Site control and due diligence — District of Columbia

Site control: five accepted instruments, one 180-day floor

DHCD's Threshold Eligibility Requirements name exactly five acceptable forms of site control, and nothing else qualifies: a current deed evidencing fee simple ownership; a lease option (with a lease term equal to or greater than the proposed financing term); an award from a request for proposals (RFP); a land or property disposition agreement (LDA or PDA) executed with the District of Columbia; or a contract of sale. At the time of application, site control "MUST extend for at least 180 days beyond the date of the application submission or be demonstrably renewable so that site control can extend through the 180-day period." A generic letter of intent, a verbal understanding, or an option with no minimum term does not satisfy this threshold on its own.

Three reports, three different currency clocks

The appraisal requirement is unusually specific: applicants must submit three valuations from a licensed appraiser -- the "as-is" value, the "as-built"/"as-complete" value assuming restricted (LIHTC) rents, and the "as-built"/"as-complete and stabilized" value assuming unrestricted market-rate rents (used in a foreclosure scenario). If existing improvements will be demolished, the appraisal must also produce an "as vacant" land value net of demolition cost. The appraisal must be no more than six months old at the application deadline, no more than one year old when a selected project submits to DHCD's Office of Program Monitoring (OPM) for compliance review, and no more than 120 days old at closing -- three separate aging checkpoints across the life of one deal.

The market study must be prepared by a professional accredited by the National Council of Housing Market Analysts (NCHMA) with DC tax-credit experience, follow IRC Section 42(m)(1)(A)(iii), adhere to the current NCHMA Model Content Standards, and be no more than six months old at submission. For a mixed-income or mixed-use project, the study must separately demonstrate demand for every non-LIHTC component, not just the affordable units.

The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment must be no more than two years old at the application deadline, and no more than one year old when a selected project reaches OPM compliance review. If the property contains existing improvements, the Phase I's scope must specifically identify possible asbestos-containing materials and potential mold hazards (destructive testing is not required). If an existing structure is not exempt from lead-paint rules by age or use, applicants must also submit a lead assessment. If the Phase I turns up potential hazards, the applicant must include a narrative remediation plan and budget, and must submit any completed Phase II alongside it.

DC's own environmental review sits beside, not inside, the LIHTC Phase I

The QAP's own Environmental Reviews section draws a sharp line most out-of-state applicants will not expect: "Environmental Reviews (ER) subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)... will be performed by DHCD for projects utilizing both LIHTCs and federal funds, such as Risk Share, ACC, HOME, and/or CDBG. Projects utilizing both LIHTCs and HPTF or the National Housing Trust Fund (HTF) are not subject to the NEPA ER process but will still undergo an environmental review (ER). LIHTC-only Projects do not require SHPO concurrence." In other words: a LIHTC-only deal with no other DHCD-administered federal funds triggers no NEPA-style review at all under the QAP; adding local HPTF/HTF dollars adds a DHCD-run ER but not a NEPA one; only adding genuinely federal HUD-administered funds (HOME, CDBG, Risk Share, an ACC) brings full NEPA review and, with it, State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) concurrence, into play.

Separately from that federal-funds-triggered review, DC runs its own local environmental-impact screening under the District of Columbia Environmental Policy Act (DCEPA), independent of whatever federal funds are or are not in the deal. An Environmental Impact Screening Form (EISF) is filed as part of the building-permit process; as of this research, the EISF and a related Environmental Intake Form are published on the Department of Buildings' (DOB) own site (dob.dc.gov), not the old Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA) -- DCRA was split into DOB (building permits, construction compliance) and the Department of Licensing and Consumer Protection (DLCP, business licensing) effective October 1, 2022. Under the DCEPA rule, DOEE receives copies of EISF submissions and its Environmental Review Coordinator distributes them internally by division for review before a permit issues; this research did not confirm current EISF processing timelines or whether DOB's intake process differs materially from the pre-2022 DCRA-era description that still circulates in older guidance.

DOEE's involvement in a DC development is not limited to the DCEPA/EISF screen, and a due-diligence checklist should track each program separately rather than treating "DOEE sign-off" as one item. Its Land Remediation and Development Branch administers the District's Brownfield Revitalization Act, including the Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP), for sites where hazardous-substance contamination complicates redevelopment -- a Phase II-driven track distinct from the QAP's own Phase I/lead/asbestos scope. Its Underground Storage Tank (UST) program separately licenses and regulates tanks, with a companion Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) program handling contamination cleanup where tanks have failed. And its Stormwater Management Regulations (Title 21 DCMR, Chapter 5, amended October 31, 2025) require any site disturbing 5,000 square feet or more of land to obtain a DOEE-approved Stormwater Management Plan or Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan before DOB will issue a construction permit -- retaining stormwater from a 1.2-inch storm on-site or through purchased Stormwater Retention Credits, per DC's MS4 permit from EPA.

Historic review, when it applies, is a threshold item -- not a courtesy comment

The QAP folds historic preservation into the same Threshold Eligibility Requirement as zoning: "If a Project is in a Historic District or requires approval from the Historic Preservation Review Board (HPRB) for any other reason, HPRB approval of the conceptual design is required before application submission." HPRB's own published process describes this as "concept review" -- an early-stage submission that lets an applicant secure preservation-standards sign-off before investing in construction drawings, with public input from HPRB, DC's Historic Preservation Office, and the affected Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC). A site inside a historic district (or otherwise within HPRB's jurisdiction) that has not cleared concept review before the LIHTC application deadline does not meet this threshold requirement, regardless of how strong the rest of the application is.