**ACQUISITION & RELOCATION**

> **What are the parameters of authority for an NSP grantee that is
> acquiring properties before receiving its grant award?**
>
> A grantee can start incurring costs prior to receiving its grant award
> beginning September 29, 2008. If a grantee wants to start incurring
> costs beyond general planning and administrative costs, the grantee
> needs to comply with the provisions of 24 CFR 570.200(h) of the
> Entitlement regulations---most notably the environmental review
> requirements. A grantee must also identify these pre-award costs in
> the substantial amendment to its action plan which it is developing
> for NSP funding.

*Posted 10/31/08* **Can NSP grantees use NSP funds to provide down
payment assistance and cover closing costs for families purchasing
foreclosed properties rather than acquiring property directly?**

> Yes. Providing down payment assistance and closing costs to buyers are
> eligible under Eligible Use A. However, limiting your homeownership
> assistance activities to down payment and closing cost assistance may
> create additional challenges for you to meet the other program
> requirements such as stabilizing target areas of greatest need,
> ensuring that properties are vacant prior to purchase, and ensuring
> that properties assisted with NSP funds meet the housing habitability
> standards.
>
> **If a mortgage lender requires that funds be allocated for operating
> reserves as a condition of the lender approving a mortgage for a
> multifamily housing project, can NSP funds be used for the operating
> reserves?**
>
> Yes, NSP funds can be used for operating reserves if the NSP grantee
> can demonstrate that such a requirement is consistent with industry
> practices and the dollar amount of the required reserves is consistent
> with local industry standards.
>
> **Can an NSP grantee perform a neighborhood-wide appraisal to
> determine the current market assessed value of properties that are
> being considered for acquisition?**
>
> No. NSP grantees must have an appraisal done on each separate property
> purchased with NSP funds. It may be possible to have one appraiser
> perform appraisals on multiple properties, but the appraisals must
> identify a value for each property. In other words, an \"appraisal\"
> that indicates that the median value of all 3-bedroom houses in the
> neighborhood is \$75,000, the median value of 2-bedroom houses is
> \$68,000, etc. would not be acceptable.
>
> **Do NSP grantees need to identify the specific properties they intend
> to acquire with NSP funds in the substantial amendment to the action
> plan?**
>
> No. The substantial amendment is submitted well in advance of program
> implementation and there are too many unknown factors that impact
> property acquisition making it nearly impossible for an NSP grantee to
> know specific properties they plan to acquire. For example, NSP
> grantees will not know what properties will be on the market several
> months from now or which properties are the best uses of NSP funds.
>
> **If an NSP grantee incurs eligible costs through a failed acquisition
> of an abandoned or foreclosed property are the incurred costs still
> eligible?**
>
> Generally, yes. HUD recognizes that an NSP grantee may investigate the
> acquisition of some properties and incur costs before acquiring it
> (such as the cost of an appraisal or a title search), but then decide
> that the acquisition is not feasible. In such a case, HUD would
> support an NSP grantee that chooses to walk away from a property that
> looks to be problematic, rather than getting bogged down and losing
> valuable time when the 18-month obligation requirement is drawing
> near. For drawdown and reporting purposes, a grantee can allocate the
> project delivery costs of property acquisitions (or considering
> purchasing) across all properties under the acquisition eligibility
> category.

[]{.mark}

*Posted 10/31/08* **If the former owner is still living in a property,
as a tenant, in a lender-foreclosed property, would the NSP grantee be
required to pay relocation in order to acquire the property?**

> In the situation where you have a home that "has been foreclosed upon"
> (required by NSP), the former-owner who is still in the property is
> usually no longer an owner (State law is going to dictate here). The
> former owner may be a tenant, if the new owner (the lender) has
> allowed them to stay under a lease agreement...or, they may not be a
> legal occupant and may be subject to a pending eviction (again, state
> law will dictate here). So, grantees need to be very careful about
> determining an "occupant's" status and entitlements. An unlawful
> occupant (see 49 CFR 24.2(a)(29)) who is displaced for an NSP-funded
> acquisition will not be entitled to relocation assistance and
> payments. However, a lawful occupant displaced for an NSP-funded
> acquisition will generally be eligible for relocation assistance and
> payments under the URA.

*Posted 10/31/08* **What if a grantee wants to purchase a property under
NSP that is occupied by the former-owner (who is now a tenant under a
lease agreement with the lender), and intends to rehabilitate and
re-sell the property to the former-owner/current-tenant? Would the
tenant be eligible for relocation assistance during rehabilitation? What
if they were not able to purchase the property at a later date?**

> If the grantee does not intend to permanently displace a legal tenant
> during the acquisition and rehabilitation of a property, the grantee
> can provide the tenant with a Notice of Non-displacement (see Handbook
> 1378, page 2-4, D and the sample guide form in Appendix 4). You will
> find our Handbook on the web at
> [[www.HUD.gov/relocation]{.underline}](http://www.hud.gov/relocation)
> . If you require a legal tenant to move temporarily for rehabilitation
> of the property, you must pay temporary relocation costs (see page
> 2-8, paragraph 2-7 of the Handbook).
>
> Pitfalls: Are you sure that the rehabilitation work will be completed
> in less than a year (maximum time for temporary relocation)? Do you
> know what the sales price will be based on the NSP rehabilitation
> requirements? Are you sure that the tenant will be financially capable
> of purchasing the property after the rehabilitation is done and you
> are ready to sell the property to them?
>
> If the tenant is not financially capable of purchasing the property at
> the end of your proposed "lease to own" agreement, will you allow them
> to continue to rent or will you require them to move (pursue
> eviction)? There are "eviction for cause" standards in the URA at 49
> CFR 24.206. The issue may become what provisions relating to down
> payment or other program eligibility requirements are stated in the
> lease agreement and whether failure to meet those terms by some
> specified point in time would be considered "material" and is the
> nature of the breach "serious" or "repeated" and would be considered a
> basis for eviction under local law.
>
> It is quite possible that evicting or requiring a non-purchasing
> tenant to move for failure to meet the purchase requirements of your
> NSP program may make them eligible for relocation assistance. It is
> critical that you properly structure your "lease to own" agreement and
> program in accordance with federal, state, and local law and that you
> adequately pre-screen rent-to-own homebuyers before entering into an
> agreement with them. This may be a very risky program design.
>
> **There is confusion about whether NSP funds can acquire any "real
> property" or only "homes and residential properties". Can the NSP
> funds be used to rehabilitate foreclosed properties that are not
> residential when those activities will further neighborhood
> stabilization, such as a community grocery store?**
>
> Yes, under Eligible Use E, a grantee may acquire [demolished or
> vacant]{.underline} properties (including vacant structures) that are
> not residential for redevelopment. As noted in the question, these
> must generally be located in targeted areas of greatest need and
> support the activities in the area that are acquiring, repairing, and
> selling foreclosed or abandoned houses. Eligible Uses A, B, and C are
> limited to homes and residential properties.
>
> **If an NSP grantee or subrecipient purchases a vacant foreclosed home
> with NSP funds and uses other private financing for the
> rehabilitation, can the LMA national objective be used, meaning the
> home could be sold to a household over 120% AMI (provided that the
> home is located in a low-mod area in accordance with the LMA/LMMA
> national objective)?**
>
> No, this is not allowed in the NSP program. While it is true that the
> LMMI neighborhood will benefit indirectly from the acquisition and
> rehabilitation of a vacant home, the NSP Notice is clear that the
> primary beneficiary must be an LMMI household. As in the CDBG program,
> all housing rehabilitation activities must meet the national
> objectives as housing, not area benefit. The NSP Notice specifically
> states that an activity meets the HERA national objective if the
> activity "provides or improves permanent residential structures that
> will be occupied by a household whose income is at or below 120% of
> area median income".

*Posted 11/7/08* **If a non-profit wants to open a homeless shelter and
they buy the property for the shelter before NSP funding is available,
would the property still be considered vacant? If so, can a non-profit
own a piece of property that is vacant and redevelop it?**

> A nonprofit can undertake a public facility under 24 CFR 570.201(c),
> as part of Eligible Use E (Redevelopment). Under that regulatory
> provision, a nonprofit can own or operate a public facility provided
> that its services are available to the general public.
>
> From the question, HUD assumes that the grantee or the nonprofit
> entity intends to use some source of funds other than NSP funds to
> acquire the property. Ownership of the property has no bearing on
> whether it is vacant, under Eligible Use E. A vacant property is one
> on which the land and/or buildings are vacant (unoccupied). If there
> are no structures on the property, then the vacant property can be
> redeveloped (a homeless shelter built on it) under Use E. If there are
> blighted structures on the property, the grantee or nonprofit could
> use other funds to demolish those structures; the property would then
> be vacant and can be redeveloped under Use E. If, however, the grantee
> or the nonprofit wishes to also use NSP funds to demolish any
> structures on the property, the demolition itself must be eligible
> under use D, and thus the buildings must be blighted. The grantee and
> the nonprofit should be aware that their acquiring the property with
> other funding may have implications regarding the applicability of
> Environmental and Uniform Act requirements, since NSP funds are
> clearly envisioned for eventual use in this project.

*Posted 11/7/08* **We are considering a rent to own program, where the
property is first rented to an income qualified family while we work
with them to save a down payment and get their credit improved. If
something happens where it becomes necessary to evict the tenant later,
will we have to pay relocation benefits?**

> Under the URA, a person who is evicted for cause (see 49 CFR 24.206)
> is not eligible for relocation assistance. The complicating factor
> here might be what is behind the question---do they anticipate
> evicting the tenant because at some point in time the tenant may be
> unable to fulfill the purchase requirements or are they anticipating
> that the tenant may become delinquent on the rent (which would clearly
> fit the eviction for cause requirements)?

*Posted 11/7/08* **Can NSP funds be used to refinance existing mortgages
and prevent foreclosure?**

> No. NSP funds may not be used to refinance existing mortgages and
> prevent foreclosure. The program was designed to stabilize communities
> through acquisition and redevelopment of properties that have already
> been foreclosed or abandoned. NSP grantees should design activities
> based on the eligible activities listed in the NSP Notice.

*Updated 03/26/09* **URA regulations require grantees to send a letter
to the sell (Bank) regarding the occupancy and other conditions 60 days
before closing. Does this requirement apply to NSP? Can the appraisal be
completed by the lender holding the property or must the acquiring
entity order the appraisal?**

> The NSP Notice requires that the buyer obtain an appraisal that is
> issued within 60 days from the date of the final offer. We realize
> that the initial offer may not comply with the purchase discount
> requirements so multiple offers may be made before a final purchase
> price is agreed upon. There is no time limit for "closing" an
> acquisition under NSP.
>
> The acquiring entity can order the appraisal if it complies with the
> NSP Appraisal Guidance (located on the NSP website, under NSP
> Resources box, under Policy Guidance).

*Posted 11/7/08* **If a jurisdiction institutes a lease-purchase
program, will the grantee be required to relocate the tenant if he/she
does not qualify to purchase the property at the end of the lease
term?**

> Assuming this is a new tenant\--who was not in the property at the
> time of the Initiation of Negotiations (ION) for acquisition,
> demolition, rehabilitation or conversion of a lower income unit for an
> NSP-funded project---someone the URA would consider a "subsequent
> tenant": if before the tenant agreed to occupy the unit, they were
> provided with a Move in Notice (see 24 CFR 570.606(b)(2)(ii)(B)) that
> advised them they were occupying an NSP-funded project for a
> lease-to-own program and that if they were unable to meet the
> eligibility requirements to become an owner within the program's time
> limit that they would not be eligible for relocation assistance under
> either the URA and/or section 104(d) (see Appendix 29 of Handbook 1378
> for a sample Move in Notice) that neither the URA nor 104(d)
> [relocation payments may be an issue]{.underline}. The key is that the
> tenant know the possibility that they could be displaced BEFORE they
> move in (so they could choose not to move in if they did not want to
> take the chance and agree to the terms of the project).
>
> This brings to mind the eviction for cause standards in the URA 49 CFR
> 24.206. The issue may become what provisions relating to downpayment
> or other program eligibility requirements are stated in the lease and
> whether failure to meet those terms by some specified point in time
> would be considered "material" and is the nature of the breach
> "serious" or "repeated" and would be considered a basis for eviction
> under local law.
>
> It is quite possible that a non-purchasing tenant may be made eligible
> for relocation assistance for failure to meet the homeownership
> requirements at a later date if they were evicted or asked to leave
> for failure to meet the requirements.

*Posted 11/13/08* **What is the Initiation of Negotiations (ION) date
for NSP (the date on which a tenant-occupant becomes eligible for
relocation assistance and must be issued a Notice of Eligibility)?**

> If the tenant is displaced as a result of privately undertaken
> rehabilitation, demolition, or acquisition, NSP uses the definition of
> ION found at 24 CFR 570.606(b)(3) of the CDBG regulations: The date of
> the execution of the loan or grant agreement between the grantee (or
> State or state recipient, as applicable) and the person owning or
> controlling the real property. Otherwise, the definition found in the
> URA at 49 CFR 24.2(a)(15) is applicable.

*Posted 11/13/08* **Must a recipient of NSP funds (grantee, subgrantee,
non-profit organization, individual homebuyer, etc.) who will use NSP
funds to acquire foreclosed property under the voluntary acquisition
provisions of the Uniform Act (URA) provide written notice to the owner
(bank, mortgagee, etc.) that it will not acquire the property if
negotiations fail to result in agreement and inform the owner in writing
of what it believes to be the fair market value of the property?**

> Yes. The URA acquisition requirements apply to [anyone]{.underline}
> who uses NSP funds (or any Federal financial assistance) to acquire
> property including any Agency, non-profit, or individual homebuyers
> who use federally-funded downpayment or other financial assistance. To
> meet the requirements at 49 CFR 24.101(b)(1)-(5) (commonly known as
> the URA voluntary acquisition requirements), the owner of record must
> be notified in writing that Federal financial assistance will be used
> in the transaction and that if agreement cannot be reached through
> negotiation, that the acquisition will not take place. Further, under
> the NSP, an appraisal of foreclosed property must be made to determine
> the current fair market value 60 days prior to making the final offer
> and the owner must be advised that, under NSP, the acquisition price
> must be at a discount from the fair market value (the offer price
> should reflect the discount proposed by the buyer). There are specific
> URA voluntary acquisition requirements that must be met depending on
> whether or not the buyer has the power of eminent domain and will not
> use it (see 49 CFR 24.101(b)(1)(i)-(iv)) or if the buyer does not have
> the power of eminent domain (see 49 CFR 24.101(b)(2)). Any acquisition
> under possible threat of eminent domain, cannot be considered a
> "voluntary acquisition" (even if the seller is willing to negotiate).
> HUD has developed a number of sample guideforms to assist NSP grantees
> in meeting these requirements.  The guideforms and other information
> and resources are available on the NSP Acquisition & Relocation
> Resources page at:
> <http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/library/relocation/nsp/index.cfm>.

*Posted 11/13/08* **On page 58331, the NSP Notice requires the use of
the URA appraisal process. Does that mean that grantees must do both an
appraisal and a review appraisal?**

> No. The Notice specifies that the URA appraisal requirements of 49 CFR
> 24.103 must be used in the valuation of NSP funded "foreclosed upon"
> properties. The URA review appraisal requirements of 49 CFR 24.104 are
> not required, nor is an appraisal review required. However, NSP
> grantees and subrecipents may choose to adopt an appraisal review
> process and URA appraisal review requirements for NSP funded
> acquisitions if they so choose.

*Posted 11/13/08* **Must appraisers meet all state certification
requirements and be FIRREA certified or could knowledgeable grantee
staff perform this function?**

> Persons performing appraisals of NSP funded acquisitions of
> "foreclosed upon" properties must meet the appraisal qualifications of
> 49 CFR 24.103(d). All persons performing such valuations
> [must]{.underline} be qualified to perform an appraisal, even if they
> are on staff. The regulations at 49 CFR 24.103(d)(2) only require
> contract "fee" appraisers to be state licensed or certified. Staff
> appraisers are not required to possess such qualifications, however,
> they must be qualified. In most circumstances, staff appraisers
> possess a state appraisal license or certification, even though they
> are not required to do so by regulation.

*Posted 11/13/08* **Can NSP funds be used to provide financial
assistance to relocate a tenant from an area defined as "greatest need"
in a grantee's action plan, if the tenant must move but is not displaced
by an NSP-funded acquisition or other activity?**

> No. NSP cannot be used to provide financial assistance to persons not
> displaced by an eligible NSP activity.

*Posted 11/13/08* **How do we define "project" under NSP for the purpose
of complying with the URA?**

> The URA regulations define "program or project" at 49 CFR 24.2(a)(22).
> There is no alternative definition provided under NSP.

*Posted 11/13/08* **If there were tenants in the property when the
lender/servicer completed foreclosure and the lender/servicer completes
the eviction process prior to initiation of negotiations for the sale of
the property to a locality that uses NSP funds to acquire the property,
does the locality need to comply with the 12-month look-back provision
of the URA?  **

> There is no 12 month "look back" period in the URA statute or
> regulations. Any legal occupant who is evicted for the purpose of
> evading a relocation obligation may be eligible for assistance. The
> URA does address "Eviction for Cause" at 49 CFR 24.206.
>
> Under section 104(d), HUD looks at "vacant occupiable" lower-income
> dwelling units that have been occupied within 3 months before the
> execution of an agreement for one-for-one replacement purposes and we
> would see this as a reasonable timeframe for any NSP grantee to
> consider when approaching an owner about purchasing a foreclosed
> property under this new program (for some level of assurance that the
> owner did not evict a legal occupant in order to sell the property as
> vacant to the grantee). However, a grantee must use due diligence when
> approaching any owner about purchasing property with Federal funds,
> particularly if the property is currently occupied or may have been
> recently occupied, to assure that the project does not influence the
> owner's decision to evict an occupant and cause their displacement in
> order to participate in the grantee's program.
>
> Where an owner either evicts a tenant in order to sell a property as
> "vacant" to an Agency for a HUD-funded project, HUD will usually
> presume that the tenant was displaced "for the project." In such
> cases, the Agency would be responsible for finding the displaced
> tenant and providing appropriate relocation assistance, unless the
> Agency can prove that the tenant's move was not attributable to the
> project (see HUD Handbook 1378, Chapter 1, paragraph 1-6 J.1,
> regarding evictions for additional guidance).
> <http://www.hud.gov/offices/adm/hudclips/handbooks/cpdh/1378.0/1378chp1CPDH.pdf>

*Posted 11/13/08* **The NSP Notice states that the 104(d) one for one
unit replacement requirements are waived. Are the 104(d) relocation
requirements also waived? It is likely that many NSP activities will
involve demolition or conversion so 104(d) might well be triggered.**

> No, as stated in the Notice, HUD is not specifying alternative
> requirements to the relocation assistance provisions at 42 U.S.C.
> 5304(d). The 104(d) relocation assistance provisions of 24 CFR 42.350
> are applicable to NSP funded projects and have not been waived.
> Additionally, NSP funding recipients must also comply with the 104(d)
> Residential Anti-displacement and Relocation Assistance Plan (RARAP)
> requirements of 24 CFR 42.325, which also have not been waived.

*Posted 11/13/08* **If the grantee buys properties under NSP and allows
a tenant to move in to a property prior to sale, rehab or demolition
under eligible activities (B) or (D), would that tenant be entitled to
relocation assistance if they are later required to move out? If yes,
can this requirement be mitigated by using the "move-in notice" prior to
when the tenant signs their lease? Note that this issue could include
both residential and commercial tenants if the grantee allows these
tenants to occupy the acquired site.**

> If a new residential-tenant (who was not in the property at the time
> of the Initiation of Negotiations (ION) for acquisition of a property
> for an NSP-funded project\--someone the URA would consider a
> "subsequent tenant") were provided with a Move in Notice that complies
> with 24 CFR 570.606(b)(2)(ii)(B) prior to leasing or occupying the
> property (see Appendix 29 of Handbook 1378 for a sample Move in
> Notice), then neither the URA nor section 104(d) relocation payments
> would be applicable. The key is that the tenant be fully informed of
> the possibility that they could be displaced for the planned project
> BEFORE they move in (so they could choose not to move in). This same
> principal could be applied to non-residential tenants who receive a
> Move in Notice based on the URA definition of "persons not displaced"
> under 49 CFR 24.2(a)(9)(ii)(B) and (C) since the non-residential
> tenant would have moved in after ION and be fully informed of the
> pending project. We do not see how this could apply to an activity
> funded under D of the NSP notice (demolish blighted structures), as
> any property that is blighted would not seem to be suitable for
> occupancy.

*Posted 11/13/08* **Normally under the URA, if a grantee is purchasing
all or substantially all of the properties in a target area, those
purchases must be considered to be "involuntary". Under NSP, if a
grantee is buying all or substantially all of the abandoned or
foreclosed properties in a targeted area (for example for a land bank or
an area of greatest need), would those acquisitions be considered
"involuntary" and if yes, would the URA involuntary sale rules apply or
would the NSP Notice text on page 58339 mean that the voluntary process
would be followed?**

> The URA does not use the terminology "target area." We believe this
> question relates to "voluntary" acquisition requirements which must be
> fulfilled under 49 CFR 24.101(b)(1)(ii). While a grantee may be
> planning to purchase all of the abandoned or foreclosed properties in
> a targeted area, it is unlikely that this purchase will encompass all
> property located in an area (some properties will not be abandoned or
> foreclosed or for sale) and not all such properties may ultimately be
> acquired by the grantee if agreement cannot be reached. Unless this
> acquisition is being made under the threat of eminent domain or for a
> specific designated purpose with defined boundaries that are limiting
> (such as construction of a multi-family housing project or a community
> center or park on a site defined as two specific blocks), we do not
> see that purchasing foreclosed properties for a land bank that has no
> specific end-result planned for the property at the time of the
> acquisition or make acquisitions of foreclosed properties that are
> randomly available in a specific zip code or neighborhood subject to
> the involuntary requirements. The acquisition of abandoned properties
> for a land bank is not an eligible use of NSP funds under (C) of the
> NSP notice.

*Posted 11/13/08* **A bank has foreclosed on a property and a tenant in
the property is forced to move as a result. There are no Federal funds
involved in a purchase of the property or reuse. The tenant doesn't know
what to do and doesn't have immediate funds to find another place. Can a
city use NSP funds to provide relocation assistance (security deposit,
first month's rent, etc.)?**

> The tenant is not eligible for URA assistance or payments, nor may NSP
> funds be used to assist this tenant (since they were not displaced by
> the NSP program). However, the City could develop a program using CDBG
> funds to provide optional relocation assistance (see 24 CFR
> 570.606(d)).

*Posted 11/13/08* **If NSP funds are combined with other federal funds
in a project, including CDBG or HOME, would the NSP rules apply or the
standard URA and 104(d) rules, including one for one replacement of
units?**

> It is possible that both would apply. The answer would depend on the
> nature of the project and the use of funds. If NSP funds are used to
> purchase a foreclosed property, then the acquisition is subject to the
> NSP requirements (appraisal, discount, etc.). If HOME funds are used
> for rehabilitation of this foreclosed property into rental housing
> affordable to low-moderate income persons, then the HOME rules on
> income eligibility, HOME rents, affordability period, etc. are
> applicable. If CDBG funds are used for demolition to convert a
> low-moderate income dwelling unit that was on this NSP-acquired
> property into a park, then the one for one replacement requirements of
> section 104(d) are applicable (even if NSP was used for acquisition of
> the property).

*Posted 11/13/08* **The section 104(d) one-for-one replacement
requirement for lower income dwelling units demolished or converted has
been replaced in NSP by a disclosure of the units affected and reporting
on new low- and moderate-income units created. Could a jurisdiction
count any affordable units produced under the NSP program toward meeting
its one-for-one replacement requirement under another project funded
with either CDBG or HOME?**

> Yes. An affordable unit created with NSP-funds may be counted as a
> replacement unit against a grantee's one-for-one replacement
> obligation created as a result of the use of CDBG or HOME funds for
> another project, provided the NSP unit meets the requirements of 24
> CFR 42.375(b).

*Posted 11/13/08* **This is a multi-part question:**

1.  **If the grantee buys property for the purposes of a land bank under
    eligible activity (C) and allows tenants to move into the units
    pending their final use, would that tenant be entitled to relocation
    assistance if they are later required to move out? The issue with
    this eligible activity is that grantees have 10 years to re-use the
    property so it could presumably be many years later that someone
    would be asked to move out once a final use is determined.**

> If no person was displaced by the acquisition of the property for the
> land bank, then the URA is not applicable at the time of the
> acquisition. If the grantee allows a tenant to move into the acquired
> property prior to a planned federally-funded re-use project, the
> tenant-occupant is not eligible for relocation assistance as a result
> of the original acquisition (see 49 CFR 24.2(a)(9)(ii)(B)). However,
> the tenant-occupant may be eligible for relocation assistance if they
> are made to move for a planned re-use project that is funded with
> federal financial assistance.

2.  **Further, the source of funds for the re-use of the property may
    not be NSP or other federal resources. If the re-use of the property
    is paid by state, local or private funds and the tenant is then
    asked to move out, would their move be considered to be caused by a
    "federal project" and thus would the URA be triggered at that
    point?**

> A tenant who is required to move for a planned re-use project that is
> not federally-funded, would not be subject to the URA (however, such a
> move may be subject to state or local relocation requirements).

3.  **The issue for grantees will be keeping track of the status of
    these properties over time as they are re-used. Note that this issue
    could include both residential and commercial tenants if the grantee
    allows these tenants to occupy the land banked structures.**

> Any low- or moderate-income property assisted with NSP funds is
> subject to the alternative reporting requirements in the notice (see
> section K).

*Posted 11/20/08* **If a home is purchased and rehabilitated with NSP
funds:**

> **Is there a minimum threshold for reselling the home?**
>
> No. There is no minimum price threshold so long as the sale of the
> home conforms to the NSP affordability requirements.
>
> **Does the buyer's purchase discount count against the 50% limitation
> on direct assistance to homebuyers?**
>
> The 50% limit applies to down payment assistance. Other means of
> writing down the purchase price such as purchase price discounts, soft
> second mortgages, etc. do not count against the down payment
> assistance cap.

*Posted 11/20/08* **Does NSP trigger Davis Bacon requirements when the
funds are used solely for down payment assistance or closing costs?**

> No. Davis Bacon applies only when rehabilitating or constructing 8 or
> more units.

*Posted 12/01/08* **Can a property be purchased through a short sale
using NSP funds?**

> Short sales are typically used to prevent a foreclosure. Owners use
> the proceeds of short sales to settle outstanding obligations with
> lenders. As such, the title to the property remains in the hands of
> the homeowner until the sale is executed. Accordingly, a short sale
> property would not meet the definition of a "foreclosed upon" property
> provided in the NSP Notice.

*Posted 12/23/08* **We are negotiating with private lenders and GSEs
regarding negotiated purchase prices for foreclosed properties. The city
will not actually acquire the properties, but will provide financing
assistance to homebuyers to purchase the homes from the title-holder or
a nonprofit will purchase the properties. One GSE has agreed to sell
houses for \$100 (for houses under \$20,000) or 50% of the appraised
value (for those above \$20,000); another GSE has agreed to sell for \$0
(for houses under \$20,000) or a negotiated discount (for those above
\$20,000). The purchaser will be charged \$350/property in closing
costs. Do NSP requirements mandate that we have current appraisals if we
are using NSP funding to cover transaction costs, despite the fact that
the properties themselves are being sold for \$0 therefore eliminating
any discrepancy in value that would necessitate a refreshed appraisal?**

> HUD agrees that there is a de minimus nominal acquisition cost below
> which it is not necessary to obtain an appraisal. For example, if a
> property is being donated or "sold" for zero, or if the sale price is
> less than the average market cost of an appraisal, HUD agrees that an
> appraisal is not needed. However, if the negotiated purchase price is
> established as some percentage of the property value, then the grantee
> must obtain a current appraisal upon which to base this determination
> of current market appraised value.

*Posted 2/24/09* **In reviewing a few of the substantial amendments for
NSP posted on the web, it appears that some grantees are considering
purchasing properties at foreclosure sale using NSP (Louisville, KY for
example).  The properties don\'t meet the definition of \"foreclosed\",
but could it meet the definition of \"abandoned\", which could allow NSP
funds to be used to purchase the property at a foreclosure sale?  The
mortgage or tax foreclosure proceedings have been initiated,
mortgage/tax payments haven\'t been made in 90 days, and the property
has been vacant for 90 days.  It still brings up the issue of appraised
value, since that would be set by the County when it determines the sale
price, not the purchaser through an appraiser.**

> If a home to be sold at sheriff's sale qualifies as "abandoned" based
> on the definition in the NSP Notice, then a grantee could bid for the
> property at the sale.  No appraisal is required to purchase
> "abandoned" properties under NSP. 
>
> However, acquisition of a property at a sheriff's sale with NSP funds
> does not release the grantee from the requirements of the URA with
> regard to purchasing property.   The acquisition policies of the
> Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies
> Act of 1970, as amended (Uniform Act) apply to any acquisition of real
> property for a federally funded project except for acquisitions
> described in 49 CFR 24.101(b)(1) through (5) (commonly referred to as
> "voluntary acquisitions").  The same standards apply to the
> acquisition of real property at a foreclosure sale for a federally
> funded project.  An acquiring Agency undertaking a "voluntary"
> acquisition must comply with the procedures described in 49 CFR
> 24.101(b).  For instance, purchasing property under the "voluntary"
> acquisition provisions at 49 CFR 24.101(b)(1)-(2) requires certain
> disclosures concerning the voluntary nature of the acquisition and the
> purchaser's estimate of the market value of the property.  An
> acquiring Agency must also comply with governing State and local law. 
> The acquiring Agency should consult such laws to determine the
> identity of the legal title owner at the foreclosure sale and whether
> any applicable URA disclosures can be made to the legal title owner.
>
> It is essential that an acquiring Agency consult State foreclosure law
> [before]{.underline} acquiring property at a foreclosure sale.  Issues
> including, but not limited to, the following must be taken into
> consideration:

-   Does the State require a judicial foreclosure process?  If not, then
    what process is used to foreclose the property?

-   During and after foreclosure, who will hold legal title to the
    property?

-   During and directly following foreclosure, who has the right to
    possess the property?

-   Does the foreclosed upon owner have any redemption rights under
    state law?

-   To what degree will the title being passed at the foreclosure sale
    be marketable?

-   What subordinate rights and interests in the property are wiped away
    as a result of the foreclosure proceeding?

> If State or local law precludes compliance with the Uniform Act's
> acquisition provisions, the acquiring Agency should contact its local
> HUD Regional Relocation Specialist.  The Regional Relocation
> Specialist will consult with CPD Headquarters and program counsel
> regarding any potential conflict between the requirements of the
> Uniform Act and State/ local law in order that appropriate next steps
> can be determined.  Contact information for HUD's Regional Relocation
> Specialists can be found at
> [www.hud.gov/relocation/contacts](http://www.hud.gov/relocation/contacts).

*Posted 3/30/09* **When can an NSP grantee begin acquiring properties
under NSP or authorize subrecipients or private entities to acquire
properties with NSP?**

> NSP acquisitions are not authorized to begin until the grantee has
> submitted an action plan amendment to HUD. For most NSP grantees, the
> earliest acquisition start date would be December 1, 2008, but for
> those grantees that submitted an action plan amendment prior to
> December 1, 2008, an earlier date could be acceptable. In addition to
> submitting an action plan amendment, NSP grantees must comply with the
> environmental review, purchase discount and other eligible-use
> criteria discussed in the Guidance on Eligible Uses prior to acquiring
> properties under NSP. If the acquisition is performed by a
> subrecipient, private developer or homebuyer, the grantee must give
> permission or enter into an agreement prior to the acquisition.
> Properties acquired out of foreclosure before these requirements have
> been met are not eligible for NSP assistance. If you have any doubts
> about the compliance of an acquisition please contact your local HUD
> representative or email <nsp-questions@hud.gov> before proceeding.