The Washington Report

The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) announced the 2026 loan limits for FHA-insured forward mortgages on December 11. The new limits reflect continued growth in housing prices across most of the country, with nearly all U.S. counties seeing increases from 2025 levels.

The nationwide loan limits for calendar year 2026 are:

• One-unit properties: $541,287 (low-cost area "floor") to $1,249,125 (high-cost area "ceiling")
• Two-unit properties: $693,050 to $1,599,375
• Three-unit properties: $837,700 to $1,933,200
• Four-unit properties: $1,041,125 to $2,402,625

Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands have higher limits to account for construction costs.

FHA calculates forward mortgage limits based on median house prices in accordance with the National Housing Act, with limits set by Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) and county. The loan limit for each MSA is determined by the county with the highest median price within that area. Ten jurisdictions will see decreases from 2025 levels due to changes in MSA boundaries made by the Office of Management and Budget.

The new loan limits apply to case numbers assigned between January 1, 2026, and December 31, 2026. County-specific loan limits and additional information are available on FHA's website.

Building on its successful amicus effort in Tyler v. Hennepin County, the National Association of REALTORS® (NAR) is continuing the fight to defend property owners from government overreach. NAR, joined by the American Property Owners Alliance, Michigan REALTORS®, and the Wisconsin REALTORS® Association, filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court of the United States in Pung v. Isabella County, supporting a Michigan family's fight to protect and retain equity from the tax foreclosure sale of their home.

Pung builds on the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Tyler, which affirmed that while governments may collect unpaid taxes, they cannot retain any surplus (or "equity") from the property, recognizing equity as protected property under the 5th Amendment of the Constitution. After Tyler, many states updated their laws to comply with the ruling, but questions remained, including the question at the center of the Pung case: How should a property owner’s equity be calculated – based on the property’s fair market value or the much lower price often seen at tax foreclosure auctions?

The estate of Timothy Pung is challenging Isabella County’s decision to foreclose on the family home over a disputed $2,241.93 tax bill. After the county foreclosed on the property, the property was sold at a tax auction for $76,008, even though the county itself had valued the property at $194,400, more than double the auction price. Pung’s estate argues that the county violated the Constitution by depriving the estate of valuable equity and that compensation should be based on the property’s fair market value, not the depressed auction price. They also claim the county’s actions amounted to an excessive fine under the 8th amendment of the Constitution. After a series of wins and losses in the lower courts, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the case.

NAR’s amicus brief centers on how equity should be valued under the 5th Amendment’s Takings Clause, aligning with the property owners in Pung that fair market value is the long‑established and proper standard. Tax foreclosure systems like the one in Isabella County, Michigan allow governments to seize private property without providing just compensation. NAR has long opposed equity theft and uncompensated takings, emphasizing that property owners have a constitutional right to equity in their property. When governments sell property at below‑market auction prices and retain the surplus, they deprive owners of significant equity and financial security. These systems offer limited due process, enable governments to profit from minor or disputed tax debts, and disproportionately impact vulnerable communities. Nationally, the typical homeowner has gained about $143,000 in equity over the past five years and nearly $238,000 over the past decade; in Michigan, those gains are approximately $124,000 and $202,000, respectively.

NAR’s legal advocacy efforts to support private property rights remain a priority. NAR will continue to monitor any developments in this case and provide updates accordingly.

To learn more about the case, visit the docket here: Pung v. Isabella County

NAR submitted comments to The Appraisal Foundation's Appraiser Qualification Board in response to its Exposure Draft Proposed Interpretations and the Retirement of Guide Note 4.

In the letter, NAR stated that it values Fair Housing education, which is a recurring requirement for its members. The AQB's Fair Housing requirement for appraisers exceeds that of NAR. However, beginning in 2026, NAR will allow any course that satisfies the learning objectives for the AQB’s “Valuation Bias and Fair Housing Laws and Regulations” continuing education requirement and is approved by the AQB’s Course Approval Program and/or by state appraisal regulatory agencies to also satisfy NAR’s Fair Housing Training requirement.

NAR also cautioned that the retirement of guidance on practicums could be disruptive without replacement language in place.

Read the letter