Section 1: Production
This section addresses incentives and requirements to increase the number of new housing units that are adaptable and accessible.
Recommendation 1.1: Require 10% Accessibility in State-Supported New Construction
Massachusetts commits over $200M per year to support affordable housing in the State.17 That support is often accompanied by a range of different accessibility requirements. Currently, Massachusetts regulations through 521 CMR require multifamily rental 15 buildings with at least 20 units to make 5% of units fully accessible. In addition, all new units built after 1996 must be adaptable if they are on the ground floor or reachable by an elevator, whether they are for sale or rent.18 Receiving any federal financial assistance such as Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC), requires a minimum of 5% of units to be made accessible for individuals with mobility impairments and an additional 2% be made accessible for individuals with hearing or vision impairments.1920 Finally, Massachusetts regulation 804 CMR 2.03 requires that all new multifamily residential construction (three or more units) provide accessible routes, entrances, interior circulation, door widths, controls, and maneuverable kitchens and bathrooms for all ground-floor or elevator-served units, and that at least 5 percent of units be fully wheelchair accessible and 2 percent be fully communication accessible.21
The commission recommends that HLC update the Qualified Allocation Plan (QAP) so that all new construction projects with 10+ units receiving funding through the QAP must include at least 10% of units as accessible units. This recommendation ensures that new developments include more affordable and accessible units without creating a prohibitive cost barrier to development. This recommendation could build off the City of Boston’s 2017 requirement that city-funded elevator buildings with 3+ units include 10% accessible units, as well as the City of Worcester’s 2022 updated guidance for its municipal Affordable Housing Trust Fund, which requires a minimum of 10% of project units be fully wheelchair accessible. Adaptive reuse and gut rehabilitation projects are addressed in the next section.
Note: this recommendation aligns with recommendation 3.1 in the Senior Housing Commission Report
Implementation Pathway: This could be implemented through administrative action by HLC to change the QAP program guidelines.
Recommendation 1.2: Require all applications to the qualified allocation plan for state-supported rehabilitation projects consider 10% accessible units
Including accessible and adaptable units when designing a new building can be relatively straightforward. However, when doing a gut rehabilitation or adaptive reuse project, designs are often constrained by the existing building configurations. The current QAP in 16 Massachusetts provides bonus points for new build and rehabilitation projects that exceed the minimum requirements. The application also requires applicants renovating existing residential projects to write a narrative explaining how many of their units will be visitable and what the cost impact would be to make all units visitable (visitable means guests of all ages and abilities can easily enter, move through the main living areas, and use at least one accessible bathroom without barriers).
The commission recommends that HLC add an additional question to the application for renovation projects asking: (1) whether the project design can feasibly make at least 10% of dwelling units accessible and 100% of the dwelling units reached by elevator adaptable; and (2) if not, a clear explanation of what circumstances (site conditions, cost, structural limitations) prevent achieving this level. This would ensure that developers are considering whether a higher level of accessibility can be achieved within the constraints of a rehabilitation project, while not preventing projects from getting built where it is infeasible. HLC should also revisit its bonus point system in the QAP to determine if other incentives could be included to spur an increase in the number of adaptable and accessible units.
Implementation Pathway: This could be implemented through administrative action by HLC.
Recommendation 1.3: Expand the prevalence of adaptable units in pre-1991 gut rehabilitations
Current law in Massachusetts exempts buildings constructed before March 13, 1991, from Massachusetts Architectural Access Board (AAB) requirements if they undergo rehabilitation projects. As the Commonwealth confronts a critical need for more adaptable units, the commission considered whether to recommend that the legislature should remove this exemption for gut rehabilitation, in line with House Bill 2569. While this legislative change would create more adaptable units, it could also make some projects financially infeasible or require months-long delays to apply for and receive a variance from AAB. On the other hand, because of the full exemption that gut rehabs presently receive for pre-1991 buildings, some developers and architects don’t consider making even minor modifications that could increase accessibility in the building.
The commission recommends that HLC, AAB, housing developers, and advocates further explore how to increase the number of adaptable units for pre-1991 rehab projects without 17 suppressing the production of much-needed housing across the state. This could include: 1) requiring developers to submit a feasibility analysis, similar to recommendation 1.2, 2) requirements for developments receiving state funding from sources not governed by the QAP, or 3) some other approach that increases the prevalence of adaptable units without disincentivizing the conversion of older buildings into housing.
Implementation Pathway: Further study could be conducted administratively by HLC in partnership with developers and independent living centers, with a feasibility analysis concluded by the fall of 2026. This recommendation could be implemented through administrative action or require legislative action, depending on the recommendation.
Note: recommendations 1.2 and 1.3 of this report broadly align with recommendation 3.1 from the Special Commission on Senior Housing Report.
Recommendation 1.4: Introduce a Tax Credit for Adaptable ADUs
In 2024, the Affordable Homes Act legalized Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) across Massachusetts by-right, subject to reasonable regulations by municipalities. ADUs provide great potential for alleviating the state’s housing shortage, particularly for accessible units. Many ADUs are ground floor and designed as new buildings, making it possible to increase the stock of accessible units as ADUs proliferate across the state.
The commission recommends that the State create a $5,000 refundable individual income tax credit for ADU production if the ADU is adaptable. An adaptable unit would (a) provide at least one no-step entrance, (b) provide doorways and interior circulation that are capable, without structural change, of meeting 521 CMR door and clear opening standards, (c) provide bathrooms and kitchens sized and laid out so that required clear floor spaces and turning radii can be achieved by removing non-load-bearing elements, finishes, and cabinets, and (d) provide blocking or other means for the future installation of grab bars and other accessibility hardware.
This credit would be claimable in the year that the ADU earned a certificate of occupancy and could phase out by income at certain thresholds. This tax credit would encourage homeowners and producers to incorporate adaptable designs into ADUs as they are being built. This incentive would encourage adaptable designs to become the industry standard and would make it much easier to convert those units into fully accessible units as needed. Beyond the focus on adaptability, this tax credit would make it possible for less 18 wealthy homeowners to realize the potential benefits of ADUs and for the Commonwealth to address its critical housing shortage.
Implementation Pathway: This tax credit would need to be passed by the Massachusetts Legislature.
Note: this broadly aligns with recommendation 4.4 from the Senior Housing Commission report
Recommendation 1.5: Develop Standard/Model Designs for Accessible and Inclusive Units
As part of the development process, architectural design and accessibility code compliance often costs tens of thousands of dollars. Many designers are not taught to incorporate accessibility into plans from the start, often needing to make adjustments at the end to ensure there is compliance with state and federal regulations.
The commission recommends that HLC work with developers to share statewide open-license plan sets for:
(i) ADUs (detached/attached/interior),
(ii) small flats/micro-units, and
(iii) group sleeping rooms (SRO/limited kitchen).
Each plan would show 521 CMR compliance notes (clearances, routes, bathrooms, kitchens) with a pre-check memo attached. Any design competition organized by the state should include a category or section with adaptable and accessible designs, particularly for model designs for individuals with intellectual disabilities that are less common in the industry than traditional wheelchair accessibility. Finally, if possible, the Board of Building Regulations and Standards (BBRS) could consider working with AAB to pre-approve certain designs for modular development and certify that they meet accessibility and adaptability requirements.
Implementation Pathway: This work could be implemented administratively but may require additional funding to ensure capacity to produce high quality plan sets.
Positive Impacts
These recommendations collectively would make accessible and adaptable units more front of mind for developers, while generating thousands of new affordable accessible units in the decade to come. As mentioned above, about 800,000 Massachusetts residents have some sort of disability, but there are only about 10,000 affordable and accessible units in the state. Massachusetts needs to build many more units to address its housing shortage. Because it is easier to incorporate accessibility design from the beginning, these regulations will ensure that this building boom sets the state up well for the future and present needs of Massachusetts residents.
Section 2: Preservation
This section outlines recommendations to make improvements to existing housing units to make them usable for individuals with accessibility needs. In many cases, relatively small investments can meet the accessibility needs of an individual without requiring it to be fully ADA compliant. Given the scale of the need for accessible dwelling units, this approach is critical to increasing accessible housing in the near-term.
Recommendation 2.1: Expand Zoning Exceptions and Expedited Permitting for Accessible Features
In most cities and towns, doing exterior accessibility work, such as adding a lift or small exterior elevator, is subject to full local zoning and building permit review. Even when zoning relief is not required, building permits for these modifications can take weeks or months to process, delaying urgently needed accessibility upgrades for residents with mobility limitations. As a result, homeowners and developers often face unnecessary procedural hurdles to complete time-sensitive accessibility improvements that are essential for safety, independence, and aging in place. Massachusetts law (M.G.L. ch. 40A, sec. 3) exempts handicapped access ramps on private property from local dimensional requirements such as setbacks, yard, and open-space limits when used solely to facilitate access for a person with a disability. However, this exemption applies only to ramps and does not extend to other essential accessibility features such as lifts, small exterior elevators, or similar improvements.
The commission recommends that the Legislature extend dimensional exemptions for ramps under M.G.L. ch. 40A, sec. 3 to also include lifts, limited use limited application 20 (LU/LA) elevators, and other exterior accessibility devices that serve the same purpose. Elevators would still be subject to a relevant elevator permit and an inspection depending on the complexity of the system. The commission also recommends that local planning and building departments establish an expedited permitting process for accessibility improvements—allowing faster administrative review of small-scale features that improve access without expanding habitable space.
Implementation Pathway: The statute change would need legislative action. Municipal expedited permitting processes could be implemented at the local level.
Recommendation 2.2: Provide Additional Funding for Accessibility Upgrades at Local Housing Authorities
Massachusetts local housing authorities (LHAs) manage approximately 30,000 federally supported public housing units and 41,500 state-funded units. On a per-capita basis, this is more than any other state. Yet decades of underinvestment and deferred maintenance have left a significant capital backlog across the state-aided public housing portfolio.22 Because of the scale of repairs needed, lack of LHA capacity, and the complexity of public entities procuring repairs, even units that are designed to be accessible can become unusable for months at a time as elevators break or entrances become unusable. Residents have been left trapped in their homes for weeks at a time because of the delay in critical repairs.
The commission recommends that the state allocate additional funding to help clear the deferred maintenance backlog and help preserve existing public housing units. If additional funding is infeasible, HLC could consider setting aside a portion of annual state-aided capital for accessibility projects or developing a rapid response fund for emergency repairs related to accessibility. The commission also recommends procurement reforms in line with the Extremely Low-Income Housing Commission to make it easier for public housing to do repairs in a timely and affordable way.
Implementation Pathway: Increasing capital spending for public housing could be accomplished through legislative action or adjusting allocations in the Capital Investment Plan. Additional guidance or support for accessibility work within existing funding levels could be done administratively by HLC. 21
Note: this aligns with the ELI Housing Commission recommendation 1.4 in the preservation section of the report
Recommendation 2.3: Conduct Self-Assessment of State Public Housing for Accessibility Improvements
Current data on the scale and condition of accessible units in state public housing is limited. In addition, accessibility is not a core part of the annual planning process that LHAs conduct.
The commission recommends that the table of State-Aided Public Housing Developments included at the beginning of each Local Housing Authority’s Annual Plan be amended to include a column listing the current number of accessible units in operation. In addition, Regional Capital Assistance Teams, in conducting Portfolio Needs Assessments, should specifically consider proactive, budget-friendly, and readily achievable measures, such as installing grab bars where needed at elderly-disabled developments, making sure that common areas are accessible to people with disabilities, and parking lots are striped correctly. The Portfolio Needs Assessment could also capture information on longer-term capital improvements needed to bring units up to current accessibility code standards (e.g., kitchen and bathroom upgrades, doorway widths and accessible routes). These two approaches would increase data collection and ensure that accessibility improvements remain top of mind for LHAs.
Implementation Pathway: HLC can update the annual plan administratively. HLC can provide guidance to Regional Capital Assistance Teams to examine accessibility improvements through administrative guidance.
Recommendation 2.4: Update Architectural Access Board’s 521 CMR
AAB is currently working on its most significant rewrite of regulations since 1996. This Commission recommends supporting AAB’s efforts, particularly in adding more clarity around the ‘30% rule.’ The 30% rule currently means that if within any period of three years, the total cost of alterations, repairs, or reconstruction for a building amounts to 30% or more of the full and fair cash value of the building, the entire building shall be made accessible in accordance with 521 CMR. In practice, there have been a range of exceptions and variances allowed, but the system left it unclear which programs would trigger the full accessibility requirements.
The commission recommends that AAB update 521 CMR to harmonize with other codes and industry best practices. The proposed regulations should ensure that major renovations include accessibility upgrades while not disincentivizing critical repairs by making the project prohibitively expensive.
Implementation Pathway: This work can be done by AAB under existing authority.
Recommendation 2.5: Lower Threshold for Property Owner Responsibility for Accessibility Modifications
Massachusetts General Laws ch. 151B, sec. 4(7A)(1) requires owners of buildings with 10 or more rental units to pay for reasonable modifications to enable the tenant to have an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling unit. According to the 2024 1-year ACS, Massachusetts has 122,000 rental units in structures with 5 to 9 units, representing 11% of rental units. 50% of rental units are in buildings with 4 or fewer structures, and 38% are in buildings with 10 or more units.23 If the modification represents an undue financial or administrative burden, property owners are not required to pay for the change, subject to oversight by the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination. This law has been a critical tool to enable individuals with accessibility needs to gain access to housing that fits their needs without needing to pay out of pocket for those features themselves.
The commission recommends lowering this threshold from buildings with 10 or more units to a standard of 5 or more units. This could open accessibility improvements to 122,000 rental units across the state and afford tenants with disabilities opportunities for accessibility improvements in nearly half of all rental properties. In addition, HLC, MCAD, legal services groups, and other advocates should run an educational campaign to inform more individuals with accessibility needs about this existing right.
Implementation Pathway: The Legislature must amend chapter 151B to incorporate this change. HLC and MCAD can collaborate on public education and outreach regarding the reasonable modification requirements of 151B with existing resources.
Positive Impacts
Collectively, these recommendations would maximize the ability of existing housing units to meet the accessibility needs of residents across Massachusetts. By incorporating these changes, Massachusetts can increase the number of units within existing housing stock that are accessible.
Section 3: Access and Navigation
In addition to the limited number of affordable and accessible units, it can be difficult for potential tenants to find those units. This section addresses recommendations to make the housing search process easier for individuals with accessibility needs.
Recommendation 3.1: Improve Centralized Housing Resources for People with Disabilities
Massachusetts has a wide range of different programs that individuals with accessibility needs might qualify for or benefit from. The HLC and the Massachusetts Office on Disability websites do a good job of listing out all of the potential programs, but it can be quite difficult for an individual to determine which programs may be the best fit for them. Similarly, Housing Navigator and the Common Housing Application for Massachusetts Programs (CHAMP) have some tags for accessible housing, but the search and application functionality is limited. In many cases, when an affordable or accessible unit is located in a mixed-income property, it requires multiple complex steps or direct outreach to the property to pursue an application.
The commission recommends that HLC engage with a user experience expert to ensure that these resources are as user-friendly as possible for individuals with accessibility needs searching for housing. This could include incorporating an AI tool or quiz to help individuals understand which programs they may qualify for. It could also include better incorporating word search capability or filtering for people seeking disability-specific accessibility features beyond those associated with ambulatory disabilities. This could include tags such as “deaf or hard of hearing,” “blind or visually impaired,” and sensory, communication and safety features supporting the needs of people living with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Other features that would be useful would include email alerts for users to be notified when relevant units are posted. In addition, landlords could be encouraged or required to post the direct application link or process for affordable units onto Housing Navigator.
Implementation Pathway: HLC could make these changes administratively but will likely require additional funding to incorporate more advanced features. Housing Navigator, a nonprofit that works closely with HLC, could collaborate with HLC to ensure seamless functionality across platforms. HLC will assess its ability to track utilization of accessible units in state-funded programs to better assess the state’s ability to meet the needs of the population with disabilities.
Recommendation 3.2: Improve Housing Application Document and Process Accessibility
The process of applying for affordable accessible housing can be long and burdensome, particularly for individuals with disabilities. For example, the CHAMP is 27 pages long and requires gathering paperwork, mailed notices, and other materials from a range of sources. While waiting lists often take years to clear, applicants can claim “Emergency Priority” if they can document no-fault loss of housing with a court order for eviction, condemnation notice, or verified domestic violence. This standard inadvertently excludes many people with disabilities who lose their housing for reasons that never produce formal legal documentation—such as the sudden loss of a caregiver, an inaccessible home becoming uninhabitable, or discharge from an institutional or hospital setting without a safe place to go.
The commission recommends updating regulations and guidelines so that CHAMP can accept letters documenting no-fault loss of housing from the Mass. Commission for the Blind, the Mass. Commission for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, the Department of Mental Health, the Department of Developmental Services, and MassAbility, mirroring allowable documentation currently allowed from the Department of Children and Families or domestic violence service providers. This would replace the current requirement of a court order, which is impossible for some applicants to obtain.
Additionally, the commission recommends including a black box notice with contact information to request reasonable accommodation for individuals with disabilities. Notices should clarify that reasonable accommodation may be requested for any part of the application process for affordable housing, from completing paperwork to attending meetings. These model notices would provide consistent, plain-language communication about accommodation requests in a prominent place, building on the Model Reasonable Accommodation Policy for Local Housing Authorities. HLC should also provide training to LHAs and regional administering agencies on the best implementation of these notices. 25 Additionally, the commission recommends increasing the minimum vacancy-response period from 15 days to 30 days, or requiring LHAs to extend the period as a reasonable accommodation for applicants with disabilities. While LHAs are working to fill vacant units as quickly as possible, this change would ensure that eligible residents are not unfairly passed over for accessible affordable units.
Finally, the commission recommends the Legislature consider expanding eligibility for the Facilities Consolidation Fund to include individuals who don’t fully need institutionalized standards of care, but who still require substantial support.
Implementation Pathway: HLC could make these changes administratively but may need additional fiscal capacity if process updates or technical assistance requirements are significant. Any changes to the Facilities Consolidation Fund would require legislative action.
Recommendation 3.3: Educate LHAs and RAAs on Existing Tools for Increasing Access to Individuals with Disabilities
Only a fraction of affordable housing in the state is fully accessible. That makes the housing search more challenging for individuals with disabilities to find one of the scarce affordable units available. Some LHAs and Regional Administering Agencies (RAAs) do not permit tenants with disabilities to convert their voucher-based subsidy to a public housing unit as a reasonable accommodation or permit public housing tenants to receive a voucher-based subsidy as a reasonable accommodation when their disability cannot be accommodated within the LHA portfolio. LHAs have several powers to expand options for individuals with disabilities already established that few housing authorities currently take advantage of.
The commission recommends that HLC promote greater awareness of two of these options. First, HLC should make LHAs aware that they can create a preference for people with disabilities in voucher waiting lists. Second, HLC could issue a Public Housing Notice making it clear that program participants with disabilities can transfer between programs (e.g., public housing to voucher-based), subject to availability, as a reasonable accommodation to obtain accessible housing that meets their specific needs. While this is common with larger housing authorities, many smaller LHAs do not realize this is possible or know how to support the process.
Implementation Pathway: HLC could make these changes administratively but may need additional fiscal capacity if technical assistance requirements are significant.
Recommendation 3.4: Train School Transition Specialists in the Housing Application Process
Students with disabilities and their families can be unaware of affordable and subsidized housing options or of the lengthy waiting lists; this can and does lead to emergency situations later. This problem could be mitigated if students completed housing applications with the assistance of school transition specialists while attending transition programs from ages 18-22, thus increasing the likelihood of receiving a housing voucher or subsidized unit by age 30. In most cases, students served by school transition specialists are unable to afford market-rate housing based on their earnings after aging out of school.
The commission recommends that a module on the full range of affordable and subsidized housing programs be included as part of the curriculum for the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education Transition Specialist Endorsement, as well as training in lesser-known benefits, such as Adult Foster Care, Adult Family Care, and the Personal Care Attendant program. A model module has already been created by Autism Housing Pathways. Training could cover A Better Life Experience (ABLE) accounts and the importance of having a good credit score to be able to utilize a housing voucher.
Implementation Pathway: The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education could make these changes administratively but may need additional fiscal capacity if updating the curriculum requires more capacity than is currently available on the team.
Recommendation 3.5: Create and Publicize an HLC Office of Fair Housing Ombudsman Process
News reports from October 2025 found that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has laid off at least two-thirds of its fair housing team since January 2025. 24 These specialists often played a critical role in resolving fair housing complaints. Furthermore, ongoing federal financial support for state and non-profit fair housing services is in jeopardy. While there are still ways to file a complaint through the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office or the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, the process can be complicated and increasingly slow-moving as fewer resources are available.
The commission recommends that the HLC Office of Fair Housing create and publicize an Ombudsman-like process for housing advocates and tenants with disabilities who have complaints of a systemic nature. This would provide critical fair housing resources as HUD is pulling back on its commitments. It would also provide a clearer path to identifying and addressing systemic disability issues in state public housing, state voucher programs, and state-funded privately managed properties. The Ombudsman could coordinate across local, state, and federal agencies to ensure complaints are being heard and resolutions are occurring in a timely manner.
Implementation Pathway: HLC could create an ombudsman process administratively but would need additional fiscal capacity to hire additional staff to appropriately facilitate the process. Considering the significant need for fair housing resources for tenants with disabilities, the Commission is not recommending that this process be created at the expense of providing resources for private fair housing organizations.
Positive Impacts
Collectively, these recommendations would make the affordable housing search easier for individuals with accessibility needs. It would make it easier to register fair housing complaints and would provide more tools for advocates and organizations to support the needs of individuals with disabilities.
Section 4: Language and Data Modernization
As our society’s understanding of varying disability and accessibility needs has evolved, the language used in our legislation and the way that we design regulations has not always kept up. This section recommends updates that will allow Massachusetts’ housing approach to better reflect the diversity of accessibility needs for residents across the state.
Recommendation 4.1: Update Accessibility Regulations to Include More Types of Disability
As currently written, the AAB’s regulations focus primarily on physical and sensory accessibility in the built environment. Similarly, the core civil rights laws covered in Chapter 151B of the Massachusetts General Laws still uses language protecting a “qualified handicap person.”
The Commission recommends updating the statute in 151B to use person first language (i.e., “person with a disability”) and expand the law’s scope from wheelchair accessibility to include the needs of individuals that are deaf or hard of hearing, blind or visually impaired, or that have intellectual or developmental disabilities. It should also change outdated references to the Mass. Rehabilitation Commission to now refer to MassAbility. Additionally, as AAB updates its regulations, the Board should update them to better reflect the spectrum of housing accessibility needs that exist across the Commonwealth today.
Implementation Pathway: Updating the statute requires legislative action. AAB has the authority to broaden the scope of accessibility guidelines through promulgating updated regulations.
Recommendation 4.2: Enhance Data Tracking for Meeting Accessibility Needs
Most of the data that Massachusetts advocates and policymakers use to inform their decisions comes from the federal government. With staffing cuts and changes to the Census Bureau and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there is an ongoing risk to the reliability of those data sources. Fortunately, Massachusetts has been leading a cross-agency effort through the Advancing Health Equity in Massachusetts Initiative to create consistent disability data standards across Massachusetts’ healthcare system. Unfortunately, robust data sets at the intersection of accessibility needs and housing are somewhat limited.
The commission recommends that HLC work with the Executive Office of Health and Human Services to better understand if there are additional opportunities to link housing and healthcare data. This could include tracking the utilization of accessible units in statefunded programs, proposing mechanisms to track utilization in private developments, adjusting existing survey questions, or conducting new surveys, if necessary.
In addition, the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) collects essential data outlining the disability setting and needs of students aged 3–22 in Massachusetts. This data is essential for policymakers but has historically been reported and compiled federally. The commission recommends that DESE explore whether existing data can also be published on state websites accessible to the public.
Implementation Pathway: HLC and DESE could pursue these efforts administratively but launching new surveys or major new data collection initiatives or cross-agency data sharing would require fiscal capacity and legislative action.
Positive Impacts
Increasing usable data serves a critical role to inform future policies. Updating language to encompass the full spectrum of accessibility needs is critical to give housing developers the tools they need to meet the needs of individuals. Collectively, this section provides a vital complement to the rest of this Commission’s recommendations.