Methodology

LIHTC unit coverage

A covenant can cover a property containing both LIHTC and other apartments. We label reported coverage “All units reported as LIHTC” when reliable unit counts agree, “Some units reported as LIHTC” when the reported LIHTC count is smaller than the total, and “LIHTC unit count uncertain” when counts are missing or conflict. We match HUD unit counts to the exact LIHTC subsidy identifier; counts from other programmes or allocations are not added together. These labels describe reported project coverage, separately from subsidy dates and status. They do not identify a particular tenant’s unit.

The source details distinguish HUD’s federal LIHTC unit counts, NHPD’s total project units, Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency (PHFA) inventory totals and funding flags, and reviewed recorded covenants. A HUD record missing from our imported data does not mean a covenant is missing or a subsidy has ended. A covenant can establish the project’s property list while leaving the exact number of restricted apartments uncertain. Counts cover the whole project, including scattered sites, rather than each address separately.

A minimum set-aside or applicable fraction is a requirement, not an exact current unit count. For example, Cricket Court Commons’ recorded covenant, physical page 5 specifies an applicable fraction of at least 53.35%. Its inventory leaves the LIHTC-unit count blank, so coverage remains uncertain. Its recorded development size also differs from the current inventory. We cannot determine individual apartments’ status from parcel matches, rent amounts or that minimum alone. Filing counts include cases at linked properties, including projects with partial or uncertain coverage; they are not counts of verified LIHTC tenants.

Owner search and geographic concentrations

The attorney-fee table’s owner search matches recorded project owners, including partial names and differences in capitalization. The table, its downloads and the property map share that owner filter, the selected filing dates, rent range and unconfirmed-subsidy setting. The map includes only filings seeking more than $0 in attorney fees. Current parcel coordinates locate the properties; missing or invalid locations are counted separately.

Circle area represents attorney fees sought by default, with a selector for filing counts. A case is counted once per parcel, even when several projects link to that parcel. A case linked to multiple parcels appears at each location, so adding point totals can double count cases or fees. The ranked property table uses the same values. These are absolute amounts sought and filing counts, not amounts awarded, eviction rates or rates per LIHTC unit. Partial and uncertain unit coverage remain included and labeled.

Finding the recorded documents

A reviewed recorded covenant is our primary evidence for which properties belong to its project. NHPD, HUD and PHFA inventories validate project identity and supply separately attributed subsidy metadata. Current OPA records identify today’s parcels and owners; the entity named in a historical agreement can differ from today’s owner or a filing’s plaintiff.

We compare the National Housing Preservation Database (NHPD), HUD’s LIHTC database, and the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency (PHFA) development inventory to identify projects. A scattered-site project can include many homes even when a database lists just one address.

1. Search Philadelphia’s recorded-document index for the project’s legal entity and documents involving PHFA. Document numbers, recording dates, names, and indexed parcels help locate candidates. An index hit is not proof of a LIHTC covenant or project membership. Search aliases, phase numbers and spelling variations as well: one discovered index entry names “Philadelphia Housing Finance Agency” instead of Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency. Searches also include amendments, deeds and financing records without a PHFA party, because those can identify additional properties or point to earlier agreements. We query the City’s public Carto recorded-document table, rtt_summary, using project names, source inventory owner names and current OPA owner names as separate search aliases. We also search by known parcel numbers and retrieve the other parcels indexed in the same document. These searches locate leads; shared owners or documents do not establish that every property belongs to the project. If the City’s index has no OPA number, we also search its exact address using the current OPA address and condominium unit where present. A same street address can contain different residential and office parcels. We also check possible north/south or east/west inventory errors by searching the opposite direction with the same house number and street, including address ranges. Those candidates require document review before correcting a property link. Historical entity names found in recorded documents provide additional search aliases; current project names alone can miss older covenants, amendments and releases. When reviewed documents demonstrate that an inventory match points to a different property or condominium unit, we exclude that match and retain the original inventory record, the rejected link and the source explaining the correction. A deed transferring several properties does not establish that all of them belong to one LIHTC project.
2. Open the recorded document through PhilaDox. Verify the instrument’s title, parties, program, and exact project or phase identity. A miscellaneous deed involving PHFA can be another type of agreement.
3. Read the complete property schedule, often called Exhibit A. Extract every listed address, including addresses absent from the index. An identity page alone does not establish the covered homes.
4. Match the listed addresses to current Office of Property Assessment (OPA) parcel numbers. Review address ranges, retired parcels, and properties sharing a parcel. Keep unresolved addresses separate rather than assigning them to a nearby property.
5. Check amendments and releases by agreement and program: a release of one agreement does not end every restriction at the property. Retain the document ID, original PDF’s SHA-256 checksum, physical PDF page numbers starting at 1, original address text, parcel decisions, and reviewer decisions so the evidence can be checked.

The initial October 2026 collection contained 748 candidate PDFs and 11,298 pages. Ten additional records bring the saved archive to 758 PDFs and 11,626 pages, all with completed local OCR. The review catalogue covers 632 projects, including projects with no candidate PDF. OCR and name matches create leads for human review; they do not make all documents LIHTC covenants or establish all 632 projects’ property schedules.

The City provides online access to recorded documents from 1974 onward. Watermarked copies can be viewed online; printing and obtaining copies may require a paid subscription. City access instructions.

What a parcel link means

Some links come from a project’s listed address. Others are inferred from parcels sharing a recorded ownership deed. Covenant links use the property schedule verified in the recorded PDF. These evidence types are kept distinct in the exports: a shared deed is an inference, while a covenant address schedule explicitly identifies covered properties.

For WPRE III, document 52423512 has a reviewed 48-address schedule on physical PDF pages 14–34, while the deed index contained 46 parcels. All 48 schedule entries were individually resolved to current OPA parcels. One source line says “5626 Walton Street”; the reviewed legal description and current OPA address say “5626 Walton Ave” for parcel 886579100. We retain that exception with its review reason. These 48 parcels were already in the published list, so this review adds no WPRE III parcel membership.

The local review has now resolved complete address enumerations for Neighborhood Restorations X, XI, XII, XIII, XIV, XV, XVI, XVII, XVIII and XIX. For example, XIII’s 32-address list is on physical PDF page 24 of document 50712283. These reviews expand property membership; they do not establish a complete amendment or release history. Additional phases and ambiguous parcel changes still require review.

Phase XI illustrates why we search beyond agency names: document 50395505 was indexed under “Philadelphia Housing Finance Agency,” but its operative covenant identifies PHFA and phase XI. Its address list on physical page 22 covers 26 homes. The reviewed property links retain the original wording and legal-description pages. NHPD stores XI’s separately named subsidy records under a parent property named VIII. We reviewed that relationship and link XI to its exact NHPD subsidy rows, retaining their original dates, statuses, source identifiers and parent property. We do not transfer VIII’s or IX’s dates to XI. Other unresolved subsidy relationships remain separate.

Phase XV’s source address “209-213 South 50th Street” differs from OPA’s “209-11 S 50TH ST.” We reviewed the legal description on physical PDF page 13 of document 51039767: both records identify the northeast corner of 50th and Chancellor Streets and a 64-foot frontage. This supports the unique current parcel match. The old parcel number and stated depth differ, so the property citation records this as a reviewed exception.

On a property’s report, expand its subsidized project and then “Project parcels” to find recorded-document links. Reviewed citations include the original address, current OPA address, physical PDF page, project identity pages, supporting legal-description pages when used, reviewer and matching reason, and the original PDF checksum. A document number without a reviewed page citation remains a source reference, not a reviewed covenant finding. The LIHTC filing page also includes a property evidence table, and owner case downloads carry these citations in the property_source_citations column. PhilaDox may require a disclaimer or CAPTCHA before opening a record.

Status and dates

The displayed Active, Inactive, or Inconclusive status comes from a source database and its date rules. It is distinct from a legal finding about a recorded agreement on a historical filing date. WPRE III’s HUD placed-in-service year is unconfirmed; the displayed 2011–2048 window is an allocation-year fallback in the current published snapshot. The reviewed document has not established the exact calendar term or a complete external amendment and release chain. We therefore do not treat that window as a verified legal restriction period.

Matching and counting filings

We link a filing’s OPA parcel number to the project parcel list. The cohort includes residential, noncommercial filings from 2022 onward and excludes public housing and Philadelphia Asset and Property Management Corporation. The default LIHTC cohort requires an Active subsidy record. When a stored start or end date exists, the filing must fall within that bound. Dates can come from source data or a documented fallback rule; a missing bound leaves that side of the date filter open. This filter does not establish the agreement’s legal period or independently confirm historical coverage.

The property table groups projects by their recorded project owner, rather than the plaintiff’s name. Each case is counted once per owner; a case linked to multiple owners can appear in more than one owner’s total. The table and default owner download include only filings seeking attorney fees above $0 and use the selected filing dates and rent range. Other download options include explicit $0 amounts, unknown amounts, or all matched filings.

Plaintiff attorney names use the text after the final “|” in the source attorney field. Earlier segments identify counterclaimer attorneys. Office addresses are inferred from filing text and may be unidentified.

Why a phase or filing may be missing

• The project’s parcel list is incomplete, especially for scattered-site developments.
• A candidate document has only an identity lead, or its full schedule, phase, or amendment and release scope remains unresolved.
• The filing has no OPA parcel match, or an address remains unresolved.
• The subsidy is Inconclusive and the unconfirmed-status checkbox is off. That checkbox adds these filings to the property table, but not the fee charts.
• The subsidy is Inactive or its recorded dates do not cover the filing. Current status does not establish the status at every earlier filing date.
• The project appears under another recorded owner, or the filing is outside the selected dates, rent range, or attorney-fee cohort.

These counts describe filings we can link with the available evidence. They are not a complete count of an owner’s portfolio or all of its eviction filings. A missing project or case should not be interpreted as having no filings or no LIHTC history.