What Are the Patterns for Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Use Across the Southeast

What Are the Patterns for Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Use Across the Southeast?

October 05, 2026

• Partners Update
• Publication
• Community and Economic Development
• Regional Economy

Housing affordability continues to be a challenge, especially for low-to moderate-income populations in the Southeast.¹ Since its creation in 1986, the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) has become the federal government's primary resource in supporting affordable housing production.² The program provides tax credits that can be used for the acquisition, rehabilitation, and construction of rental housing for low- and moderate-income populations. Since 2008, LIHTC tax credits have contributed to the financing for approximately 240,000 units in roughly 2,700 developments across Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Tennessee.³ Where those units are developed within these states departs from national patterns.⁴

In this Partners Update, we explain our baseline for understanding how LIHTC-financed capital has been deployed to Southeastern communities. Establishing this baseline matters because efforts to preserve affordable housing, target new production, and direct capital all depend on knowing where the credit has and has not contributed to affordable housing developments. Drawing on the US Department of Housing and Urban Development's National Low Income Housing Tax Credit database, which records placed-in-service LIHTC developments since 1987, we examine LIHTC production trends, including where projects financed with these tax credits are located across metropolitan, micropolitan, and rural areas and how these patterns compare to the nation.

The Southeast departs from national trends

Between 2008 and 2024, nationally, LIHTC units were concentrated in metropolitan areas on a per capita basis, at 528.9 units per 100,000 residents, compared to 393.8 in micropolitan areas and 241.5 in rural counties outside of a core-based statistical area.⁵ Production of LIHTC units within Atlanta Fed District states during this period departs from that pattern. On a per capita basis, the rate at which LIHTC units were constructed in District states' micropolitan areas surpass that in their metropolitan areas, at 479.0 and 456.5 units per 100,000 residents, respectively, and the rate in rural counties, at 366.0 per 100,000 residents, is higher than the rural rate nationally (see figure 1).

Figure 1: LIHTC Units per 100,000 Residents by CBSA Designation, United States vs. Atlanta Fed District States, 2008-2024⁶

Sources: US Department of Housing and Urban Development Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Property Database; US Census Bureau Decennial Census; authors' calculations

Production by volume differs from production per resident

Measuring the production of LIHTC housing developments can be done from a number of perspectives. Total units and units per resident are the two conventional measures of LIHTC production; a renter resident population denominator offers a complementary view. State-level production can be considered based on the number of LIHTC housing development projects produced during a time period as described in table 1. For 2008-2024, of the Atlanta Fed's six District states, Florida and Georgia lead by volume, with Georgia having the highest number of development projects, followed by Florida. However, LIHTC production can also be evaluated based on the number of units produced. During the same period, while more developments with LIHTC were produced in Georgia, more units were produced in Florida with LIHTC. Between 2008 and 2024, Florida and Georgia together account for more than half of the region's LIHTC units, followed by Tennessee, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama.

Considering the numbers in the context of state population figures reveals an additional pattern: less populous states lead in production per resident. Measured as units per 100,000 residents, Mississippi and Louisiana had the highest rates at 698.5 and 647.6, respectively, while Florida, despite the largest number of total LIHTC units, sits at 335.4 per 100,000 residents, and Georgia, with the largest number of LIHTC development projects, at 624.5 per 100,000 residents. Between 2008 and 2024, the lowest number of development projects and total units produced with LIHTC were in Alabama, which had the lowest rate of units per 100,000 residents, 210.4. By comparing production of LIHTC units to a state's renter population, we provide additional context. Mississippi has the fewest number of renters of the six states but had the highest rate of units per 1,000 renters, 59.3, followed by Louisiana and Georgia, at 51.6 and 48.6 per 1,000 renters, respectively.⁷

Table 1. LIHTC Units per 100,000 Residents and 1,000 Renter Residents by Type and State, 2008-2024

State	LIHTC Projects	Total Units	State Population (2020)	Total Units per 100,000 Residents	Renter Population (2020)	Total Units per 1,000 Renters
Alabama	162	10,570	5,024,279	210.4	581,999	18.2
Florida	656	72,237	21,538,187	335.4	2,680,435	26.9
Georgia	751	66,896	10,711,908	624.5	1,377,105	48.6
Louisiana	424	30,163	4,657,757	647.6	584,328	51.6
Mississippi	309	20,684	2,961,279	698.5	348,677	59.3
Tennessee	433	40,149	6,910,840	581	882,921	45.5

Sources: US Department of Housing and Urban Development Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Property Database; US Census Bureau Decennial Census; authors' calculations

Production per resident differs from production per renter resident

How metros rank on LIHTC production depends on the measurement used. Per resident, the mid-sized metropolitan areas lead. Ranked by units per 1,000 renter residents, the New Orleans metro area leads at 72.3, followed by the Nashville metro area at 57.0 units, and the Knoxville metro area at 54.6.

Meanwhile, per renter household (the measure more relevant to rental demand), the four large metros with the most renter households-Miami, Atlanta, Tampa, and Orlando-fall near the middle of LIHTC production(?). The Miami metro area records 32.3 units per 1,000 renter households and the Tampa metro area about 25.7. Metro Atlanta is the exception among the large markets, ranking fourth on unit production intensity at 43.4. The Birmingham metro area records the lowest rate, at 8.8 units per 1,000 renters, which is less than a fifth of metro New Orleans's leading rate.⁸ Figure 2 provides data of both per resident and per renter household measures for selected large metro areas within the Southeast.

Figure 2: LIHTC Units per 100,000 Residents and per 1,000 Renters Across Selected Large Metropolitan Areas in the Southeast, 2008-2024

Sources: US Department of Housing and Urban Development Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Property Database; US Census Bureau Decennial Census; authors' calculations
Note: Metropolitan areas were selected based on population size as of the 2020 Census. The ten largest metropolitan areas across Atlanta Fed District States are charted above.

Smaller markets as intensive as larger metros

Turning to micropolitan areas, figure 2 presents the number of total LIHTC units per 100,000 residents and per 1,000 renter residents for selected areas within the Southeast. The Tupelo and Meridian, Mississippi, and LaGrange, Georgia, micropolitan areas rank near the top size of the populations of renter residents. The two per capita measures again order the areas similarly, so the micropolitan parity noted earlier holds under either denominator.⁹

Several small markets produce at rates that rival or exceed the region's metros.¹⁰ The LaGrange, Georgia, micropolitan area records 846.5 units per 100,000 residents and the Key West, Florida, micro area is 967.8, both above every metropolitan area except New Orleans on this specific measure and consistent with the micropolitan parity described earlier. The tourism-oriented micro areas of Key West, Florida, and Sevierville, Tennessee, record high rates per renter resident, 59.8 and 61.7 units per 1,000, respectively, above what their per resident rates alone would indicate because a large share of their housing is renter-occupied and the resident base is small. The Tupelo, Mississippi, and Cookville, Tennessee, micro areas also rank near the top on the renter measure.

Figure 3: LIHTC Units per 100,000 Residents and per 1,000 Renter Residents across Selected Large Micropolitan Areas in the Southeast, 2008-2024

Source: US Department of Housing and Urban Development Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Property Database; US Census Bureau Decennial Census; authors' calculations.
Note: Micropolitan areas were selected based on population size as of the 2020 Census. The ten largest micropolitan areas across the Southeast are charted above.

Summary of findings

Several patterns stand out across the landscape analysis. In Atlanta Fed District states (those referred to throughout the paper as the Southeast), LIHTC reaches smaller cities and towns at a higher per capita rate than the national pattern: the region's micropolitan unit production edges above its metropolitan one, a reversal of the national LIHTC production trend. Rural counties within the Southeast record a lower level of production than either but one well above the national figure, so the region's production? reach extends into its less urbanized areas relatively more in comparison to the national numbers. The per resident measure ranks states and place types differently than the volume totals do.

The views expressed here are those of the author's and not necessarily those of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta or the Federal Reserve System. Any remaining errors are the author's responsibility.

The Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta's Community and Economic Development function supports the Central Bank's mandate of stable prices and maximum employment by helping improve the economic opportunity of low- and moderate-income (LMI) individuals and underserved places for a stronger economy for all Americans. Community development is one of the Federal Reserve's core functions and this responsibility is rooted in its mandates from Congress. Partners Update articles address community and economic development trends, issues, and events. Find more research, use data tools, and sign up for email updates at Community Economic and Development.

• ¹ Sarah Stein, Aidan Rickaby, and Pearse Haley, "Where are the Affordable Rental Units?," Partners Update (Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, 2025).
• ² US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, "LIHTC Database | Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program Properties and Tenants Data," HUD User, revised May 28, 2026, and accessed August 19, 2026.
• ³ For this analysis, the Southeast refers to these six states which are a part of the Federal Reserve's Sixth District.
• ⁴ The credit allocation is not randomly allocated across geographies. Under Internal Revenue Code 42 each state's annual nine percent credit ceiling is set per capita: a set amount per resident multiplied by the state population, and the four percent credits track population-based bond caps. Within each state, the housing finance agency directs the competitive credits through a Qualified Allocation Plan.
• ⁵ A core-based statistical area (CBSA) is a county or group of counties defined by the US Office of Management and Budget around an urban core. Metropolitan areas have a core of at least 50,000 residents, micropolitan areas 10,000 to 50,000, and counties in neither are treated here as rural. Place type follows the March 2020 delineation for consistency with the population denominators, found in Office of Management and Budget, "Revised Delineations of Metropolitan Statistical Areas, Micropolitan Statistical Areas, and Combined Statistical Areas, and Guidance on Uses of the Delineations of These Areas ," OMB Bulletin No. 20-01 (March 6, 2020). OMB Bulletin No. 23-01 has since superseded it. See Office of Management and Budget, "Revised Delineations of Metropolitan Statistical Areas, Micropolitan Statistical Areas, and Combined Statistical Areas, and Guidance on Uses of the Delineations of These Areas," OMB Bulletin No. 23-01 (July 21, 2023). Denominators are from the US Census Bureau, 2020 Census resident population totals. Last revised November 29, 2022.
• ⁶ We report production per resident and per renter resident. Under Section 42 the credit is allocated to states on a per-capita basis. Per-resident output is the natural benchmark, and renter residents' best proxy rental demand. A lower to moderate income denominator can be a useful complement to measuring per capita production.
• ⁷ Production and geographic figures cover projects placed in service 2008 to 2024. Data are from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, "Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Property Database (projects placed in service through 2024)," HUD User. For background on how the credit works and whom it serves, see Scally, Gold, and DuBois, "The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit: How It Works and Who It Serves," Urban Institute, 2018. The 2008-2024 window is intended to provide a recent -period view that can be compared with a common, updated Census population denominator. Extending the same per capita calculation across the program's full history would pair one contemporary population county with nearly four decades of production.
• ⁸ We report production per resident and per renter resident. Under Section 42 the credit is allocated to states on a per-capita basis. Per-resident output is the natural benchmark, and renter residents' best proxy rental demand. A lower to moderate income denominator can be a useful complement to measuring per capita production.
• ⁹ National and state estimates of affordable and available rental homes per 100 extremely low-income renter households are from National Low Income Housing Coalition, "The Gap: A Shortage of Affordable Homes (2026)," which draws on the American Community Survey and its Public Use Microdata Sample. Extremely low-income renters are those with incomes at or below the federal poverty guideline or 30 percent of area median income, whichever is greater. Florida, for example, records about 26 affordable and available homes per 100 such renters, and the Orlando area, at 13, is among the lowest of the fifty largest metropolitan areas.
• ¹⁰ Micropolitan areas are between 10,000 and 50,000 in population. We use a 100,000-population denominator to standardize production rate across metropolitan and micropolitan areas.