By Brandon Mikhail Thompson
Clark County, the 11th largest county in the United States (by population), is one of the most challenged real estate markets in the nation when it comes to affordable housing. Further, research has shown that, at state-level: Nevada’s low- to extremely low-income residents have far fewer affordable housing options than any other state, and the increasing costs of housing has greatly outpaced relative income growth. Moreover, Clark County trails northern Nevada counties in the construction of multi-family housing. To combat this staggering deficit, both the Nevada Legislature and Clark County’s Board of County Commissioners have kicked into ‘overdrive’ to invest in, and develop, quality affordable housing.
However, creating more affordable housing developments is not enough. Preservation is equally vital. The federal government has established various requirements and protections when using federal funds for affordable housing projects. The restrictions are wide and varied, but generally include the following: fair market rent (FMR) or sales caps; local area median income (AMI) caps (usually between 30% and 60%, but sometimes as high as 80%); a demographic designation or preference, such as a “multifamily housing,” “senior housing,” or “HUD Section 811 disabled housing;” and restrictions on sales/transfers of ownership interest in the property, without prior notice and approval. See 24 CFR 92.252; 24 CFR 888.11; 26 U.S.C. 42(g)(2). Additionally, there may be an established percentage/number of rental units at each cap threshold. For example, a 60-unit development may have the following unit/income restrictions set: six (6) one-bedroom units at 30% AMI; twenty-seven (27) one-bedroom and thirteen (13) two-bedroom units at 50% AMI; and eleven (11) one-bedroom and three (3) two-bedroom units at 60% AMI.
The HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME), administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), has created mandatory affordability periods for all projects that receive its grant money. See generally 24 CFR 92.252. This can range from five (5) to twenty (20) years—for rehabilitation and acquisition projects—with twenty (20) years as a standard for new constructions. Id. (Note: For some HOME funded new construction projects, Clark County may add an “extended affordability period” of up to an additional ten (10) years; for a total of thirty (30) years). Following suit, the State of Nevada and Clark County have established similar restrictions for their grants: Nevada’s Account for Affordable Housing Trust Fund (AAHTF) and Clark County’s Community Housing Fund (CHF), respectively. See NRS Chapter 319; Clark County Code Chapter 9.02. (Note: Clark County’s CHF affordability period, for new constructions, may range up to fifty (50) years. Additionally, Clark County’s newest “Welcome Home Community Land Trust (CLT)” program will feature a ground lease that requires a ninety-nine-(99)-year affordability period).
The affordability restrictions set by each of these funding sources are memorialized in, protected by, and enforced through a recorded deed restriction, or restrictive covenant, that runs with the land. 24 CFR 92.252. These covenants are generally recorded in a priority (often first) position to any other recordable document in a real estate development project. Additionally, because they ‘run with the land’—are permanently attached to the parcel itself, rather than a particular owner—the covenants become binding on all heirs, successors, and assigns that may acquire interest in the property. Also important, these covenants are protected from, and will survive, a foreclosure action on the property; subject to certain limitations and exceptions.
Should an owner violate any of the covenants set by the deed restriction, a host of penalties may come into play. Defaulting parties may be subject to: a withholding of further funding; litigation by way of injunctive relief and/or specific performance; repossession of the property; removal/replacement of an entity owner’s property management company and/or managing members; demand for a full return of grant money; termination of the funding agreement and project; or any other remedies allowed by federal, state, or local law.
The need for a massive influx of quality affordable housing in Clark County could not be more apparent. Equally necessary are safeguards to preserve and enforce the affordability provisions. Through federal, state, and local programs—HOME, AAHTF, and CHF—southern Nevada has the tools essential to meet these needs. Clark County’s portfolio of affordable housing will not blossom overnight. However, with supportive funding from all levels of government, consistent partnership with community non-profits, and robust protection and enforcement from recorded deed restrictions, the goal of sustainable affordable housing for all is finally within reach.
About the author
Brandon Mikhail Thompson is a Deputy District Attorney within the Civil Division of Clark County. His primary assignments are the Clark County Departments of Social Services and Community/Affordable Housing; both of which often require him to navigate tort, contract, property, and administrative law at the local, state, and federal levels.
About the article
This article was originally published in the Communiqué (Aug 2026), the official publication of the Clark County Bar Association.
The articles and advertisements appearing in Communiqué magazine do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the CCBA, the CCBA Publications Committee, the editorial board, or the other authors. All legal and other issues discussed are not for the purpose of answering specific legal questions. Attorneys and others are strongly advised to independently research all issues.
© 2026 Clark County Bar Association (CCBA). All rights reserved. No reproduction of any portion of this issue is allowed without written permission from the publisher. Editorial policy available upon request.