Using Data to Prevent the Loss of Home Equity in New York City

Executive Summary

In New York City, as across the country, a home is far more than a place to live—it shapes nearly every aspect of a household’s quality of life and, for many, represents their most significant financial asset. In New York City, homes owned by long-time residents have become especially valuable in a city where property values have risen dramatically over the past three decades. Since 2000, citywide residential values have grown at a compounded average annual rate of 5.8 percent—more than twice the rate of inflation over the same period (which was 2.5% annually).

But rising property values, aging owners, and incomplete property records create conditions that leave some homeowners vulnerable to exploitation. When ownership or other property records are unclear, or there is no oversight from public or private entities, residents may be more susceptible to title-related complications, legal challenges, or pressure to sell under unfavorable terms.

This report—produced by the NYU Furman Center and the Urban Institute’s Housing Justice team—uses a mix of public and proprietary data to better understand where those vulnerabilities might lie in New York City. The goal is to support targeted outreach, inform policy responses, and help prevent unnecessary losses of home equity—particularly among households less equipped to navigate legal and financial complexities

What we did: The NYU Furman Center and the Urban Institute’s Housing Justice Team estimated the number and distribution of 1–3 family homes in New York City that exhibit characteristics associated with vulnerability to predatory tactics or title-related problems. These homes may potentially be affected by heirs’ property arrangements or other forms of tangled titles, in which informal transfers or inheritances have muddied the chain of ownership.¹ Using observable indicators—such as the listing of a deceased person as owner or the absence of recorded deed or mortgage activity in recent decades—we flag properties that may face elevated risk. We then classify them into two categories: “At-risk” properties, which exhibit at least one risk indicator, and “Higher risk” properties, which exhibit multiple risk indicators. We also examine the relationship of at-risk properties to their zoning classification. Of course, different types of risk may overlap and compound, increasing the likelihood of legal complications, financial exploitation, or loss of home equity.² This analysis does not imply that all the properties identified as at risk will actually be approached by predators or face title-related challenges. Rather, it offers a framework for estimating the potential universe of vulnerable homes based on available data in New York City. 

How we did it: This report uses public and proprietary data to quantify homes that meet heightened vulnerability indicators in order to support targeted outreach and inform policy solutions.³ We focus on 1-3 residential buildings owned by individuals (not institutions), drawing from ACRIS transaction records, tax lien and foreclosure data, and parcel-level zoning information.⁴ Because we take this approach, the analysis does not include certain categories of at-risk properties, including (i) at-risk units in cooperative ownership structures where transfers of shares are not reflected via recording a deed in ACRIS and (ii) homes where there were previously transfers (including of partial interests) to corporations, LLCs or other entities. These opportunities for future research and data analysis are discussed further below.

What we found: 

• Approximately 45,000 properties across Manhattan, the Bronx, Brooklyn, and Queens—worth an estimated $34.7 billion—exhibit at least one risk indicator.⁵ 
• A subset of approximately 3,700 properties, worth about $3.0 billion, meet multiple risk indicators, suggesting a higher likelihood of potential title-related complications.
• Queens and Brooklyn account for 88 percent of all at-risk homes (for data reasons, Staten Island is not included in our analysis).
• More than 7,300 properties both meet at-risk criteria and are underbuilt relative to their allowed zoning, which could make predatory actors especially interested in the property. 
• An additional 10,000 properties showed signs of financial distress over a recent four year period;  a subset (751 properties) appears both at-risk and financially distressed.

What policymakers will want to consider: 

• Target outreach with precision. Policymakers will want to design strategies that combine neighborhood-level targeting with data-driven identification of households exhibiting layered risk, such as deceased owners, dormant property records, and signs of financial distress. While many at-risk properties cluster in specific areas of Brooklyn and Queens, others appear in middle-income neighborhoods with high homeownership rates. Outreach therefore should go beyond traditionally low-income neighborhoods. It should also evolve over time based on new data and community input.
• Expand access to legal and estate planning support. Research shows that older homeowners—particularly Black and/or Hispanic homeowners—are less likely to have wills or trusts and often face barriers to legal assistance. Outreach and public education should be targeted both by neighborhood and by the characteristics and vulnerabilities of particular homeowners. 
• Provide zoning-related education. Some at-risk properties were recently rezoned to allow greater residential density. These homes might attract investor interest and become targets of misinformation or pressure tactics. Outreach should help homeowners understand how zoning changes may affect their property’s value, tax liability, and redevelopment potential so that they can make informed choices about whether and how to sell.

Why this report matters: The report offers actionable insights, supported by data-driven analysis, for policymakers and practitioners interested in preserving the intergenerational wealth homeownership provides. It also highlights the potential of a restricted-access mapping tool to support community-based outreach. While this analysis focuses on New York City, this exercise could be duplicated in any jurisdiction with accessible information and curious policymakers.

Introduction

In recent years, policymakers and researchers have devoted increasing attention to the legal and financial vulnerabilities facing homeowners with tangled titles, heirs’ property arrangements, or other situations that might unfairly strip homeowners of their home equity. Unclear or fractured ownership makes it harder to maintain, transfer, or leverage a home as a source of wealth—and it also leaves homeowners vulnerable to scams, deed theft, and under-market sales. Predatory actors can take advantage of unresolved title issues or financial distress, particularly when those properties are located in neighborhoods that have appreciated significantly in value.

This report presents new analysis from the NYU Furman Center and the Urban Institute’s Housing Justice Team estimating the number and distribution of homes in New York City that may be at elevated risk of title-related vulnerabilities or predatory tactics. We focus on 1–3 unit residential buildings owned by individuals (not institutions or corporations), drawing on both public and proprietary data to identify indicators of heightened vulnerability. Specifically, we flag properties with no recorded ownership transfers or mortgage activity since 1995, or where at least one deceased person is listed as an owner on the recorded deed.

In total, we estimate that approximately 45,000 homes—representing $34.7 billion in market value—meet one or more of these indicators. Of these, approximately 3,700 homes, worth about $3.0 billion, meet both criteria, suggesting a particularly high likelihood of title-related complications. The vast majority of these properties are located in Brooklyn and Queens. We also examine how these buildings intersect with signs of financial distress, such as foreclosure notices or tax lien sales, as well as the presence of significant redevelopment potential based on zoning.

Our goal is to support targeted, proactive outreach to potentially vulnerable homeowners and to inform policy responses aimed at preventing wealth loss and promoting housing stability. We also aim to advance the conversation about how market pressures may intersect with ownership vulnerabilities.

The report proceeds as follows. First, we provide background on New York City’s housing market and recent policy developments that relate to heirs’ property and tangled titles. We then review existing research on the prevalence of these ownership forms in other jurisdictions. From there, we outline our data sources and methodology, followed by our main findings on the prevalence and distribution of at-risk homes in New York City. We conclude with a discussion of implications for outreach, enforcement, and additional legal and financial tools to support vulnerable homeowners.

Background

Long-Term Appreciation of New York City’s Residential Market and Recent Policy Responses

Home values in New York City have appreciated dramatically in recent decades, making home equity an attractive asset for predatory actors to target. Since 2000, citywide residential property values have increased by 309 percent, reflecting a compounded annual growth rate of 5.8 percent—far outpacing the Consumer Price Index’s 2.5 percent compounded annual growth over the same period. Some neighborhoods have experienced even more dramatic appreciation. In Bedford-Stuyvesant, Brooklyn, for example, home prices have surged by 565 percent since 2000, with a compounded annual growth rate of 7.9 percent, more than three times the annual growth rate of inflation during that same period.

For long-term homeowners, who have had more time to benefit from appreciation, rising property values have often turned their homes into a significant source of household wealth.  Appreciation creates opportunities to capture that value by selling, withdrawing equity through mortgage products, or converting properties into regular income-generating assets. However, appreciation also makes these homes attractive targets for predatory activity, as the potential financial gains from scams or exploitative transactions grow.

As home values have appreciated, New York City’s policy landscape has also evolved, introducing new protections, risks, and opportunities for homeowners. In recent years, New York State enacted the Uniform Partition of Heirs’ Property Act (UPHPA) and the transfer-on-death deed (TODD) law, expanding protections for heir owners and creating an important tool to streamline estate planning and prevent tangled title issues (more detail on both laws follows).⁶ 

At the same time, the City’s Zoning Resolution (ZR) continues to evolve in response to housing needs. As a response to the city’s housing shortage, the City Council changed the ZR to allow for more housing development.⁷ These changes can make certain lots more valuable and likely to draw interest from both legitimate developers and predatory actors. Accordingly, although rezonings may be needed to increase the city’s housing supply and make housing more affordable, they also raise concerns about homeowners’ awareness of their rights and the implications the zoning changes may have for what would constitute a fair price for their property. Those concerns are heightened when the homeowner is at particular risk of predatory actions. 

Existing Research to Identify Heirs’ Property and other Tangled Titles

In recent years, researchers have worked to quantify the scale of the issue across the nation and in particular sub-markets, but not in New York City. One national estimate found that almost 450,000 heirs’ properties exist, with an estimated total market value of $41.3 billion;⁸ another found close to 500,000 heirs’ parcels, with a total assessed value of $32.3 billion.⁹ 

National estimates may be conservative and less precise than targeted county-level or regional analysis. The majority of existing research focuses on heirs’ properties and other tangled titles in rural communities across the Southeast. Thomson and Bailey, for example, reviewed county tax data and identified almost 500,000 heirs’ properties in just 11 states in the Southeast and Appalachia.¹⁰ Recent research has also explored urban areas. A 2021 Pew Charitable Trusts report identified at least 10,407 tangled title properties, including heirs’ property, in Philadelphia.¹¹ Wagh and Sandoval took a similar approach to identify 5,525 heirs’ properties in Detroit.¹² 

Researchers use various owner and property characteristics to identify parcels vulnerable to heirs’ property arrangements or other tangled title issues. Our New York City-focused analysis builds on these approaches. Consistent with prior studies, we exclude properties owned by companies, religious organizations, schools, or similar entities, as these owners are typically represented by legal counsel. However, by excluding LLC- or corporate-owned properties, we also likely omit cases where a partial interest was transferred—or where the property was fully, but fraudulently conveyed—making the property especially vulnerable. We note that properties that fall into this category of ownership are an area for future research and monitoring.

For the purpose of this analysis, properties that are listed as owned by a deceased owner are considered vulnerable. Although these properties may include some currently undergoing probate, especially for those parcels with a recently deceased owner, we include them nevertheless because any deceased owner of record may signal an unresolved title issue to predatory actors.¹³  

Information about the parcel can also signal a potentially tangled title or an heirs’ property. Researchers view a lack of sale or major renovation within the last thirty years to be a strong indicator of heirs’ property.¹⁴ Properties lacking documentation of a current deed or mortgage are also more likely to be vulnerable, as any transactions to clear a tangled title would require updated, accurate documentation.¹⁵ While not necessarily indicative of a tangled title or heirs’ property, a property’s presence on a tax lien sale list can signal to predatory actors that the owner is financially distressed or facing difficulties maintaining their property,¹⁶ as can indicators of a potential foreclosure or a foreclosure filing. 

Methodology and Limitations

We do not disclose the full methodology or underlying data sources in order to protect the privacy and security of the households included in this analysis.

Identifying homes vulnerable to title-related complications or predatory activity is inherently difficult. Tangled titles and heirs’ properties are not explicitly flagged in public datasets, and many instances of deed theft, fraud, or exploitation go unreported, undetected, or unprosecuted. As a result, we rely on observable indicators—proxies developed through prior research—to signal elevated risk.

These proxies include, for example, the absence of a recorded deed or mortgage since 1995, or the presence of a deceased individual listed as an owner of record. While grounded in the literature and validated in studies from other jurisdictions, these indicators inevitably introduce the risk of misclassification. Some properties flagged as “at-risk” may, in fact, have stable and clear ownership, while other homes facing real vulnerabilities may not be captured by our criteria.

This approach may both overestimate and underestimate risk. Some homes may appear vulnerable based on outdated or limited ACRIS activity but actually have secure titles. Others may have unresolved title issues that are not flagged—for example, where a legal services provider recorded a fractional deed on behalf of an heir, or where informal family arrangements have not been legally formalized. A deceased owner of record may suggest an incomplete probate process, while an older or absent mortgage record could signal long-term ownership, which may increase a property’s attractiveness to predatory actors. Despite these limitations, our framework offers a practical and scalable starting point for identifying homes that may be entangled in probate or at heightened risk of exploitation.

The methodology we employ builds on similar efforts in other jurisdictions—most notably a recent study conducted in Philadelphia—and adapts those frameworks to New York City’s property landscape and legal context.¹⁷ We use a combination of public data from the Department of Finance and Department of City Planning, along with proprietary datasets, to construct a classification system tailored to 1–3 unit residential buildings owned by individuals.

We define two primary risk categories:

• At-Risk properties are those that meet either of the following conditions:
  • (a) No recorded deed or mortgage since 1995, or
  • (b) At least one deceased person is listed as an owner of record.
• Higher Risk properties are those that meet both of the above conditions.

We then overlay this classification with zoning information to identify properties with remaining development capacity—known as “soft sites”—which may be particularly attractive to predatory actors if owners are unaware of recent zoning changes. We also incorporate signs of financial distress, such as recent foreclosure filings or inclusion on tax lien sale lists, to highlight properties with layered and compounding risks.
Future research could further refine this methodology by incorporating probate court records, litigation filings, direct survey data, or matching cooperative and condominium units to unit-level identifiers and death records. These refinements would help provide a more complete picture of where legal and financial vulnerabilities intersect with property ownership in New York City.

Limitations of Our Analysis

Our analysis likely undercounts vulnerable properties to varying degrees due to three major data limitations:

• Borough Coverage: We exclude Staten Island because its property records are not part of ACRIS, the system used in this analysis; the Richmond County Clerk maintains a separate system that is not integrated with the city’s register.
• Housing Type Coverage: We do not include condominium and cooperative units in 4+ unit buildings due to the way these property types are recorded in ACRIS. As a result, our estimates do not capture the home equity at risk in these housing types.
• Ownership Type Coverage: To focus on properties owned by individuals, we exclude properties held by LLCs, corporations, or institutions. However, 89 percent of 1–3 unit residential buildings outside Staten Island are owned by natural persons, so our analysis still captures the vast majority of small homes in the city.

Rationale for Exclusions and Implications

Condominiums and cooperatives are excluded because of the way ownership and financing records are reported. For condominiums, deeds and mortgages are recorded against the building as a whole and against the individual units, making it difficult to isolate unit-level data. In future work, we hope to match deed and mortgage records to individual unit addresses to assess risk among condo owners more accurately.

Cooperative units present additional challenges. Ownership changes are typically documented through UCC-1 filings and real property transfer tax forms, which are also filed at the building level. Identifying unit-level transactions would require matching individual names across filings—an imprecise and labor-intensive process. Similarly, matching cooperative records with death records would be necessary to estimate whether deceased individuals remain listed as owners—an important direction for future research and real-time monitoring.

We also exclude LLC- and institutionally-owned properties because of our focus on potentially vulnerable homeowners. However, some homes in this category may already have been affected by predatory transfer schemes, such as the fraudulent sale of fractional interests to outside investors. These cases merit additional monitoring and analysis in the very short-term. A more comprehensive assessment would also benefit from greater transparency around beneficial ownership, particularly for LLCs. Public disclosure of the individuals controlling these LLC entities would allow researchers to distinguish related-party transactions from transfers between unrelated parties and better assess risk.

Key Definitions

Our Universe consists of: 

• 1-3 unit residential buildings owned by individuals (excluding LLCs, corporations, and institutions) but; 
• Excludes condominium and cooperative properties in 4+ unit properties, as well as properties in Staten Island, due to data limitations in ACRIS.

At-Risk properties are properties that exhibit at least one of the following indicators:

• Dormant ACRIS activity (no recorded deed or mortgage activity since 1995) or
• At least one deceased owner is still listed as an owner of record.

Higher Risk properties meet both of the “At-Risk” criteria, meaning that they have:

• Dormant ACRIS activity (no activity since 1995) and
• At least one deceased owner is still listed as an owner of record.

A property is in Financial Distress if it meets at least one of the following criteria:

• Foreclosure Activity – The property received a foreclosure notice (lis pendens or auction filing) between 2018 and 2021,¹⁸ indicating that the owner fell behind on mortgage payments and is at risk of foreclosure.
• Tax Lien Sale Listing¹⁹ – The property was listed on the final tax lien sale between 2018 and 2021, meaning that the owner has unpaid property taxes or municipal charges that have been sold to a third party, increasing the risk of forced sale or loss of equity.

Higher Density residential zoning includes R6, R7, R8, R9, and R10 zones, which generally allow for mid- to high-rise residential buildings. Lots in these zones also benefit from slightly loosened density regulations and reduced parking requirements to encourage housing growth, especially in zones supported by mass transit.

Findings

Scope of At-Risk and Higher Risk Properties

• Approximately 45,000 properties (9.09%) of 1-3 unit residential buildings in our universe qualify as either At-Risk or Higher Risk. (Table 1)

• About 3,700 properties (0.74%) meet the Higher Risk classification, exhibiting both dormant ACRIS activity and a deceased owner listed on record. (Table 1)

Geographic Distribution of At-Risk and Higher Risk Properties 

• Queens has the highest total count of Higher Risk properties, followed by Brooklyn. (Table 1)
• Queens and Brooklyn account for 88 percent of all At-Risk and Higher Risk properties identified in our analysis. (Table 1)

Zoning and Development Potential (Tables 2 and 3)

• Approximately 10.7 percent of 1-3 unit residential buildings in Higher Density zoning districts are At-Risk, having a recorded deed or mortgage dated before 1995 or at least one deceased owner listed on the property record.
• About 600 properties in Higher Density zoning districts meet both criteria, falling into the Higher Risk category. 
• While the majority (80.0%) of At-Risk properties are in lower density residential districts (R1-R5), 19.1 percent are in Higher Density residentially zoned districts, where redevelopment pressure will likely be higher (Table 3).
• Nearly half (45.1%) of the 1-3 unit residential properties in R6-R10 zones have underused FAR. This proportion of “soft sites” is significantly higher than the underused FAR in other zoning categories, suggesting there is untapped development potential in these medium- to high-density areas.
• While only 1.47 percent of citywide properties in Our Universe meet both the criteria for the underused FAR and At-Risk categories, this grouping still represents 7,364 properties that may be vulnerable to predatory activity, title issues, or market pressures.

Financial Distress Indicators (Table 4)

• Additional priority candidates for legal and financial assistance outreach are properties that exhibit characteristics associated with financial distress (inability to pay mortgage or property taxes). 
  • 10,455 properties (2.09% of properties in our universe) received a lis pendens foreclosure notice between 2018 and 2021. 
  • 2,578 properties (.52% of properties in our universe) were included on the tax lien sale between 2018 and 2021. 
• Very high priority candidates would be properties that have either or both of these indicators of distress, as well as properties that have one or both of these indicators and are also identified as At-Risk or Higher Risk. We find that 751 properties are classified as At-Risk and fit one or both definitions of Financially Distressed.

Demographics of the Neighborhoods Surrounding At-Risk Properties (Table 5)

• The neighborhoods in which At-Risk properties are located, relative to all neighborhoods with any 1-3 unit residential buildings, tend to have:
  • Slightly higher home values
  • A higher homeownership rate
  • A slightly higher median household income 
  • Similar racial demographics, but a slightly higher share of Black and Asian residents
  • A similar share of households where the head of household is older than 65

Policy Implications

Our analysis highlights the prevalence of at-risk properties, identifying approximately 45,000 such homes across all boroughs except Staten Island. There is evidence that predatory actors take advantage of this risk; in 2024, the New York City Sheriff’s office reported at least 3,500 deed theft complaints alone over the previous decade.²⁰ While tangled titles or heirs’ properties can primarily cause direct displacement and/or the loss of home equity, these vulnerable property ownership structures can also prevent owners from qualifying for and accessing critical homeowner resources, such as disaster relief or home repair subsidies. Without clear title, owners may struggle to use their home as collateral for a loan and reap other economic benefits of homeownership.

New York State has taken steps towards protecting homeowners facing heirs’ property or tangled titles issues in recent years. The Uniform Partition of Heirs’ Property Act (UPHPA), now law in 25 states, including New York as of December 2019,²¹ is a notable step to protect those who inherit property they now own with other heirs from forced sales. The New York version of the UPHPA includes provisions specific to the challenges of partitioning urban heirs’ property and requires a mandatory settlement conference and, if the settlement fails, the right to an independent appraisal to determine fair market value.²² It grants co-owners a right of first refusal to buy out the petitioning owner’s share within 45 days before considering a partition in kind (physical division of the property) or a partition by sale of the property. If a sale is necessary, the property must be sold on the open market at no less than a commercially reasonable value, ensuring that heirs receive fair compensation for their inherited property. In 2024, amendments to the UPHPA restricted the ability to initiate partition actions to inheritors, preventing speculators who purchase an inheritor’s interests from triggering partition action. Co-owners also have a right of first refusal if an outside party offers to buy interests in the property.²³ 

While advocates applaud the UPHPA as a major step toward protecting vulnerable homeowners, the law protects against only certain types of predatory actions. In the 2023-2024 session, New York State passed additional protections aimed at addressing deed theft. The legislation established deed theft as grand larceny, gave the Office of the Attorney General concurrent original jurisdiction to prosecute the crime, extended the statute of limitations for prosecution, and allowed stays of eviction proceedings in cases with evidence of deed theft, among other measures; it also expanded the existing Homeowner Equity Theft Prevention Act (HETPA) to enable homeowners with active utility liens to cancel contracts and sell their property.²⁴ New York’s new transfer-on-death deed (TODD) law took effect in July 2024 and enables homeowners to avoid the complicated, time-consuming probate process by using transfer-on-death deeds recorded against the property to ensure the property is immediately transferred to chosen beneficiaries upon the owner’s death.²⁵ TODDs are an effective new tool for organizations that provide legal services by both providing an efficient, relatively simple approach to estate planning and preventing the creation of newly tangled titles. 

New York City has also recently implemented “Cease and Desist Zones” to protect homeowners in neighborhoods that are receiving extreme levels of home sales solicitations or in neighborhoods that might see increased sales pressure, such as those recently rezoned to allow more housing. Homeowners within the zone may add their name to the cease and desist list, and soliciting homeowners on the list may lead to a reprimand, fine, or suspension or revocation of a license.²⁶ The zones are typically temporary; two are currently in effect in Brooklyn.²⁷ 

Of course, not all sales in strong markets result from predatory activity. Some homeowners may choose to sell voluntarily. Some of those will sell for a fair price, while others may underestimate their home’s value because they lack information about the current state of the market. Access to financial counseling, estate planning resources, and legal protections can help homeowners make informed decisions, no matter if they choose to stay or sell. If they choose to sell, those resources can help ensure that they get a fair price. 

Even with the UPHPA, TODD, Cease and Desist Zones, and financial counseling, more work is needed to support vulnerable homeowners. Below, we outline considerations and approaches that can build on current programs and protections. 

Key Takeaways to Inform Targeted Outreach and Assistance

Prioritize some areas of the city over others, while keeping in mind that a neighborhood-based approach will miss some vulnerable homeowners so should be paired with comprehensive, but less intensive, outreach to those homeowners the data suggest are at risk. 

• Help is available for vulnerable households in New York in the form of free housing counseling and legal services via the Homeowner Protection Program (HOPP), a program from the Office of the New York State Attorney General and the State of New York managed by two Anchor Partners: the Center for NYC Neighborhoods and Empire Justice Center.^{28 29} But many homeowners may not know to seek out help, or may not seek help early enough to prevent fraud. In those cases, targeted outreach is needed to alert people to predatory actions and equip them with information and resources to protect themselves. Our data can help that outreach be more effective by identifying at risk households for targeted outreach campaigns.
• Queens and Brooklyn account for 88 percent of At-Risk and Higher Risk properties. Our analysis suggests that there are households that exhibit vulnerable characteristics in both the low-income neighborhoods traditionally targeted for assistance and in somewhat higher-income neighborhoods.
• While we do not disclose the information here to prevent its misuse, we do find that “at-risk” and “higher risk” properties are concentrated in a smaller number of community districts, which should be given priority attention. 

Use data to develop proactive, neighborhood-specific interventions that can be improved upon over time through iterative processes.

• We hope to create a restricted-access mapping tool to help organizers share information with each other and with the NYU Furman Center. That iterative exchange would allow us to measure the impact of different outreach methods, identify additional data that should be integrated into a mapping tool, delete indicators that prove unhelpful, and identify cases that would benefit from referrals to specialists. 

Provide estate planning support to potentially vulnerable homeowners.  

• Researchers have found that older homeowners of color are significantly less likely to have a will or trust than older white homeowners.³⁰ In addition, studies show that limited access to, and lower levels of trust in, the legal system – particularly among Black and other homeowners of color – contribute to persistent racial disparities in access to estate planning.³¹ As a result, older homeowners, especially those of color, may be more susceptible to title complications and could benefit from focused efforts to provide estate planning assistance. Support that enables utilization of newer policy tools, like the Transfer on Death Deed, may be of particular importance. 

Educate owners in higher density zoning areas on what recent zoning changes mean for a homeowners’ property and how zoning changes might impact property valuation and tax liability, and warn owners about the details of predatory tactics certain actors may use to target homeowners unaware of the changed landscape.

• Recent zoning changes increased FAR and reduced parking requirements in R6-R10 districts, raising property values. This shift may heighten the risk of misinformation and pressure tactics by predatory actors.

Prioritize legal and financial assistance for properties in distress.

• 751 properties (0.15%) both meet At-Risk criteria and show financial distress, making them particularly vulnerable to foreclosure, future tax lien sales, and predatory lending to “assist” owners in desperate times. These properties warrant immediate attention.

Ensure that owners looking to sell their property have the tools and information they need to maximize their return.

• Many sales are voluntary, and homeowners should have the information they need to make informed choices, including how their home’s market value might have changed due to regulatory changes. Some sell due to financial pressures or limited access to their home’s equity, but financial counseling and legal assistance can help prevent under-market-value sales and unnecessary wealth loss.
• The City of New York might also explore a redevelopment model inspired by Greece’s antiparochi system,³² which allows homeowners—especially those with underused FAR—to partner with developers as an alternative to selling to market investors. Under that system, homeowners contribute their land to a redevelopment agreement and, in return, retain ownership stakes while receiving at least one newly constructed unit in a multifamily building (for example, an elderly owner could negotiate a ground floor unit in order to age in place). This model could work to ensure that homeowners benefit from rising property values and recent zoning changes, while also boosting housing supply. But successful implementation, especially if particularly targeted to At-Risk properties, would require legal safeguards, city-backed financing, and community-based oversight to protect homeowners’ rights and prevent any risk of direct displacement.

Make information available about other programs that can help homeowners, even if they are not explicitly addressing a tangled title situation. 

• Homeowners with properties that are vulnerable to predatory actions based on the criteria defined in this report may also be in need of information about home repair and disaster relief programs (if relevant). Anecdotally, we observe from street level views that a number of “at risk” homes in our universe are in need of repairs – some had caved in roofs and broken windows, for example. While we do not have any data available on how common this disrepair is in our subset of “at risk” properties relative to all 1-3 unit residential properties, these observations do make clear that homeowners are likely in need of information about city programs to help facilitate repairs or maintain their property. 
• Heirs’ properties and other parcels with tangled titles are particularly likely to suffer from a lack of upkeep and maintenance, as access to many federal and local home repair programs or other private financing is contingent upon showing clear title.³³ In addition to information about existing programs, owners of properties with a tangled title will need legal assistance before accessing most home repair programs. 
• As researchers emphasized following the devastation of Hurricane Katrina, homeowners’ participation in disaster relief programs is often also tied to a clear ownership title.³⁴ Especially for New York City homeowners in flood-prone areas, resolving a tangled title issue is a crucial part of disaster preparedness. 

Leverage multilingual and culturally specific outreach based on local demographics.

• The demographics of neighborhoods with higher counts of At-Risk properties vary, indicating a need for tailored outreach strategies and language access.

Coordinate across systems to avoid unintended harm.

• In designing initiatives to support vulnerable homeowners, policymakers should be mindful of how different legal, programmatic, and enforcement systems interact. For example, homeowners who are trying to resolve a tangled title may face obstacles accessing home repair programs—and at the same time, they could be cited for code violations under nuisance abatement laws. Without coordination across these systems, well-intentioned policies can work at cross purposes and unintentionally penalize the very households they aim to support. Proactive, cross-agency collaboration will be essential to ensure that legal, financial, and housing interventions reinforce—rather than undermine—each other.

Organizations Helping Homeowners Fight Predatory Actions

 

A number of organizations provide free legal assistance and estate planning to help homeowners fight predatory actions and scams. Those organizations include legal service providers like the Foreclosure Prevention Project at the Legal Aid Society, legal clinics like the Housing Justice Clinic at Brooklyn Law School, community organizations like the Housing Justice programs at CHHAYA and the Center for New York City Neighborhoods, and New York State Attorney General’s Homeowner Protection Program. 

 

If you believe you are the victim of deed theft, the New York State Attorney General’s Office recommends that you file a complaint with law enforcement and contact an attorney. If you are being evicted in housing court due to a scam, you can ask for a pause in the case in order to address ownership issues. For more information, please review the resources provided by the New York State Attorney General’s Office.

Conclusion

This analysis highlights a segment of New York City homeowners who may be particularly at risk of scams and financial exploitation. By identifying properties that exhibit characteristics associated with tangled titles, heirs’ property issues, and other risk factors, we estimate that thousands of 1-3 unit residential buildings across the city may be at risk of predatory actions. These findings have significant implications for housing stability and intergenerational wealth preservation, as well as the effectiveness of existing policy interventions.

Our analysis underscores the need for targeted policy responses that go beyond traditional neighborhood-level approaches. Legislative measures such as the UPHPA and the transfer-on-death deed law are important steps forward, but additional efforts are needed to guarantee that homeowners know about and have access to the legal and financial resources necessary to protect their properties. 

Zoning changes present an important opportunity to expand New York City’s housing supply—an issue the Furman Center has long examined and found to be critical to addressing affordability challenges.³⁵ However, as zoning changes enable new development opportunities, it is essential to ensure that homeowners, particularly those with limited knowledge of real estate markets or legal processes, are equipped to navigate this evolving landscape. The zoning changes themselves are not the issue; rather, the challenge lies in ensuring that homeowners are protected from potential misinformation, pressure to sell, or predatory actions that exploit a homeowner’s lack of information or understanding of the current real estate market. Providing clear, accessible guidance and legal support can help homeowners make informed decisions about their properties, allowing them to benefit from neighborhood investment rather than being displaced by it.

Further research will be essential to refining risk identification methods, evaluating the effectiveness of policy interventions, and developing new strategies to curb predatory activity. By integrating data-driven insights with proactive legal and financial support, policymakers, advocates, and researchers can help to ensure that the housing market expands opportunity while safeguarding homeownership as a pathway to intergenerational wealth.

This report was made possible by support from Trinity Church Wall Street Philanthropies. We would like to acknowledge and thank the additional work of Ryan Brenner and Amy Spittal.

 

Footnotes

¹ “Heirs property” refers to situations in which a number of people have inherited shares of a property as tenants in common, which allows any one of them to prompt a sale of the entire property.

² We do not go into detail on the range of predatory tactics, instead, we broadly group them. Such tactics include but would not be limited to: deed theft, heirs’ property forced partition sales, fraudulent foreclosures, equity stripping, contract for deed scams, zombie deeds, fake refinancing scams, property tax lien exploitation, scam “rescue” programs, and predatory reverse mortgages. 

³ Berko, Nketiah “Ink,” and Sarah Bolling Mancini. “Keeping It in the Family: Legal Strategies to Address the Challenge of Heirs Property and Prevent Home Loss.” National Consumer Law Center, 2024; Dobbs, G. Rebecca, and Cassandra Johnson Gaither. “How Much Heirs’ Property Is There? Using LightBox Data to Estimate Heirs’ Property Extent in the United States.” Journal of Rural Social Sciences 38, no. 1 (December 1, 2023). https://open.clemson.edu/jrss/vol38/iss1/4; Dyer, Janice, Conner Bailey, and Nhuong Tran. “Ownership Characteristics of Heir Property in a Black Belt County: A Quantitative Approach.” Journal of Rural Social Sciences 24, no. 2 (August 31, 2008). https://egrove.olemiss.edu/jrss/vol24/iss2/10; Hincken, Garrett. “How ‘Tangled Titles’ Affect Philadelphia.” The Pew Charitable Trusts, August 2021; Wagh, Vinita, and Juan Sandoval. “Keeping Your Family Home: Addressing the Challenges of Inherited Properties in Detroit.” Detroit, MI: Detroit Future City, February 2024; Way, Heather K. “The Intersection of Residential Heirs’ Property and Property Tax Foreclosure.” Prepared for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Policy Development and Research. Houston, TX: 2024. https://law.utexas.edu/faculty/uploads/publication_files/way-final-hud-project-report-heirs-property-and-tax-foreclosures.pdf.  

⁴ Our analysis may misidentify as risky properties those that have stable ownership structures and owners well-informed about the value of their properties. It also may miss properties that are vulnerable, but for reasons not captured by our methodology. Factors such as ongoing probate, recent estate transfers, or incomplete public records may lead to both false positives and omissions in our estimates

⁵ To derive this total, we calculate this estimate by the annual tax liability for “at risk” properties by a citywide average effective tax rate of 0.90%. We computed this average by comparing actual home sale values to their annual tax liability. This is not an estimate of assessed home value, which can be distorted and not representative of what a home might actually sell for today.

⁶ Uniform Partition of Heirs Property Act, N.Y. Real Prop. Acts. Law § 993 (2024); N.Y. Real Prop. Law § 424 (2024).

⁷  New York City Department of City Planning, “Zoning Resolution: Recently Adopted.” https://zr.planning.nyc.gov/recently-adopted. 

⁸ This estimate excluded U.S. territories and Native American allotments. Dobbs and Gaither, 2023. 

⁹ This estimate did not include Kansas, Maryland, New York, Vermont, Wisconsin, or Wyoming. Moodie, Natasha, Keith Wiley, and Lance George. “A Methodological Approach to Estimate Residential Heirs’ Property in the United States.” The Housing Assistance Council for Fannie Mae, December 2023.

¹⁰ Thomson, Ryan, and Conner Bailey. “Identifying Heirs’ Property: Extent and Value Across the South and Appalachia.” Journal of Rural Social Sciences 38, no. 01 (December 2023): 29–38. 

¹¹ Hincken 2021. 

¹² Wagh and Sandoval 2024. 

¹³ Our analysis follows the example of Hincken’s study of Philadelphia for the Pew Charitable Trusts, and Wagh and Sandoval’s study of Detroit, both of which use a deceased suppression data service to identify deceased property owners still listed as title holders. Hincken excludes properties still listed as belonging to recently deceased owners whose properties may still be undergoing probate, while Wagh and Sandoval include all properties with deceased owners. We follow Wagh and Sandoval because title problems may make heirs vulnerable to exploitation, even during probate. 

¹⁴ Pippin, Scott, Shana Jones, and Cassandra Johnson Gaither. “Identifying Potential Heirs Properties in the Southeastern United States: A New GIS Methodology Utilizing Mass Appraisal Data.” E-Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-225. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 225 (2017): 1–58; Moodie et al. 2023; Thomson and Bailey 2023.

¹⁵ Georgia Appleseed Center for Law & Justice. “Unlocking Heir Property Ownership: Assessing the Impact on Low and Mid-Income Georgians and Their Communities.” Atlanta, GA: 2013; Moodie et al. 2023; Pippin et al. 2017. 

¹⁶ Coalition for Affordable Homes, “Compounding Debt: Race, Affordability, and NYC’s Tax Lien Sale.” New York, NY: 2016; Way 2024.

¹⁷ Hincken 2021. 

¹⁸ We limit this portion of the analysis to 2018 – 2021 to provide a sense of scale for both the tax lien sale list and lis pendens activity. In New York City, the tax lien sale has been inactive since 2021.

¹⁹ Ibid

²⁰ That number is likely an undercount because not all victims of deed theft report the issue to the police. New York State. “Governor Hochul Signs Legislation to Protect New York Homeowners from Deed Theft.” Press release. Office of the Governor of New York, November 14, 2023. https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-hochul-signs-legislation-protect-new-york-homeowners-deed-theft.

²¹ S.4865 & A.7058, 2019-2020 Reg. Sess. (N.Y. 2019)

²² Kohanowski, K. Scott. “Taking the Uniform Partition of Heirs Property Act (UPHPA) out of the Rural Context and Strengthening It: The New York Experience and a Framework for UPHPA Advocacy.” In Heirs’ Property and the Uniform Partition of Heirs Property Act: Challenges, Solutions, and Historic Reform., edited by Thomas W. Mitchell and Erica Levine Powers. Chicago, IL: American Bar Association, 2022.

²³ Uniform Partition of Heirs Property Act, N.Y. Real Prop. Acts. Law § 993 (2024).

²⁴ S.6567 & A.6656, 247th Leg., Reg. Sess. (N.Y. 2024); S.3806C & A.8806C, 2023-2024 Reg. Sess. (N.Y. 2024)

²⁵ N.Y. Real Prop. Law § 424 (2024).

²⁶ New York Department of State. “Cease and Desist Zones: Guidance on Creating a New Zone.” Rev. February 2025. https://dos.ny.gov/cease-and-desist-zones.

²⁷ New York Department of State. “Cease and Desist Notice for Kings County.” October 28, 2020. https://dos.ny.gov; New York Department of State. “Notice of Adoption: Cease and Desist Zone for Kings County.” June 12, 2023. https://dos.ny.gov.

²⁸ New York State Office of the Attorney General. “Homeowners.” New York State Attorney General. Accessed March 20, 2025. https://ag.ny.gov/resources/individuals/tenants-homeowners/homeowners.

²⁹ The Homeowner Protection Program also funds, in conjunction with New York City’s Department of Housing Preservation and Development, the Center for NYC Neighborhoods’ Homeowner Hub, a resource for homeowners (and their heirs) to receive a referral to free housing counseling or legal services from a trusted connect with a HOPP partner.

³⁰ Walsh, John, Michael Neal, and Amalie Zinn. “Prospective Heirs’ Property among Older Homeowners.” Washington, DC: Urban Institute, October 2024.

³¹ Copeland, Roy. “Heir Property in the African American Community: From Promised Lands to Problem Lands.” Professional Agricultural Workers Journal 2, no. 2 (June 2015). https://tuspubs.tuskegee.edu/pawj/vol2/iss2/2; Mitchell, Thomas W. “The Uniform Partition of Heirs Property Act: Advancing Social and Racial Justice Through Historic Property Law Reform.” The Urban Lawyer 52, no. 3 (2023): 446–66; Berko and Mancini 2024. 

³² Faiola, A. (2019, October 11). The surprising story of Athens’ offbeat architecture. BBC Culture. https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20191011-the-surprising-story-of-athens-offbeat-architecture

³³ Moodie et al. 2023. 

³⁴ Kane, Christy, Stephanie Beaugh, and Gerren Sias. “Addressing Heirs’ Property in Louisiana: Lessons Learned, Post-Disaster.” Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-244. Asheville; NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service; Southern Research Station. 244 (2019): 89–92; Georgia Appleseed 2013.

³⁵ Been, Vicki, Ingrid Gould Ellen, and Katherine O’Regan. “Supply Skepticism: Housing Supply and Affordability.” Housing Policy Debate 29, no. 1 (2019): 25–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2018.1476899; Been, Vicki, Ingrid Gould Ellen, and Katherine O’Regan. “Supply Skepticism Revisited.” Housing Policy Debate 35, no. 1 (2025): 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2024.2418044; NYU Furman Center, “Allowing More and Different Types of Housing.” New York, NY: 2023. /wp-content/uploads/ee-legacy/publications/3_Allowing_More_and_Different_Types_of_Housing_Final.pdf; NYU Furman Center, “The Case Against Restrictive Land Use and Zoning.” New York, NY: 2023. /wp-content/uploads/ee-legacy/publications/The_Case_Against_Restrictive_Land_Use_and_Zoning_Final_Accessible.pdf; NYU Furman Center, “Models and Questions to Reform Exclusionary Zoning in New York.” New York, NY: 2023.