Rachel Siegel, a senior officer at the Pew Charitable Trusts’ Housing Policy Initiative, told the House Committee on General and Housing on Jan. 27 that state titling rules and lender practices are a major barrier to mortgage access for people who live in manufactured homes. Siegel said manufactured homes—distinct from pre‑1976 "mobile homes" because they must meet HUD code standards—can be a lower‑cost option: in 2020, Pew‑commissioned research found a new single‑section manufactured home cost about $57,000 compared with about $162,000 for a similarly sized new site‑built structure, meaning "the home buyer would pay up to 63% less for a manufactured home compared with site build," she said.
Siegel framed the problem around three policy levers: financing, land use and zoning, and titling. She said titling is especially consequential because most manufactured homes in most states are initially titled as personal property (similar to a car) rather than real estate, and "real‑estate ownership is necessary for mortgage eligibility," which typically brings lower interest rates, longer terms and stronger consumer protections than chattel or contract financing.
Citing national and Vermont data, Siegel said shipments of manufactured homes have declined since the 1990s and especially after the 2008–09 recession. In Vermont she said about 6% of housing units are manufactured or mobile homes. Among Vermont borrowers who used either mortgages or home‑only financing, 79% owned both home and land, 19% leased the land beneath their home, and small shares were resident‑owned or on family/tribal land. Siegel said households that own both home and land typically find it easier to access mortgage financing and that homeowners who do not own the underlying land "seem like they aren't usually getting conversion to real estate in practice," even if state law theoretically permits it.
Siegel described three financing types: mortgages secured by real estate, home‑only (chattel/personal‑property) loans with fewer protections and higher rates, and contract financing (rent‑to‑own/contract‑for‑deed) where legal title may not transfer until the end of the contract. She warned that contract financing carries elevated fraud and equity‑loss risks: people can make payments for years and later discover tax liens or that the seller lacked legal title. "There's a little more potential for fraud," she said, citing legal‑aid reports.
Using Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data (2018–2024), Siegel compared a $100,000 home‑only loan in Vermont and New Hampshire. She reported a Vermont median interest rate of 6.88% with a 180‑month (15‑year) term and a New Hampshire median of 6.5% with a 240‑month (20‑year) term; those differences produced roughly $146 more per month in Vermont on the same loan size in the median case. Siegel added that 2024 median home‑only rates in Vermont rose to about 9.5%.
Siegel pointed to model and state reforms that other jurisdictions are using to increase real‑estate conversion and mortgage access: the Uniform Law Commission’s Manufactured Housing Act (2012) as model legislation; Washington’s 2025 law expanding conversion for long leases; Maine’s 2025 working groups studying titling; and New York’s recent conversion bill (effective Dec. 2026). She said federal programs—Fannie Mae pilots, Freddie Mac work with tribal borrowers, USDA expansions and FHA/VA programs—can also expand mortgage availability when state titling permits real‑estate ownership.
Committee members asked whether making titling conversion mandatory would exclude low‑income borrowers because some banks' mortgage underwriting requires substantial down payments; an unidentified committee member relayed lenders' concerns that a mandatory real‑estate conversion could leave some buyers without access to any loan product. Siegel said denial rates for manufactured‑home lending are generally higher, but federal programs often reduce denials and she offered to follow up with state‑specific data.
Siegel closed by reiterating three takeaways: zoning and lot‑size policy can facilitate placement and neighborhood‑scale developments; titling and mortgage access are crucial to preserving affordability; and Vermont’s statute allows conversion to real estate in theory, but many non‑landowning homeowners still face practical barriers to converting and obtaining mortgages. The committee recessed and scheduled additional testimony (including Rachel McLeod and Ed Fitzpatrick) after the break.