Phoenix apartment demand surges as construction slows

Article originally posted on AZ Big Media on September 18, 2026

After a surge of multifamily construction in the Valley coming out of the pandemic, demand remains strong as the backlog of new units are rented out. Cushman & Wakefield reports that during the first half of 2026, net absorption reached 12,741 units, calling it “the market’s strongest six-month span since at least 2000.”

Helping to compress the vacancy rate is a slower pace of deliveries and new construction. Kidder Mathews notes that units under construction fell 35.45% year-over-year to 15,974 as of Q2 2026, down from 24,746 units a year earlier and from 17,485 units in Q1 2026.

The firm adds that “the Phoenix multifamily market outlook is positive, with vacancy declining and net absorption up 50.24% year-over-year while new construction starts continue to slow. This combination suggests the market is working through its recent supply wave, with rents holding relatively stable and investment metrics strengthening as cap rates compress and sale prices per unit rise.”

While data points are useful illustrations of the activity in Greater Phoenix’s multifamily sector, they do not capture the full complexity of an issue such as housing. AZRE magazine sat down with Courtney LeVinus, president and CEO of the Arizona Multihousing Association, to learn more about how the recent legislative session will affect the industry, why eviction filing numbers are often mischaracterized and the importance of creating a positive message around pro-growth policy.

The following responses have been edited for clarity and length.

AZRE: HB2946 (development impact fees) and HB2999 (infrastructure finance districts) both passed this session. Why did these matter? 

Courtney LeVinus: Both bills remove barriers to building housing in Arizona, and both solve real problems.

HB2946 gives developers more certainty around development impact fees. That’s critical because projects take years to plan and finance, and unpredictable fee adjustments make it harder to budget. That ultimately raises housing costs. The bill also standardizes how municipalities calculate water and wastewater capacity fees, giving builders more transparency to estimate long-term costs and avoid unnecessary delays.

HB2999 tackles infrastructure. Housing can’t be built without roads, water and wastewater systems, and other public improvements, and those upfront costs are often the biggest obstacle. The bill creates a new financing tool, allowing infrastructure finance districts to issue bonds for major public improvements while preserving local land-use authority. Together, these bills should help reduce delays and get more housing built sooner.

AZRE: Was there a bill the AMA fought to defeat or amend? 

CL: Yes: three bills that would have imposed rent control or rent stabilization statewide, or allowed cities to adopt it, which is currently prohibited under state law. We opposed all three, and all three were defeated without a committee hearing. The concern for AMA is that policymakers are even suggesting these policies to address housing affordability when economists unilaterally recognize these proposals do more harm than good.

HB2718 sponsored by Rep. Betty Villegas (D-Tucson), was the session’s most significant rent control proposal. It would have capped annual rent increases at inflation plus 3%, up to a 7% maximum, and created a new state regulatory and enforcement system through the Arizona Department of Housing and the Attorney General’s Office.

Rent control has been tried in cities nationwide, and the results are remarkably consistent: fewer homes get built, investment declines, housing quality deteriorates, and rents rise. Arizona shouldn’t repeat those mistakes.

HB2739 (Landlord Tenant; Senior Rental Limits), sponsored by Rep. Quantá Crews (D-Phoenix), would have capped annual increases at 3% for tenants 65 and older. Protecting seniors is a worthy goal, but price controls are the wrong tool: they don’t create a single new home, they discourage investment in rental housing and they shift costs onto other residents.

HB2715 (Local Planning; Residential Housing; Repeal), also sponsored by Rep. Villegas, took a different route to a similar end. It would have repealed two long-standing state protections, A.R.S. §9-461.16 and §11-819, that currently bar cities, towns and counties from adopting land use regulations or permit conditions that set sale or lease prices for housing or reserve units for a particular class of residents. Undoing those safeguards would have reopened the door to local price controls and mandatory set-aside mandates the Legislature deliberately closed off years ago, cutting against the same principle HB2718 and HB2739 were meant to protect.

Arizona’s affordability challenge is fundamentally a supply problem. Rent control fails everywhere it’s tried because it discourages construction and investment. The Legislature made the right call rejecting these bills and instead focusing on policies that increase production, remove barriers, and expand choice. More housing, not price controls, is the solution.

AZRE: The Arizona Department of Housing also changed how it prioritizes Affordable Housing Trust Fund awards. What shifted? 

CL: The Legislature reprioritized HTF awards for the first four months of the fiscal year toward new construction of affordable housing, so the Department can maximize federal matching funds.

Making state dollars the top priority during that window helps Arizona draw down every available federal housing dollar before funding other eligible projects, ensuring taxpayer money goes further and supports more housing investment statewide.

AZRE: Are there any other issues you wish the Legislature resolved this year? 

CL: Rental assistance, for one. HB2682 (Landlord Tenant Rental Assistance; Fund), sponsored by Rep. Alma Hernandez, would have created a $5 million Arizona Rental Assistance Fund offering eligible households up to two months or $5,000 of assistance.

The fund would focus on residents that have one or more children age 18 or under in the home and are facing a short-term financial emergency.

That help matters. Many families fall behind because of temporary hardships, job interruption, a medical emergency or unexpected car repair.

A relatively modest amount of short-term assistance can keep a family housed and avoids the personal and public costs that follow an eviction.

We also hoped to see progress on HB2804 (Rural Development and Housing Tax Credits), sponsored by Rep. Teresa Martinez (R), which would have created state tax credits against insurance premium and income taxes for qualified low-income housing projects in counties under 800,000 residents.

It would have let the Department of Housing allocate up to $2 million annually in credits from 2026 through 2036. The bill was designed to complement the federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program and close financing gaps that keep rural affordable housing from penciling out: construction costs are high in smaller communities, and local rents often can’t cover the full cost of development. A targeted state credit could have leveraged federal credits and private capital to make more of these projects feasible.

AZRE: Looking to 2027, what’s on the AMA’s legislative agenda? 

CL: Straightforward: finding solutions that increase housing supply and preserve housing options, while opposing policies that have failed elsewhere and would worsen Arizona’s shortage.

We’re hopeful rental assistance and a continued state LIHTC program will move forward. Both would build more housing and keep families in their homes through short-term financial emergencies.

We’ll keep working to stop policies that shrink supply or make rental housing less attainable, while pushing constructively on solutions that address the real causes of Arizona’s affordability challenge: reducing unnecessary cost and delay, improving permitting and approvals, supporting infrastructure financing, encouraging investment, and expanding tools that help families stay housed through hardship. Arizona still needs significantly more housing, and every unnecessary delay, mandate or cost makes that harder.

AZRE: Eviction filings get a lot of attention in the media. What’s the real story behind the numbers? 

CL: Frankly, the media consistently gets this wrong, and we spend a lot of time providing context.

The biggest issue we see is stories that confuse an eviction filing with an actual eviction where the constable removes residents from a home. An eviction filing is the start of the court process, in the same way that filing for divorce starts the dissolution of a marriage. Many cases resolve before an eviction happens. The resident may pay the balance due, for example. Or the resident receives rental assistance, enters a payment plan or moves out voluntarily. Only about 30% of filings result in a writ of restitution — the court order that allows a constable to carry out an eviction.

That means that roughly 70% of eviction filings don’t end in an actual eviction. Most stories gloss over that context, or leave it out entirely.

We also see many, many stories that compare totals across time without acknowledging the Valley’s population explosion. Maricopa County has consistently been among the fastest-growing counties in the U.S. for the past 25 years. In statistical terms, we’ve added more than 1.4 million residents in that time. That means there’s far more rental households. Knowing that, it’s misleading to say that “we’re experiencing record eviction levels.”

Let me change the context for the sake of comparison. You could say, “The Valley has more homicides today than we did in the year 2000.” That’s true — because we’ve added more than 1.4 million residents since then. But the homicide rate has actually gone down.

Now look at evictions. If you want to measure apples to apples, the best way to do that is writs of restitution per capita. In 2005, the county had 3.6 million residents. The statistics show about 5.2 writs per 1,000 residents. Fast forward to 2025. The Census says we have 4.7 million residents. The writs per capita is 5.3 per 1,000 residents.

That’s telling, and we believe it’s why policymakers and journalists would do well to distinguish between filings and completed evictions while also accounting for population growth.

AZRE: What does an eviction actually cost a property owner? 

CL: Eviction is a bad outcome for everyone — both residents and property owners. For residents, it can mean financial hardship, housing instability and a hit to their bank account. It can affect kids and their education, and impact people’s jobs. For property owners losing a resident to eviction often means unpaid rent, legal expenses, staff time, repairs, vacancy losses, and the cost of preparing and marketing the unit for a new resident.

The numbers make the case: an AMA analysis found that $1,602 in unpaid rent can ultimately produce a $6,252 loss once late fees, legal fees, court costs, process service, vacancy, repairs, maintenance, staff time, turnover, and storage or removal of belongings are factored in.

That means what starts out as a missed month or two of rent can quickly become thousands of dollars in losses. That’s why most property owners and managers treat eviction as a last resort. Our members are in the business of providing a place to live for Arizonans and their families, not kicking people out of housing.

AZRE: Walk us through how long the eviction process actually takes. 

CL: The eviction process in Arizona is more deliberate than many people assume, especially compared with states like Arkansas, Idaho and Nevada, where an eviction can be completed in as little as seven days. Arizona falls roughly in the middle nationally.

In most of Arizona, the process begins when rent is due and a resident who doesn’t pay receives a five-day notice to pay or vacate. There are important exceptions, however. In Pima County, owners of federally backed properties generally must provide 30 days’ notice, and federal law requires 60 to 90 days’ notice for residents using Housing Choice (Section 8) vouchers. Those cases can take substantially longer before an eviction case is ever filed.

If the issue isn’t resolved, the property owner or attorney can file an eviction case, known as a forcible detainer action. The court then schedules a hearing, where both the property owner and resident have an opportunity to present their case before a judge. If the judge rules in the property owner’s favor, a writ of restitution is issued, served by the constable, and only then can the eviction be carried out.

From the initial notice to the constable’s arrival, the process typically takes 21 to 30 days, giving residents multiple opportunities to resolve the matter before an eviction occurs. Even after that, any personal property left behind must be held for at least 14 days, allowing the resident time to reclaim it.

AZRE: Are today’s renter-assistance programs actually effective? 

CL: Yes. The City of Phoenix has a direct rental and utility assistance program, and Maricopa County and Phoenix will soon roll out a rental assistance pilot targeting specific zip codes. Those programs do help people stay housed. But we need to distinguish between helping someone through an eviction and preventing one altogether.

Every resident deserves due process and access to the courts. But in many cases, the issue isn’t a lack of legal representation; it’s a temporary financial emergency and an inability to pay rent. Phoenix has invested millions in legal representation for renters facing eviction, which helps some navigate the process. But if the goal is keeping families housed, direct rental assistance often delivers a better return because it solves the underlying problem before it reaches a courtroom. For example, Phoenix’s $2.1 million investment in legal services helped prevent roughly 165 evictions; that same $2.1 million as direct rental assistance could have prevented as many as 650.

That’s part of why AMA and its members have contributed more than $75,000 to Hope+Door this year, an organization providing emergency rent grants to families facing temporary hardship. More than 90% of families it assists are still housed a year later, exactly the kind of outcome we want to see more of, because it benefits residents, owners and communities alike.

AZRE: Is there value in framing your position as pro-housing rather than anti-NIMBY? 

CL: Absolutely. People respond better to what you’re for than what you’re against.

Being pro-housing isn’t choosing developers over neighborhoods; it’s recognizing that Arizona needs enough homes for teachers, nurses, police officers and young families. Housing isn’t just a real estate issue anymore; it’s an economic one.

Scottsdale is a good example. Anti-apartment rhetoric around Axon’s headquarters project nearly pushed one of Arizona’s most successful companies, worth roughly $60 billion, with an expansion expected to support more than 5,000 high-paying jobs, to leave the state. When a community signals that housing isn’t welcome, businesses hear that message too.

AZRE: Are there more YIMBYs in Arizona than people realize? 

CL: I think so, even if most wouldn’t use that label. Most people simply understand that if Arizona is going to keep growing, people need somewhere affordable to live.

The challenge is that a small but vocal minority can stall projects for years. Entitlement processes that once took a year or two now can take three or four, and every delay adds cost that eventually shows up in the price of housing. Supporting more housing doesn’t mean approving every project without question; it means recognizing we can’t solve a shortage by continuing to say no.

AZRE: How does the AZ Housing for All coalition fit into this? 

CL: It reinforces that housing affects everyone, not just our industry. The coalition brings together employers, business organizations and housing advocates who recognize that affordable housing is essential to Arizona’s future. If workers can’t afford to live near the jobs, businesses struggle to recruit, families spend more time commuting, and communities become less competitive. It’s encouraging to see groups from different backgrounds rallying around a common goal. Housing isn’t a niche issue anymore; it’s central to Arizona’s economic success.

AZRE: Any final thoughts for readers on the multifamily market or the broader economy? 

CL: Just that the market is starting to prove out something we’ve said for years: as more apartments have been built, we’ve seen rents decrease or at least flatten as they have for the last three years. Residents have more choices, and that’s creating real competition.

We still have a long way to go. Arizona faces a significant housing shortage, and affordability remains a challenge for many families. But the lesson is clear: the best way to improve affordability over the long term is to build more housing. That’s why AMA will keep supporting policies that make it easier to create the homes Arizona needs, and opposing proposals that make housing more expensive or harder to build.