"Is my county High, Moderate, or Low Income under NCHFA's table — and does that change what actually scores?"
The county income-tier table decides how deep your rent targeting has to go
LIHTC rent and income limits nationwide are built on HUD's published area median income figures under Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code, and North Carolina doesn't deviate from that base layer. What NCHFA adds on top is a county-by-county income designation, published directly in the QAP itself: every one of the state's 100 counties is classified High, Moderate, or Low Income (Section II(F)(2)). The Agency used HUD's FY 2023-2025 Median Family Income "as a guide," but the designation itself is the Agency's own determination — the current-cycle QAP's own table, not a formula, is the source of truth, and it can move between cycles.
| Tier | Sample Counties | Tenant Rent Levels AMI Threshold |
|---|---|---|
| High Income | Wake, Mecklenburg, Durham, Orange, Buncombe | ≤30% AMI |
| Moderate Income | Guilford, Forsyth, Cumberland, Catawba, Davidson | ≤40% AMI |
| Low Income | Robeson, Halifax, Columbus, Scotland, Bertie | ≤50% AMI |
That threshold feeds directly into the "Tenant Rent Levels and RPP" scoring category (Section IV(B)(2), maximum 2 points): 2 points if at least 25% of qualified low-income units are affordable to and occupied by households at or below the tier's AMI threshold, 1 point at 15%. The same percentage-of-units rule produces very different underwriting depending purely on which side of the county line a site sits.
A separate, higher bar governs actual RPP loan eligibility rather than scoring, set out in the same subsection: at least 40% of qualified low-income units must be affordable to and occupied by households at or below 50% AMI to qualify for an RPP loan at all. Targeting claimed under the Tenant Rent Levels scoring counts toward this threshold but doesn't automatically clear it on its own — see Appendix G, the Rental Production Program Guidelines, for the full mechanics.
Income averaging is available separately (Section IV(B)(3)) to new construction and to rehabilitation projects not already under an existing Declaration of Land Use Restrictive Covenants — property-wide average capped at 60% AMI, no single bedroom type averaging above 60% AMI, at least 10% of units at or below 30% AMI, and no market-rate units permitted under this election. Whatever combination of set-asides, RPP targeting, and income averaging a deal stacks, the rent roll is hard-capped at four income bands chosen from 20/30/40/50/60/70/80% AMI plus market rate (Section IV(A)(2)(h)) — over-engineering the mix can breach that ceiling before it breaches anything else.
NCHFA's underwriting standards are fixed, not negotiable with your lender
Section VI(B), "Underwriting Threshold Requirements," applies the same numbers to every project regardless of financing structure: rents escalate at a fixed 2% annually, operating expenses at 3%; every project is underwritten to a constant 7% vacancy; and every project must reflect a 1.15 debt coverage ratio sustained for 20 years. A lender's own pro forma or the market study's vacancy assumption doesn't override these — NCHFA's numbers are what get underwritten.
Minimum operating expenses are set by construction type, excluding taxes, reserves, and resident support services: new construction (other than adaptive re-use) must budget at least $4,200 per unit per year; renovation — which the Plan defines to include both rehabilitation and adaptive re-use — must budget at least $4,400 per unit per year (projects with USDA Rural Development loans instead follow RD's approved operating budget).
Reserves follow the same construction-type split. The operating reserve is the greater of $1,500 per unit or six months of debt service and operating expenses (four months for tax-exempt bond deals), fundable through deferred developer fee or, for non-RPP tax credit deals, an equity pay-in up to a year after certificate of occupancy — and it must stay with the project through investor exit. The replacement reserve runs $250 per unit per year for new construction versus $350 per unit per year for rehabilitation and adaptive re-use, escalating 4% annually, and NCHFA can require more after reviewing the project's physical needs assessment.
Developer fee is capped at $24,000 per unit for new construction, or 28.5% of Project Development Costs line 4 for rehabilitation — both fixed at the time of award. Up to 50% of that fee can be deferred to cover a funding gap, repayable within 15 years at no more than the long-term Applicable Federal Rate. Equity pricing above $0.83 per credit dollar requires a syndicator or investor commitment letter detailing pricing, total capital contribution, pay-in schedule, and reserve terms — and if actual pricing comes in below what was underwritten, the resulting equity shortfall is the Applicant's responsibility; NCHFA won't approve a rent increase to cover it.
Projects layering in RPP funds carry one more rent-setting rule worth isolating from everything else: 15% of total units, spread proportionally across bedroom types, must be underwritten at current Low HOME rents, and the deal may need to comply with HOME program requirements under 24 C.F.R. Part 92 — a rent floor that exists independent of, and in addition to, the standard LIHTC rent limits.
Where this goes wrong
- Assuming HUD's AMI figure alone tells you your rent floor — the county income-tier (High/Moderate/Low) redefines what earning the Tenant Rent Levels points actually requires (30/40/50% AMI respectively) for the same 25%-of-units rule.
- Treating the High/Moderate/Low tier list as static or self-calculable — NCHFA republishes the designation table itself every QAP cycle (using HUD Median Family Income only "as a guide"); the Agency's current-cycle table, not a formula, is the source of truth.
- Missing the RPP HOME-rent overlay — an RPP-funded deal must underwrite Low HOME rents on 15% of units spread proportionally by bedroom type, plus general HOME program compliance under 24 C.F.R. Part 92, a rent layer separate from and in addition to standard LIHTC rents.
- Using a market-standard vacancy or DCR assumption instead of NCHFA's fixed 7% vacancy and 1.15 DCR-for-20-years — the Agency underwrites to its own numbers regardless of what the market study or lender pro forma shows.
- Sizing the developer fee off total development cost instead of NCHFA's fixed caps — $24,000/unit for new construction, or 28.5% of PDC line 4 for rehab, set at award and not later revised upward.
- Conflating RPP scoring with RPP eligibility — the 25%/15% figures under Tenant Rent Levels scoring earn points; a separate 40%-of-units-at-≤50%-AMI threshold is what actually qualifies the deal for an RPP loan, and hitting the scoring target doesn't automatically clear it.
- Forgetting the four-income-band cap (20/30/40/50/60/70/80% AMI plus market rate, four bands maximum) when stacking income averaging with RPP and set-aside targeting — over-engineering the rent roll can breach this hard limit before anything else does.
- Assuming reserve requirements are uniform across construction types — replacement reserves are $250/unit/year for new construction but $350/unit/year for rehab/adaptive re-use, escalating 4% annually, and the Agency can require more after reviewing the physical needs assessment.
- HUD
- LIHTC
- State QAPs
- IRS § 42
- Housing Finance Agencies
