Will the ROAD to Housing Act Meaningfully Increase Supply?

Author: Roger Ashworth, Head of Research and Data

‍

The 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act became law on July 11, 2026, after passing the Senate 85 to 5 and the House 358 to 32. It is one of the most significant bipartisan housing legislations enacted in years. Its central objective is to increase housing supply by making homes easier to build, finance, rehabilitate, and preserve.

The law does not create one large federal housing program. Instead, it makes targeted changes across permitting, land use, federal grants, manufactured housing, mortgage finance, affordable housing investment, and institutional ownership of single-family homes.

At the same time, the law does not lower mortgage rates, materially increase near-term mortgage originations, or create a broad homebuyer subsidy. It also does not solve rising insurance, property tax, labor shortages, or land costs. The final impact will depend on agency capacity, market reaction, and state and local execution.

‍

‍Institutional Purchases of Single-Family Homes

For institutional capital, the most consequential provision restricts large investors from acquiring additional existing single-family homes. A large institutional investor is generally a for-profit entity that, alone or in concert with others, has direct or indirect investment control of at least 350 covered single-family homes. Homes acquired through specified exceptions do not count toward the threshold. Affiliated funds, investment managers, general partners, managing members, joint venture participants, and certain equity holders may therefore be relevant.

The restriction takes effect 180 days after enactment and expires 15 years later. It is not retroactive. Investors are not required to sell homes they already own

Two features matter most for capital markets, and both moved in investors’ favor relative to the Senate’s original bill:

• First, the seven-year mandatory sale requirement was removed. The earlier version would have required investors to sell certain build-to-rent (BTR), new construction, and renovate-to-rent homes to individual buyers within seven years. The final law allows qualifying BTR communities to be developed and held without a mandatory exit.
• Second, the law preserves several important investment channels. New rental construction (built-to-rent, BTR) remains permitted. Certain renovation and homeownership programs may also qualify for exceptions. The law also protects qualifying acquisitions through debt satisfaction, foreclosure, deeds in lieu, and related enforcement actions. These transactions must support loss mitigation or compliance with servicing or investor obligations. They cannot become a long-term investment strategy.

These protections are important for lenders and servicers. Without them, ordinary mortgage, bridge, and residential transition lending could have faced significant uncertainty. Entity attribution will now become part of underwriting and transaction diligence for platforms approaching the 350 home threshold. Lenders must determine who controls the platform, which homes count, and whether each acquisition qualifies for an exception.

The likely result is a shift in strategy rather than a forced unwind. Large investors may direct more capital toward BTR, qualifying rehabilitation, and other permitted transactions. We expect the national effect on home prices and homeownership to be modest. Any measurable impact is more likely to occur in markets where institutional buyers represent a meaningful share of acquisitions.

‍

Faster Reviews Could Help Projects Already Near the Starting Line

Five additional components stand out in the law:

‍‍

1. First, it seeks to reduce development friction.

The law expands and streamlines certain environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). It expands categorical exclusions and allows the Department of Housing and Urban Development to delegate certain reviews to states and local governments.

It also directs HUD to publish best-practice frameworks for zoning and land use. The law creates a competitive Innovation Fund for jurisdictions that demonstrate measurable housing supply growth, subject to future appropriations. It also supports infill development and adaptive reuse.

The greatest benefits are likely to accrue to projects that already have local support, site control, and a nearly complete capital structure. Congress did not preempt local zoning. The land use frameworks are guidance, not mandates. Local governments will continue to control density, lot size, parking requirements, building height, and design standards. For that reason, the supply effect is likely to be incremental rather than transformational.

2. Second, it expands flexibility in core federal housing programs.

The law expands the permitted uses of several existing housing programs. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds appropriated after enactment may now support new affordable housing construction. This use is capped at 20 percent of a recipient’s allocation. The HOME Investment Partnerships Program is also reauthorized and given greater administrative flexibility, including support for housing-related infrastructure and streamlined environmental review. The Act also materially raises the statutory Federal Housing Administration (FHA) multifamily per-unit loan caps, changes the annual inflation index to a construction-cost index, and requires FHA to study whether the new limits are sufficient.

These changes may help finance land acquisition, infrastructure, rehabilitation, and other components of affordable housing projects. Their effect will depend on how recipients allocate existing and future resources.

3.    Third, it supports manufactured and modular housing.

The manufactured housing provisions are among the law’s clearest supply reforms because they address the cost of the unit itself. The Act removes the permanent chassis requirement for certain homes built under the HUD manufactured housing code and directs HUD to establish related construction, safety, and energy efficiency standards. Removing the chassis requirement could make manufactured homes easier to integrate into conventional subdivisions and may also support treatment that more closely resembles site-built real estate.

That outcome is not automatic. Financing, appraisal, insurance, title, and regulatory practices must also adapt. Factory production may reduce construction time, labor requirements, weather-related delays, and cost volatility. The practical impact will depend on HUD’s standards and the responses of lenders, insurers, appraisers, regulators, and secondary market participants.

4.    Fourth, it aims to improve access to small-dollar mortgages.

The law authorizes a four-year Federal Housing Administration pilot program for mortgages of $100,000 or less. It also directs the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to study the effects of originator compensation rules and points-and-fees thresholds on small-balance lending.

The problem is economic. Underwriting, compliance, appraisal, title, closing, and servicing costs are largely fixed. A lender earns far less on a $75,000 mortgage than on a larger loan but performs much of the same work. Small mortgages may therefore be uneconomic even when the borrower is creditworthy and the property is sound. This constraint is most acute in lower-cost rural communities and older urban neighborhoods. The pilot should be judged by whether it increases sustainable originations below $100,000 and reduces borrower costs.

5.    Fifth, it increases the potential for affordable housing capital formation.

The law raises the Public Welfare Investment limit from 15 percent to 20 percent of capital and surplus for national and state member banks. The higher limit expands capacity for Low Income Housing Tax Credit investments, Community Development Financial Institutions, affordable housing funds, and other qualifying activities.

The Low Income Housing Tax Credit is the primary federal mechanism for producing income-restricted rental housing. Investors provide equity in exchange for tax credits, thereby reducing the debt a project must carry. The additional capacity is useful but incremental. It will matter most for institutions with established affordable housing platforms, sufficient tax appetite, available capital, regulatory motivation, and a viable project pipeline. The increase does not apply uniformly across the financial system. It does not make the same statutory change for state non-member banks or credit unions.

‍

Saluda Grade's View

Originators are not describing a market where funding has disappeared. They are describing a market in which the harder question is whether available capital is being deployed with sufficient discipline. Proceeds friction, Loan-to-Cost (LTC) pressure, and weaker underwriting at the competitive margin are signs of a market where the terms required to win loans are increasingly difficult to defend under stress.

One signal deserves particular emphasis. Several originators noted that their credit selection approach is not a reaction to recent conditions. There is a meaningful difference between an originator that tightens under duress and one that never loosened its standards in the first place. We believe that difference is difficult to see in the current vintage but becomes much clearer when collateral takes longer to sell, extensions become more frequent, and the margin for error narrows.

On leverage, higher LTC or tighter spreads can be defensible for the right sponsor and the right project. The problem arises when the market stops making those distinctions. LTC and Loan-to-After-Repair-Value (LTARV) become expressions of loss severity, underwritten into a default resolution rather than competitive structuring terms. When credit standards compress broadly, losses accrue disproportionately where lenders extended furthest and assumed too much liquidity at exit.

The divergence in exit assumptions is the variable we are monitoring most carefully. The origination cycle of 2020 through 2022 produced structures calibrated to a disposition environment that no longer exists in many geographies. Some originators have already revised hold period and disposition assumptions based on observed portfolio seasoning. Others have not. That gap will not be apparent in current remittance data. We believe that the gap will not become measurable until the 2025 and 2026 loans mature. We hope that by asking these questions early on, we will be able to better assess whether our originator partners are applying appropriate exit underwriting before it appears in reported performance.

Takeout reliability is an extension of the same dynamic. Originators with consistent institutional capital partners can commit to sponsors with confidence in execution, manage warehouse dwell times more effectively, and sustain origination discipline through periods of market stress rather than contracting in response. Where episodic capital creates execution uncertainty at the loan level, the consistency of a capital partner becomes a credit variable in its own right.

Originators are not signaling a capital-constrained market. They are signaling a market where performance dispersion will be driven by credit selection, leverage discipline, and exit underwriting control. We believe the lenders best positioned through year-end will not simply be those willing to deploy capital. Origination volume is easiest to generate when capital is abundant and competitive pressure is high. They will be those with the rigor to identify which sponsors merit capital, which projects can support it, and which terms remain defensible if conditions deteriorate.

‍

What Happens Next

The Act’s initial effects are likely to be seen in development timelines, financing structures, mortgage programs, and institutional investment strategies. They are unlikely to appear immediately in national affordability measures. HUD must issue regulations, standards, and guidance for numerous provisions. Other agencies must design studies, pilots, and implementation frameworks. Market participants must then determine whether the new authorities improve the economics of actual transactions.

We believe the law should be evaluated using a focused set of outcomes:

• Shorter federal review periods;
• More housing produced with CDBG and HOME funding;
• Increased mortgage originations below $100,000;
• Wider adoption and financing of chassis-free manufactured homes;
• Additional bank investment in affordable housing; and
• A shift in institutional capital from existing home acquisitions toward new construction.

The ROAD Act improves the infrastructure for producing and financing housing. It should help projects delayed by administrative or financing barriers. It will have less effect where the central problem is that housing costs more to build or purchase than residents can afford. Addressing that gap remains the next major housing-policy challenge.

A complement to this act could be the Neighborhood Homes Investment Act (NHIA). House and Senate versions of the bill were introduced and referred to their respective committees in mid-2025. NHIA would create a targeted tax credit to cover the gap between the cost of building or substantially rehabilitating single-family homes and their sales value in eligible neighborhoods.

‍

Bottom Line

The ROAD Act aims to improve the infrastructure for producing and financing housing, and Congress is finally treating housing supply as infrastructure. The law recognizes that affordability cannot be solved by stimulating demand alone. That is important because demand-side subsidies without more supply can simply capitalize into higher prices. It should help projects delayed by administrative complexity, rigid federal programs, or financing friction. The law does not provide significant new appropriated funding, nor does it preempt local zoning. It also does not lower mortgage rates or directly reduce insurance, tax, labor, or land costs. It will therefore have the least impact in markets where the primary problem is not process but economics. Closing that gap remains the next housing policy challenge.

‍

‍

Source:

(1) 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, Pub. L. No. 119-101, H.R. 6644, 119th Cong. (2026).

‍

Disclaimer

These materials are general information only, not investment advice or a recommendation to buy or sell any security. The information included herein may not be current and Saluda Grade has no obligation to provide any updates or changes. No representation, warranty, or undertaking, express or implied, is given as to the accuracy or completeness of the information or opinions contained herein. Certain information contained in these materials has been obtained from published and non-published sources prepared by third parties, which, in certain cases, have not been updated through the date hereof. While such information is believed to be reliable, Saluda Grade has not independently verified such information, nor does it assume any responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of such information. Except as otherwise indicated herein, the information, opinions and estimates provided in this presentation are based on matters and information as they exist as of the date these materials have been prepared and not as of any future date and will not be updated or otherwise revised to reflect information that is subsequently discovered or available, or for changes in circumstances occurring after the date hereof. Saluda Grade’s opinions and estimates constitute Saluda Grade’s judgment and should be regarded as indicative, preliminary and for illustrative purposes only. Certain information contained in this document constitutes forward-looking statements, and there is no representation or guarantee that they will occur. Certain statements contained herein may be deemed testimonials or endorsements. Such statements may have been provided by current clients, former clients, or non-clients. No compensation, cash or non-cash, was provided in exchange for these statements. Any testimonial or endorsement reflects the individual’s personal experience and opinion, which may not be representative of the experience of all clients. There is no guarantee that any client or investor will have a similar experience or achieve similar results. The firm does not believe that any testimonial or endorsement presented herein creates a material conflict of interest. However, prospective clients should consider that such statements may not be indicative of future performance or success and should not be relied upon as the sole basis for an investment decision.