checks grew with the
size of the owner’s portfolio, though this
was not statistically significant (Figure
7). Third-party online screening services
were more important as portfolio sizes
increased. Among properties held by
owners with fewer than ten units in their
entire rental portfolio, a similar share
of owners (23 percent and 21 percent)
reported that credit checks and personal
interviews were the most important
method employed. Among larger portfolio
owners (those with 50 units or more across
multiple buildings), 13 percent said that
online screening services were the most
important method used, compared to only
5 percent among owners with fewer than
ten units.
Figure 7. Most Important Screening Method Used, by Portfolio Size Notes: N = 613. Only the top five most important methods across all properties are included in the chart above. Employment references, personal references, application responses, and criminal background checks are excluded.
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Cr edit chec k Proof of
inco me
Personal
interviews
Landlord
references
Online
screening
service
% of Properties
9 units or fewer
10-25 units
25-49 units
50 units or more
% of Properties
35 9 units or fewer
10-24 units
25-49 units
50 units or more
30 25
20 15
10 5
0 Credit
check
Proof of
income
Personal
interviews
Landlord
references
Online
screening
service
A TERNER CENTER REPORT - JANUARY 2024
10 Rent Setting Practices
Small multifamily properties are an
important source of unsubsidized afford -
able housing. Rents in 5- to 49-unit prop -
erties are, on average, lower than compa -
rable units in larger properties, often in
part because small multifamily properties
are older or because the units tend to be
lower quality. 10 However, these physical
characteristics explain only part of the
differences in rent between small and
large multifamily properties. To better
understand what is driving the difference
in rents, we asked owners about their
rent setting practices, including questions
about how their rents compare to their
local housing market and what factors
they consider when deciding how much to
charge tenants for rent.
Below market rents are common
among small multifamily properties.
Owners reported keeping rents low,
primarily to prevent or reduce tenant
turnover.
We found that small multifamily proper -
ties often rent units at below market-rate
(BMR). Owners of nearly half (49 percent)
of properties reported that they believe
most or all of their units are rented below
market rate, and about a third of proper -
ties were reported as having an even split
of above and below market-rate units.
Owners of about 20 percent of properties
reported that most or all their units rented
at approximately market-rate (Figure 8).
In comparing reported property rents
with the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD)’s Fair Market
Figure 8. Owner-Reported Rent Levels
Notes: N = 724. “About market rate” was described to respondents as within $50/month of the market rate for similar units.
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 Most or all
units below
market
Ha lf bel ow ,
half above
market
Most or all
units about
market
Don't know
% of Properties% of Properties
60 50
40 30
20 10
0 Most or all
units below
market
Half below,
half above
market
Most or all
units above
market
Don’t know
A TERNER CENTER REPORT - JANUARY 2024
11 Rent (FMR) levels, we found that owners
who believed their rents were below
market were generally correct: average
rents for these units ranged between 63
percent and 81 percent of the local HUD
FMR levels, which are themselves set
below average market rents.11
Among properties reported as having
any below market-rate units, most (63
percent) rented below market so that
the owner could retain good tenants and
prevent turnover (Figure 9). Owners of
37 percent of properties with BMR units
reported that they take into consideration
what they believe their tenants are able to
pay consistently.
Owners of 41 percent of properties with
BMR units cited some “other” reason
for renting below market. The write-in
responses to this question largely reflected
policy restrictions on rent increases
designed to protect tenants, such as rent
control and stabilization laws and/or rent
freezes during the COVID-19 pandemic
that were in effect at the time the survey
was administered. 12 Some respondents
indicated that the lower rents charged
reflected the specific condition of the prop-
erty—for example, small size, old age, or
the need for significant improvements—
or Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) and the United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
subsidy program regulations.13
Owners of most properties consider
market rents when deciding how
much to charge; however, in about
one third of properties, owners
reported rarely changing rents for
continuing tenants.
We asked owners and managers about
the factors they consider when setting
rents for vacant and occupied units. At
tenant turnover, owners of nearly 90
percent of properties looked to some indi-
cator of the market rate—such as locating
Figure 9. Owner Reason for Renting Units Below Market-Rate Notes: N = 584. Data does not total to 100 percent because survey respondents could select more than one reason for renting units below market-rate.
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
Retain good
tenant s
Other
reason
Ensu re
tenant can
pay
Changes to
market due
to CO VID- 19
Revenue not
needed by
owner
Tenant
provides
services
% of Properties% of Properties
70 60
50 40
30 Retain good
tenants
Other
reason
Ensure
tenant can
pay
Changes to
market due
to COVID-19
Revenue not
needed by
owner
Tenant
provides
services
20 10
0 A TERNER CENTER REPORT - JANUARY 2024
12 Figure 10. Most Important Factors Considered by Owner When Setting Rents for Vacant Units
print or online listings for similar units
in their area, or considering neighbor -
hood demand for housing—when deciding
where to set rents (Figure 10). However,
when setting rents for continuing tenants,
owners were much less likely to look to the
market. When setting rents on occupied
units, owners of about half of properties
(53 percent) reported taking the market
rate into consideration (Figure 11). For
both vacant and occupied units, about 40
percent (41 and 44 percent, respectively)
reported taking expenses into consider -
ation when setting rents, for example by
adjusting the previous year’s rent for infla-
tion, or by looking at the previous year’s
operating costs.
For nearly a third of all properties,
owners reported rarely changing the
rents for occupied units. Both COVID-19-
related restrictions on rent increases—for
example, local ordinances in California
(like those passed by the City of Los
Angeles and Contra Costa County) that
prohibited rent increases for certain
residential properties—and increases in
rent delinquencies incurred throughout
the pandemic likely factored into rent-
setting decisions during this time period.14
For 27 percent of properties, owners
reported that continuing tenants were
paying the same amount in rent, or in
some cases less, in 2022 than they were
paying in March 2020 (Figure 12). Rents
for occupied units were increased up to
five percent in 31 percent of properties. At
turnover and for occupied units, owners
of about 30 percent (32 and 31 percent,
respectively) of properties reported raising
the rents 5–10 percent.
N = 716. “Factors related to market conditions” include rents for similar units, demand for rental units in the area, and the use of a third-party service that calculates the market rent. “Factors related to property expenses” include adjusting the previous year’s rent for inflation, and factoring in operating costs from the previous year. “Other” write-in responses to this question largely reflect policy restrictions on rent increases designed to protect tenants, for example rent control and stabilization laws. Data does not total to 100 percent because survey respondents could select more than one reason for acquisition.
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Factors related
to mark et
conditions
Factors related
to property
expenses
Effect on
turno ver
Other factor
% of Properties% of Properties
Factors
related to
market
conditions
Effect on
turnover
Other factor
100
90 80
70 60
50 40
30 20
10 0 Factors
related to
property
expenses
A TERNER CENTER REPORT - JANUARY 2024
13 Figure 11. Most Important Factors Considered By Owner When Setting Rents for Occupied Units
Notes: N = 716. “Factors related to market conditions” include rents for similar units, demand for rental units in the area, and the use of a third-party service that calculates the market rent. “Factors related to property expenses” include adjusting the previous year’s rent for inflation, and factoring in operating costs from the previous year. “Other” write-in responses to this question largely reflect policy restrictions on rent increases designed to protect tenants, for example rent control and stabilization laws. Data does not total to 100 percent because survey respondents could select more than one reason for acquisition.
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 Indicator of market rateIndicator of expensesRents rarely changed Effect on turnover
Tenant-specif ic rea son
Other factor
Tenant ability to afford…
% of Properties% of Properties
0 Factors
related to
market
conditions
Factors
related to
property
expenses
Rents
rarely
changed
Effect
on
turnover
Tenant-
specific
reason
Other
factor
Tenant
ability to
afford
increase
10 20
30 40
50 60
Figure 12. Owner-Reported Rent Changes, 2020–2022
Notes: N = 724. Respondents were instructed to select “Not applicable” for occupied units if there were no current tenants at the property surveyed in March 2020, and at turnover if there had been no turnovers in the past two years.
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
Reduced or stayed the same
Increased less than 5%
Increased 5-10%
Increased 10% or more
Not Applicable
% of Properties
Turnover
Occupied
% of Properties
Reduced or
stayed the
same
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 0 Increased
less than 5%
Increased
5-10%
Increased
more than 10%
N/A
Turnover
Occupied
A TERNER CENTER REPORT - JANUARY 2024
14 Missed Rent Policies
Given the role that small multifamily
properties play in providing unsubsidized
below market-rate housing options, it is
critical to understand how owners respond
to missed rent payments, particularly
during financial crises like the COVID-19
pandemic. Research has found mixed
patterns of owner responses to missed
rent payments and use of evictions based
on owner portfolio and property size.
Studies of landlord behaviors have found
that larger-scale owners are more likely
to file for eviction than smaller-scale
landlords, who may prefer to pursue
alternative options to avoid the cost and
inconvenience of tenant turnover. Larger-
scale landlords are more likely to use the
threat of eviction through serial filing as
a way to collect unpaid rent. 15 However, a
recent study of landlord responses during
the pandemic—drawing on surveys of
renters in Los Angeles County—found
that smaller landlords were more likely
to threaten or initiate evictions, and that
the threat of eviction increased as tenants
fell further behind on payments.16 Another
survey of small rental property owners
fielded during the pandemic also found
that landlords expected to pursue evictions
as tenant arrears increased.17
Most properties saw an increase in
late or delinquent rent payments
during the pandemic; owners of
about a quarter of properties faced
moderate to severe cash flow prob-
lems as a result.
The economic impacts of the COVID-19
pandemic were particularly acute for
renters, who were more likely to hold jobs
in the industries most impacted by the
restrictions put in place to help curb the
spread of COVID-19.18 As a result, low-in -
come and non-White—particularly Black
and Hispanic—renter households were
far more likely to have lost employment
income and to have experienced chal -
lenges keeping up with rent payments.19
We found that owners of 58 percent of
small multifamily properties experienced
an increase in rent delinquency during the
pandemic. When asked about the degree
to which they experienced financial chal -
lenges resulting from nonpayment of rent,
owners of most properties (73 percent)
reported that they faced only minor
cash flow problems. Nevertheless, over
a quarter faced moderate or serious cash
flow issues (19 and 9 percent, respectively).
This aligns with other research that has
shown that loss of rental income because
of the pandemic contributed to financial
stress for rental property owners, particu -
larly among smaller-scale landlords.20
Forty-five percent of owners
reported applying or helping tenants
apply for rental assistance as a
means of addressing late rent.
Rental property owners have a range of
options to choose from when deciding
what to do when a tenant misses a rent
payment, such as offering rent repayment
plans, beginning collection proceedings,
asking the tenant to leave, and/or filing
for eviction. During the pandemic, federal
and local eviction moratoria limited
owners’ ability to evict tenants unable to
pay their rent, and tenants and landlords
could apply for rent relief options through
the federal Emergency Rental Assistance
program (ERA). 21 Though millions of
tenants and landlords have benefited from
these funds, rollout and disbursement was
slow and uneven across the country, with
many renters not receiving the assistance
they needed.22
A TERNER CENTER REPORT - JANUARY 2024
15 Owners of small multifamily properties
responded to missed rent payments in
a variety of ways. Seeking rental assis -
tance was the most common action taken
(Figure 13). Owners of 45 percent of prop-
erties reported applying for rental assis -
tance directly or helping their tenants to
apply for rental assistance in response to
late rent. About 50 percent further speci -
fied that at least one of their tenants used
ERA to help pay rent owed. We found that
owners with larger portfolios—who were
more likely to use property management
software and other forms of technology—
were more likely to direct tenants to rental
assistance (Figure 14). These findings are
consistent with previous Terner Center
research on the practices of owners of small
rental properties (those with 1- to 4-units),
which similarly found that larger scale and
more professional owners accessed rental
assistance at higher rates than those with
smaller portfolios.23
Evictions were pursued in a third
of small multifamily properties in
response to unpaid rent during the
pandemic.
The U.S. Supreme Court brought an end
to the Biden administration’s eviction
moratorium in August of 2021, and
while many states and local governments
imposed their own eviction and tenant
protection policies to help renters stay
housed, the rollback of federal protections
coupled with lack of awareness of rent
relief programs left many tenants with
large accumulations of back rent owed
and vulnerable to eviction. 24 We found
that owners of one third of properties
began eviction procedures for missed rent
payments in the two years prior to the
survey (Figure 13). Owners with larger
portfolios were more likely to pursue
evictions. These larger-scale owners were
Figure 13. Owner Responses to Rent Delinquency During the COVID-19 Pandemic
Notes: N = 543. Data does not total to 100 percent because survey respondents could select more than one response to rent delinquency.
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 Ap ply for re ntal assi stance
Offer payment plan
Beg in evictio n procedures
Initiate collection proceedingsRefer tenants to loan sources Ask tenant to leave
Wai t f or te na nt to pa y
% of Properties% of Properties
50 45
40 35
Apply for
rental
assistance
Offer
payment
plan
Begin
eviction
procedures
Initiate
collection
proceedings
Refer
tenant to
loan sources
Ask
tenant to
leave
Wait for
tenant to
pay
30 25
20 15
10 5
0 A TERNER CENTER REPORT - JANUARY 2024
16 Notes: N = 518. Data does not total to 100 percent because survey respondents could select more than one response to rent delinquency.
Figure 14. Owner Responses to Rent Delinquency by Portfolio Size more likely to take any kind of action to
address unpaid rent, ranging from seeking
rental assistance and offering their tenants
payment plans to filing for eviction and
initiating collection proceedings (Figure
14).
Landlords may also pursue evictions for
reasons unrelated to rent delinquency,
such as for violations of lease terms or
property damage. We found that tenant
eviction procedures were initiated—for
any reason—at 41 percent of small multi -
family properties at some point during
the pandemic. Among properties where
the owner pursued eviction, 22 percent
reported filing for eviction more than once
on the same tenant. Although not statis -
tically significant, the practice of filing
multiple times against a single tenant
was slightly more likely among properties
where the owner reported serious cash
flow problems. Evictions were also not
uncommon among properties only experi-
enced minor cash flow issues.25
Maintenance Practices
According to the U.S. Census’ 2021 Amer -
ican Housing Survey, over 3.8 million
rental homes are of severely or moder -
ately inadequate quality. These units are
disproportionately home to lower-income
households, and about a third of them are
located in 5- to 49-unit structures.26 Small
multifamily properties are, on average,
older than large multifamily properties.
Many need capital for maintenance and
renovations, but given documented gaps
in financing for small multifamily rentals
that capital may be difficult to obtain. 27
The confluence of these factors raises
questions about the preservation of units
and maintenance of affordability among
this part of the stock, and concerns around
habitability for tenants. To better under -
stand maintenance needs among small
multifamily properties, we asked a series
of questions about owner approaches to
maintenance.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Apply for rental
assistance
Offe r payment
plan
Begin eviction
procedures
Initiate
collection
proceedings
% of Properties
< 10 units
10- 24 uni ts
25-49 units
50+ units
% of Properties
Apply for
rental
assistance
70 60
50 40
30 20
10 0
<10 units
10-24 units
25-29 units
50+ units
Offer
payment
plan
Begin
eviction
procedures
Initiate
collection
proceedings
A TERNER CENTER REPORT - JANUARY 2024
17 Notes: N = 753. Owners of about 0.5 percent of properties report not knowing the physical condi - tion of the property, not included in the chart above.
Most properties were in good or
excellent condition according to
their owners; however, more than
a quarter of properties needed
substantial improvements.
We found that owners believed the
majority (71 percent) of properties were
in either good or excellent condition, with
only minor work or improvements needed.
Twenty-eight percent of small multifamily
properties were reported as being in either
fair or poor condition, with substantial
work needed either soon (within the next
three years) or immediately (Figure 15).
Owners of one in five properties reported
that they did not conduct regular unit
inspections to check for health and safety
issues or other problems. Older properties
were more likely to be in worse condition
and need substantial work than newer
stock, and better property conditions were
also associated with higher rent levels.
Figure 15. Current Physical Condition of Small Multifamily Properties Owners of 25 percent of properties
admitted to postponing maintenance
of some kind; properties with owners
facing serious cash flow problems
were more likely to report deferring
most maintenance.
While most owners reported handling
maintenance issues immediately, owners
of one in four properties admitted to post-
poning maintenance of some kind. Minor
maintenance issues were deferred in 21
percent of properties, and most mainte -
nance work was postponed in another 4
percent of properties. This could reflect
changes in landlord behavior resulting
from the COVID-19 pandemic—prior
surveys of landlords have found that rental
property owners cut expenses and deferred
maintenance during the pandemic, partic-
ularly in low-income areas. 28 Properties
that faced serious cash flow problems as a
result of late or nonpayment of rent were
more likely to report deferring most main-
tenance, potentially exacerbating inade -
quate housing quality (Figure 16).
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
Excellent,
needs no work
Good, needs
minor work
Fair, will need
substantial
work soon
Poor, needs
substantial
work now
% of Properties
% of Properties
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
Excellent,
needs no
work
Good,
needs minor
work
Fair,
will need
substantial
work soon
Poor,
needs
substantial
work now
A TERNER CENTER REPORT - JANUARY 2024
18 Conclusion
Our survey was designed to provide insight
into the small multifamily (5–49 unit)
rental property stock, including owner -
ship structures and owner characteris -
tics, and the practices owners use to select
tenants, set rents, and maintain their
properties. Because this survey was fielded
in 2022 and in some cases asked owners to
reflect on management practices over the
prior two years, data from this survey also
represents the experiences of and actions
taken by property owners throughout the
COVID-19 pandemic, which had profound
impacts on the economic and housing
stability of renters across the U.S.
Our analysis shows that small multi -
family properties operate in a middle
space between the professionally-main -
tained large multifamily sector and the
largely non-professionally-owned 1- to
4-unit rental property market. Most small
multifamily properties are owned and
controlled by individuals, even when these
individuals establish an LLC to hold the
property. Rental property owners in this
subset of the housing stock have a range of
incomes, employment statuses, and levels
of involvement in property management.
Some appear to be real estate professionals,
relying on rents for their personal income
and spending most of their working time
on property investment and management.
Many others have very small portfolios
and are only part-time landlords.
While property management practices
are similarly varied, we found that 5- to
49-unit properties contribute to the much-
needed supply of unsubsidized lower-cost
housing. Most properties provide below-
market rate units—due to some combi -
nation of management choices and rent
stabilization laws—and continuing tenants
Notes: N = 551. Owners of about 1 percent of properties report not knowing the current property maintenance practiced at the property, not included in the chart above.
Figure 16. Description of Property Maintenance Practices by Severity of Cash Flow Problems
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
All work handled
immediately
Minor work
postponed
Most maintenance
postponed
% of Properties
Minor Cash
Flow Problems
Moderate Cash
Flow Problems
Serious Cash
Flow Problems
% of Properties
90 80
70 60
50 40
30 20
10 0
All work
handled
immediately
Minor work
postponed
Most
maintenance
postponed
Minor cash
flow problems
Moderate cash
flow problems
Serious cash
flow problems
A TERNER CENTER REPORT - JANUARY 2024
19 in about a third of properties often see no
change in their rent upon lease renewal.
However, the combination of maintenance
needs, financing gaps for capital improve-
ments, and increases in rent delinquency
during the pandemic raises concerns
about habitability and long-term afford -
ability, particularly in older buildings and
those held by small portfolio owners who
may be more inclined to sell their proper -
ties when faced with steep arrears.29
This report is meant to be a first step in
illuminating an essential, but under-
studied part of the rental housing market.
Our findings point to several topics that
further research and more robust reporting
requirements could confirm, complicate,
and/or expand upon, including research
that looks at tenant experiences in this
part of the housing market. Data on small
multifamily (5- to 49-unit) rental proper -
ties are scarce, in part because ownership
is relatively fragmented and often only
semi-professional. Many owners of small
multifamily properties are not members of
national or local associations of property
owners, and as a result are not well-rep -
resented in research and policy conversa -
tions. While our survey was fielded nation-
ally, and the results are weighted to reflect
the national distribution of small multi -
family properties by property size, our
responses are not geographically repre -
sentative, nor do we have sufficient sample
sizes to examine regional or geographic
differences.
Landlord behaviors and property manage-
ment practices are also regulated by a
patchwork of local, state, and federal laws
that seek to protect tenants. Given the
fragmented nature of these laws and regu-
lations—and the lack of comprehensive
data on rental properties and their char -
acteristics—we are unable to examine the
extent to which the conditions, finances,
and management practices reported here
are influenced by the local and state regu -
latory environment. We are also unable to
assess whether landlords reported prac -
tices, for example on rent increases and
eviction practices, that are compliant with
existing law.
Our findings also point to policy oppor -
tunities for supporting the tenants and
owners of small multifamily rental prop -
erties. The prevalence and importance of
credit checks across property and portfolio
sizes reinforces the idea that alternatives to
credit scoring and/or efforts to help build
and improve renter credit—such as posi -
tive reporting of on-time rent payments—
could have a meaningful effect for renters
looking for housing and build pathways to
homeownership. On-time rent payments
are rarely reflected in a consumer’s credit
score, even though research suggests that
renters want and could benefit from posi -
tive rent payment reporting. 30 Existing
programs by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
are piloting this type of reporting as part
of their efforts to boost equitable access to
credit.31
The survey findings also underscore the
importance of targeting preservation
efforts at this part of the market, where the
practice of keeping rents relatively low may
help increase housing stability for existing
tenants while limiting the inconveniences
associated with turnover for landlords.
Capital improvement or property repair
funding in exchange for a commitment to
rent at affordable levels may help address
housing quality and habitability while
preserving unit affordability. Our findings
also provide additional evidence of the
need for more robust efforts to educate
smaller-scale owners about the range of
supports available to them to help main -
tain the physical quality and financial
health of their properties.32
ENDNOTES
1. Authors’ analysis of 2021 Rental Housing Finance Survey data.
2. Properties in California made up 18 percent of our 75,000 sample of properties, but 29 percent of our responses. Properties in New York made up 16 percent of our sample, but 5 percent of our responses.
3. An, B. Y., et. al. (2021). “Why Are Small and Medium Multifamily Properties So Inexpensive?” The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 62(3), 402–422. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11146-019-09729-5.
4. Lee, H. (2017). “Who Owns Rental Properties, and is it Changing? Housing Perspectives.” Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies. Retrieved from: http://www. jchs.harvard.edu/blog/who-owns-rental-properties-and-is-it-changing/.
5. Travis, A. (2019). The Organization of Neglect: Limited Liability Companies and Housing Disinvestment. American Sociological Review, 84(1), 142–170. https://doi. org/10.1177/0003122418821339.
6. Ibid.
7. Horner, J. (2019). “Code Dodgers: Landlord Use of LLCs and Housing Code Enforcement.” Yale Law & Policy Review, 37(2), 647-681. Retrieved from: https:// yalelawandpolicy.org/sites/default/files/YLPR/5_horner_code_dodgers.pdf; Desmond, M. (2016). Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City. Crown.; McNicholas, T. (2023). “Bill awaiting Gov. Kathy Hochul’s signature would make it easier to find out who owns a building in New York State.” CBS New York. Retrieved from: https://www. cbsnews.com/newyork/news/llc-transparency-act-building-owners-new-york-state/.
8. Decker, N., (2021). “How Landlords of Small Rental Properties Decide Who Gets Housed and Who Gets Evicted.” Urban Affairs Review. Retrieved from: https://journals. sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/10780874211041513; Rosen, E., Garboden, P., & Cossyleon, J., (2021). Racial Discrimination in Housing: How Landlords Use Algorithms and Home Visits to Screen Tenants. American Sociological Review. Retrieved from: https:// journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/00031224211029618?journalCode=asra; Reosti, A., (2020). “‘We Go Totally Subjective’: Discretion, Discrimination, and Tenant Screening in a Landlord’s Market.” Law & Social Inquiry. Retrieved from: https://www.cambridge. org/core/journals/law-and-social-inquiry/article/we-go-totally-subjective-discretion- discrimination-and-tenant-screening-in-a-landlords-market/1AABF71AEA176ADA1F8 D93E7C424C4D2/share/3f4060bf42159f964bbd50055a9db16a78f9789a
9. Personal interviews are used by owners of 67 percent of 5–9 unit properties, compared to 53 percent of 25–49 unit properties. Personal references are used by owners of 48 percent of 5–9 unit properties, compared to 31 percent of 25–49 unit properties. Criminal background checks are used by owners of 67 percent of 25–49 unit properties, compared to 43 percent of 5–9 unit properties.
ENDNOTES
10. An, B. Y., et. al. (2021). “Small and medium multifamily housing: Affordability and availability.” Housing Studies, 37(7), 1274–1297. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/1
0.1080/02673037.2020.1842339; An, B.Y., et. al. (2017). “Understanding the Small and Medium Multifamily Housing Stock.” Enterprise Community Partners and the University of Southern California Bedrosian Center on Governance. Retrieved from: https://www. enterprisecommunity.org/sites/default/files/2021-12/understanding-smmf-housing- stock-white-paper.pdf; Fannie Mae (2023). “Small Multifamily Properties Are a Key Source of Rental Housing in Many Places.” (2023). Retrieved from: https://multifamily. fanniemae.com/news-insights/multifamily-market-commentary/small-multifamily- properties-are-key-source-rental.
11. Fair Market Rents (FMRs) are generally calculated as the 40 th percentile of gross rents for regular, standard-quality units in a local housing market. HUD developed FMRs to determine payments for housing assistance programs like the Housing Choice Voucher program.
12. Owners of about 40 percent of properties further reported that limits on rent changes are set through local rent stabilization or rent control laws.
13. Results from this survey indicate that 20 percent of small multifamily properties benefit from some kind of government subsidy—whether federal, state, or local—including but not limited to a project- or tenant-based rental subsidy, a government-sponsored below market-rate loan, a government grant for capital costs, or property tax relief or income tax credit. At the time that the survey was fielded, 14 percent of properties housed a renter with a tenant-based subsidy, for example a Housing Choice Voucher.
14. In the City of Los Angeles, under Ordinance No. 186607, annual rent increases for rental units subject to the City of Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance (RSO) are prohibited through January 31, 2024 (see: https://clkrep.lacity.org/online- docs/2020/20-0407_ORD_186607_05-12-2020.pdf and https://housing2.lacity.org/ highlights/renter-protections); Contra Costa County also passed and extended an Urgency Ordinance that placed a moratorium on certain residential rent increases in response to the COVID-19 pandemic (see: https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/ View/71209/Supervisors-Extend-Eviction-Protection-and-Rent-Freeze-PDF).
15. Balzarini, J. & Boyd, M. L. (2021). “Working with them: Small-scale landlord strategies for avoiding evictions.” Housing Policy Debate, 31(3–5), 425–445. https:// doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2020.1800779; Garboden, P. M., & Rosen, E. (2019). “Serial filing: How landlords use the threat of eviction.” City & Community, 18(2), 638–661. https://doi.org/10.1111/cico.12387; Raymond, E. L., et. al. (2018). “From Foreclosure to Eviction: Housing Insecurity in Corporate-Owned Single-Family Rentals.” Cityscape, 20(3), 159–188. Retrieved from: https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/cityscpe/ vol20num3/article9.html.
ENDNOTES
16. Manville, M., et. al. (2022). “Renter nonpayment and landlord response: Evidence from Covid-19.” Housing Policy Debate, 1–35. https://doi. org/10.1080/10511482.2022.2085761.
17. Kneebone, E., et. al. (2021). “The Impact of the Pandemic on Landlords: Evidence from Two National Surveys.” Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University and Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley. Retrieved from: https://www.jchs. harvard.edu/sites/default/files/research/files/harvard_jchs_impact_on_landlords_ two_national_surveys_kneebone_et_al_2021.pdf. Decker, N. (2021). “The Uneven Impact of the Pandemic on the Tenants and Owners of Small Rental Properties.” Terner Center for Housing Innovation. Retrieved from: https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/ wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Small-Rental-Properties-Decker-July-2021.pdf.
18. Frost, R. (2020). “Cash-Strapped During COVID-19.” Housing Perspectives, Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University. Retrieved from: https://www.jchs. harvard.edu/blog/cash-strapped-during-covid-19; Kneebone, E., & Murray, C. (2020). “Estimating COVID-19’s Near-Term Impact on Renters.” Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley. Retrieved from: https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/research- and-policy/estimating-covid-19s-near-term-impact-on-renters/.
19. Hermann, A. & Cornelissen, S. (2020). “Using the Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey to Assess the Economic Impacts of COVID-19 on America’s Households.” Joint Center for Housing Studies. Retrieved from: https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/blog/ using-thecensus-bureaus-household-pulse-survey-to-assess-the-economic-impacts-of- covid19-on-americas-households; Wedeen, S. (2021). “Black and Hispanic Renters Face Greatest Threat of Eviction in Pandemic.” Housing Perspectives: Joint Center for Housing Studies. Retrieved from: https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/blog/black-and-hispanic- renters-face-greatestthreat-eviction-pandemic.
20. Kneebone, E., et. al. (2021). “The Impact of the Pandemic on Landlords: Evidence from Two National Surveys.” Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University and Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley. Retrieved from: https://www.jchs. harvard.edu/sites/default/files/research/files/harvard_jchs_impact_on_landlords_ two_national_surveys_kneebone_et_al_2021.pdf.
21. The CDC’s Federal Eviction Moratorium. (2021). Congressional Research Service.
Retrieved from: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN11673.
22. Parker, W. & Ackerman, A. (2021). “Covid-19 Rent-Relief Program Marred by Delays, Confusion, Burdensome Paperwork.” Retrieved from: https://www.wsj.com/ articles/covid-19-rent-relief-program-marred-by-delays-confusion-burdensome- paperwork-11628683200.
ENDNOTES
23. More tech-savvy owners of small rental properties also had higher rates of utilization.
See: Decker, N. (2021). “The Uneven Impact of the Pandemic on the Tenants and Owners of Small Rental Properties.” The Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley.
Retrieved from: https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Small- Rental-Properties-Decker-July-2021.pdf.
24. COVID-19 Housing Policy Scorecard. (2021). The Eviction Lab at Princeton University. Retrieved from: https://evictionlab.org/covid-policy-scorecard/; Reed, D., Divringi, E., & Akana, T. (2021). “Renters’ Experiences During COVID-19.” Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia. Retrieved from: https://www.philadelphiafed.org/-/media/frbp/ assets/community-development/reports/renters-experiences-during-covid-19.pdf.
25. Among properties with owners facing minor cash flow problems, evictions were filed multiple times against the same tenant in 20 percent of properties. In comparison, 26 percent of properties held by owners facing severe cash flow problems saw evictions filed multiple times against the same tenant.
26. Authors’ calculation using data from the 2021 American Housing Survey conducted by the United States Census Bureau.
27. An, B.Y., et. al. (2017). “Understanding the Small and Medium Multifamily Housing Stock.” Enterprise Community Partners and the University of Southern California Bedrosian Center on Governance. Retrieved from: https://www.enterprisecommunity. org/sites/default/files/2021-12/understanding-smmf-housing-stock-white-paper.pdf ; Burnett, K., et. al. (2015). “Examination of Alternative FHA Mortgage Insurance Programs for Financing Single-Family Rental and Small Multifamily Rental Properties.” HUD, Office of Policy Development and Research. Retrieved from: https://www.huduser.gov/ portal/publications/hsgfin/externalfha042015.html.
28. Kneebone, E., et. al. (2021). “The Impact of the Pandemic on Landlords: Evidence from Two National Surveys.” Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University and Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley. Retrieved from: https://www.jchs. harvard.edu/sites/default/files/research/files/harvard_jchs_impact_on_landlords_ two_national_surveys_kneebone_et_al_2021.pdf.
29. Ibid.; Choi, J.H., & Goodman, L. (2020). “Mounting Pressures on Mom-and-Pop Landlords Could Spell Trouble for the Affordable Rental Market.” Urban Institute.
Retrieved from: https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/mounting-pressures-mom-and- pop-landlords-could-spell-trouble-affordable-rental-market#:~:text=Because%20 rental%20properties%20owned%20by,more%20lower%2Dpriced%20rental%20 housing.
ENDNOTES
30. Atwell, N. (2023). “Most renters want on-time rent payments factored into their credit scores.” Perspectives Blog, Fannie Mae.” Retrieved from: https://www.fanniemae. com/research-and-insights/perspectives/renter-on-time-payments-credit-scores; Turner, M. & Walker, P. (2019). “Potential impacts of credit reporting public housing rental payment data.” U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Policy Development and Research. Retrieved from: https://www.huduser.gov/portal/ sites/default/files/pdf/Potential-Impacts-of-Credit-Reporting.pdf; Cochran, K.T., et. al. (2022). “Utility, Telecommunications, and Rental Data in Underwriting Credit” Urban Institute. Retrieved from: https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/2022-06/utility- telecommunications-and-rental-data-in-underwriting-credit_0.pdf.
31. Fannie Mae. (2022). “Fannie Mae launches rent payment reporting program to help renters build credit.” Retrieved from: https://www.fanniemae.com/newsroom/ fannie-mae-news/rent-payment-reporting-program-launch; Garren, L. (2021). “Making it count: How paying rent can build the credit health of tenants.” Freddie Mac. Retrieved from: https://www.freddiemac.com/perspectives/lauren-garren/20211103-paying-rent.
32. Decker, N. (2021). “The Uneven Impact of the Pandemic on the Tenants and Owners of Small Rental Properties.” The Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley.
Retrieved from: https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/ Small-Rental-Properties-Decker-July-2021.pdf.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We are grateful to Fannie Mae for funding the survey of rental property owners. Regrid provided the data for the survey sample. Thanks to Ryan Finnigan, Carolina Reid, David Garcia, Ben Metcalf, and Quinn Underriner for their comments and feedback on the anal- ysis and drafts of this brief. Thank you also to the property owners who participated in our survey.
This research does not represent the institutional views of UC Berkeley or of Terner Center funders. Funders do not determine research findings or recommendations in Terner Center’s research and policy reports.
ABOUT THE TERNER CENTER
The Terner Center formulates bold strategies to house families from all walks of life in vibrant, sustainable, and affordable homes and communities. Our focus is on generating constructive, practical strategies for public policy makers and innovative tools for private sector partners to achieve better results for families and communities.
For more information visit: www.ternercenter.berkeley.edu