Homeowners
2026

Table of Contents

Key Insights

  • Homeownership remained far less common in the County of Los Angeles than in the rest of California and the country.
  • Over the last decade, homeownership rates have fallen across all income groups, but middle-income households have experienced the steepest declines.
  • The Black homeownership rate in Los Angeles County exhibited year-over-year growth, following a steady decline since 2019, but wide racial gaps in homeownership remain.
  • Demand for mortgages in Los Angeles was historically low, with fewer applications in the past three years than during the aftermath of the Great Recession.1
  • Racial disparities in access to mortgage credit limit home purchase activity persisted among Black and Latino households in Los Angeles County.

Homeownership remains a critical measure of economic stability and wealth-building, but in the County of Los Angeles, access to homeownership has become increasingly elusive. As of 2024, homeownership rates in the county were near a 54-year low, with significant disparities observed across household income and race/ethnicity, as well as by neighborhoods, reflecting legacies of unequal credit access and racial exclusion. This chapter examines the key contemporary contributors to low homeownership rates in Los Angeles County, including rising home values, limited housing supply, and access to mortgage credit.

Understanding Los Angeles County’s Low Homeownership Rates

As shown in the chart below, homeownership rates in Los Angeles County have remained below both the state and national averages since 1970. In 2024, the homeownership rate gaps between Los Angeles County (46%) and the state (56%), and between the county and the U.S. (65%), were wider than they have been in more than 50 years. Both LA County and the City of LA have seen declines in homeownership rates since 1980, with the steepest decline occurring since the 2010s, coinciding with sharp home price increases. By comparison, homeownership rates across California and the U.S. also fell between 2000 and 2020 but have begun rising again in recent years. No such rebound was seen in the city or county.

The Ratio of Home Values to Local Incomes Vastly Exceeds the Nation

One likely contributor to the differences in homeownership rates between the City of Los Angeles, LA County, California, and the United States is the disparity between homeownership costs (measured by median home values)2 and median incomes.3 In 1980, the median home value in Los Angeles County (adjusted for inflation4) was about $380,000, which was five times the median household income of around $75,800. By comparison, the median home value in the United States that year was just over $204,000, about three times the median household income of $72,700.

These gaps have widened dramatically since. By 2024, the median home value in Los Angeles County had risen to nearly $867,000, nearly ten times greater than the median household income of $90,800. In the City of Los Angeles, home values are even less affordable, at nearly 12 times local incomes. Meanwhile, across California and the U.S. as a whole, median home values are now nearly eight and four times greater than median incomes, respectively. The chart below shows the ratio of median home values to median incomes in 1980 and 2024.

Current Homeowners Are Staying in Their Homes Longer, While a Growing Share of Younger Homeowners May Be Occupying Inherited Properties

In addition to exorbitant housing prices and a lack of new construction (see Supply chapter), low turnover among existing homeowners also contributed to LA County’s lower homeownership rate relative to California and the US. Los Angeles County homeowners remained in their homes for longer periods, leading to fewer opportunities for households to transition from renting to owning through the existing housing supply. In 2024, 45% of Los Angeles County homeowners had lived in their homes for more than 20 years, compared to 36% statewide and 33% nationally (see the chart below).

One factor contributing to this trend in California is Proposition 13, which limits property tax increases and creates a strong financial incentive for homeowners to remain in their homes, especially in areas where home values have appreciated substantially. This dynamic is particularly applicable to Los Angeles County, where rising home prices make it costly for homeowners to move due to the potential for higher property taxes on newly purchased properties. 

As homeowners remained in their homes for longer, an increasing share have paid off their mortgage. In 2024, fewer homeowners (66%) in Los Angeles County had a mortgage on their home than in 2014 (74%). This pattern is consistent with both state and national trends and reflects population aging, as the average age of homeowners has increased in the past decade. But even as the overall population of homeowners increases in age, the demographic profile of homeowners without a mortgage is getting younger. 

Between 2014 and 2024, the share of homeowners age 44 or younger without a mortgage increased from 11% to 14% in Los Angeles County. This increase could reflect a combination of young homeowners purchasing homes in cash or inheriting and moving into fully paid-off homes at higher rates than they used to. Notably, the growing group of young homeowners without a mortgage has substantially lower average incomes ($162,862) than homeowners of the same age with mortgages ($223,255). This pattern suggests that younger households may increasingly be occupying inherited homes purchased and paid off by previous generations. Recent statewide research finds that a higher share of property transfers in California are inheritances (18%) than nationwide (7.4%) (Delventhal, 2026). 

Just as California’s Proposition 13 incentivizes homeowners in the state to remain in their homes for longer, it also creates a financial incentive to keep properties in the family, as tax exemptions can be inherited by children or grandchildren. Inherited homeownership can create opportunities for lower-income households to enter the housing market. Notably, in Los Angeles County, young homeowners of color are more likely than their white counterparts to own homes without a mortgage.5 This suggests that inheritances may be a key pathway to homeownership for households of color, who face barriers to accessing mortgage credit, which we describe in detail below.

Homeownership Declines Most Among Middle-Income Households

In an environment where high median home values and low turnover rates create strong headwinds, income plays a large role in determining who can access homeownership. As shown in the chart below, in 2024, homeownership rates in Los Angeles County varied sharply by household income level.6 Among households earning $150,000 or more per year, 58% were homeowners. In contrast, only 35% of households earning between $100,000 and $149,000, 23% of households earning between $50,000 and $99,000, and 14% of households earning less than $50,000 were homeowners.

Homeownership rates have dropped or remained flat across all income groups in Los Angeles County over the last decade. However, homeownership rates fell most sharply among the two middle-income groups, i.e., those with annual household incomes between $50,000 – $149,000. In 2024, the homeownership rate for households earning between $100,000 and $150,000 was 35%, far lower than it was in 2014 (49%). Similarly, the homeownership rate for households earning between $50,000 and $99,999 has declined by about 23% since 2014. A drop among households in the highest income group ($150,000+) also occurred in the past decade, but the dip was much less severe, falling by about 11%. A broadly similar pattern of declines in homeownership rates occurred across almost all income groups in California, but at every income level, the drops were more severe in Los Angeles County. And importantly, statewide data revealed a key exception to these declines: the homeownership rate for California households earning less than $50,000 actually increased over the past decade. The chart below shows the decline in homeownership rates by income group in Los Angeles County and the state of California from 2014 to 2024.7

Racial Disparities in Homeownership

Beyond income, disparities in homeownership rates by race and ethnicity were also stubbornly large in Los Angeles County. As of 2024, 46% of all Los Angeles County households owned the home they live in, but homeownership rates were considerably higher among Asian/Pacific Islander (56%) and white (53%) households.8 By comparison, homeownership rates were much lower among Hispanic/Latino (39%), Black (33%), and American Indian/Alaska Native households.9

Across all racial/ethnic groups in Los Angeles County, only Asian/Pacific Islander households saw substantial increases in homeownership between 2014 (51%) and 2024 (56%). The chart below shows homeownership rates for each race/ethnic group in Los Angeles County in 2014 and 2024.

Homeownership rates for Black households in Los Angeles County have been lower than those of other racial and ethnic groups throughout the past decade. Following a steady decline from 2019 through 2023, the Black homeownership rate finally ticked up in 2024, increasing to 33% in 2024 from 31% a year earlier. Homeownership rates among Hispanic/Latino households are also lower than most other race/ethnic groups, hovering around 38% throughout the past decade. These persistent racial differences in homeownership reflect a legacy of racially discriminatory housing finance policy in access to mortgage financing, which we explore in detail below.

According to LABarometer survey data, disparities in homeownership rates between Black households and White households in Los Angeles County are persistent even after controlling for other demographic characteristics (education, income, etc.). While there is no evidence that Black homeowners are more likely to leave homeownership or leave Los Angeles County, there is some suggestive evidence that Black renters are less likely to become homeowners compared to White renters. In any given survey wave, Black renters in the past year had about 50% lower odds than White renters of becoming homeowners within the next year.10 For more information on the LABarometer survey data, see the Data & Methods section.

Increasing Access to Homeownership and Wealth in Los Angeles County Requires Increasing Access to Mortgages

Homeownership and wealth accumulation are tightly linked in the US. This link, which appears to have strengthened over time (Choi & Zinn, 2024), is especially consequential for middle-class and for Black and Latino families (Shapiro, 2006; Killewald, Pfeffer, & Schachner, 2017). Homeowners build wealth through a variety of mechanisms,11 but these dynamics are particularly pronounced in areas where housing assets have sharply increased in value, as in Los Angeles County, where the median listing price has risen by more than 40% in the past decade (Realtor.com, 2026).

Although households need some wealth to access homeownership, most do not purchase homes outright in cash. Instead, most Los Angeles County homebuyers take out a mortgage to finance their home purchase. Here, we dive into Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data on mortgages originated in Los Angeles County since 2007, examining trends in race, ethnicity, and income at both the county and neighborhood levels.

All of the data discussed below comes from the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA), which requires many financial institutions to maintain, report, and publicly disclose loan-level information about mortgage applications and originations. While HMDA data does not capture 100% of the mortgage market, most residential mortgages are reported under HMDA. Loans made by small depositories and credit unions, as well as by low-volume originators, may be missing from the data, but these tend to represent a small share of residential mortgage volume. Despite some missing data, HMDA is the most comprehensive publicly available source of data on the U.S. mortgage market. As of this report, the latest year of final, full HMDA data available is from 2025.

Who Applies for Mortgages in Los Angeles County?

In 2025, about 64,600 purchase-money mortgage applications12 were submitted in Los Angeles County, the fewest on record in the county.13 Nearly two decades ago, in 2007, more than 125,000 mortgage applications were submitted, reflecting an era when mortgage credit – including subprime credit – was widely available before the Great Recession began at the end of that year.

From 2007 to 2008, the number of mortgage applications in LA County dropped by more than 30%, reflecting both a tightening of national mortgage credit standards and suppressed demand during a recession. From 2016 to 2021, mortgage applications increased, signaling recovery from the financial crisis, but after a 2021 rush to take advantage of historically low interest rates, applications dipped in 2022 and have fallen further every year since. Low applications reflect both high home price-to-income ratios and high interest rates, which keep many from entering the mortgage market (Bentz, 2026; Joint Center for Housing Studies, 2026). Depressed demand also reflects demographic trends, like fewer young adults forming independent households and delayed marriage and childbearing (Choi, Goodman, & Zhu, 2026).

Mortgage demand among white households roughly tracks the white share of the population in Los Angeles County. In 2025, more than one-quarter (26%) of mortgage applicants in the county were white, and, according to the latest ACS data, 25% of the population was white. Meanwhile, Hispanic/Latino borrowers accounted for just 22% of mortgage applicants in 2025 despite accounting for nearly half (48%) of the county’s population. Black and Asian people are also under-represented in mortgage demand, though less severely; in 2025, Black borrowers accounted for fewer than 4% of mortgage applicants but 7% of the population, and Asian borrowers made up 4% of applicants compared with 15% of the population. Notably, the share of applications that are missing race and ethnicity data has increased substantially over time, and as of 2025, more than one-third (34%) of mortgage applicants in the county had no racial or ethnic data, severely limiting our insight into racial disparities in mortgage access in the county.14 The chart below displays the mortgage applications from 2007 to 2025, by race and ethnicity.

Note: HMDA reporting changed in 2018, expanding race and ethnicity categories and increasing missing and multiple-race responses. Pre-2018 and post-2018 data should not be directly compared. Data are filtered to include only applications for first-lien, owner-occupied properties.

With regard to income, most mortgage applicants in LA County have consistently reported incomes of at least $150,000 (in 2025 inflation-adjusted terms). As of 2025, 58% of mortgage applicants earn more than $150,000. The share of applicants in this highest income bracket has increased by more than 10 percentage points since 2018, while the share of applicants making between $50,000 and $100,000 has nearly halved (from 14% of applicants in 2018 to 7% in 2025), and the share of applicants earning between $100,000 and $150,000 has dropped by nearly one-third (from 24% in 2018 to 16% in 2025). High home prices in Los Angeles may be precluding lower-income households from applying for mortgages, as debt-to-income ratios are a key underwriting consideration.15

In Los Angeles County, the share of borrowers applying with a co-applicant has increased over time, from about 28% in 2007 to about 58% in 2025. Latino applicants were the most likely to apply for mortgages with co-applicants as of 2025 (55% of Latino applications included a co-borrower). Meanwhile, Black applicants have been consistently the least likely to apply with co-applicants. As of 2025, just 41% of applications submitted by Black borrowers included a co-applicant. Nationwide, solo mortgage applicants are more likely than dual applicants to be denied mortgages, and in contrast to Los Angeles County, white households are the most likely to apply with a co-applicant (Horowitz, Ky, & Starling, 2023).

Thus far, we have detailed the characteristics of home mortgage applicants at the individual level. But given that housing policies and mortgage programs have historically generated and reflected geographic variation, we now turn briefly to examining neighborhood-level trends in mortgage demand. At the neighborhood level, application trends correspond to patterns in racial segregation, home price trends, and racial wealth gaps. Black and Latino applications are concentrated in the Antelope Valley, particularly in Lancaster and Palmdale, where home prices are generally lower. In 2025, 14% of mortgage applications from Black applicants and 17% of applications from Latino borrowers were for homes in the Antelope Valley. Latino applicants are also heavily concentrated in Southeast LA neighborhoods, with 17% of applications in 2025 coming from these neighborhoods, especially Compton, Downey, and Norwalk, the San Gabriel Valley, and the San Fernando Valley. Over time, the Latino share of mortgage applicants has fallen in neighborhoods in the San Gabriel Valley. For example, in 2007, Latino applicants accounted for 53% of all mortgage applications in Covina. In 2025, they accounted for 34% of mortgage applicants in the neighborhood.

Meanwhile, Black applicants are heavily concentrated in South LA neighborhoods, and as of 2025, 19% of Black borrowers’ applications were for homes in South LA. Notably, the Black share of mortgage demand in South LA has dropped over time as the neighborhood demographics have changed. In 2007, nearly one-quarter (22%) of mortgage applications for homes in South LA were submitted by Black borrowers. By 2025, just 14% of money mortgage applications in South LA were from Black borrowers. Meanwhile, in 2007, just 7% of home applications in South LA were from white borrowers, compared with more than 11% of applications in 2025. Black applicants have been consistently concentrated in Harbor neighborhoods, particularly in Long Beach.

Asian mortgage applicants are especially concentrated in neighborhoods in the San Gabriel Valley, and this has been consistent over time. In 2025, as in 2007, 30% of Asian mortgage applicants applied to purchase homes there.

As previously noted, across Los Angeles County, the share of mortgage applications that are missing race and ethnicity data has increased substantially. Applications missing race and ethnicity data are especially common in predominantly Latino and Black neighborhoods, including East Los Angeles, Montebello, Huntington Park, Florence, Historic South Central, and Vermont-Slauson. For example, in 2007, just 7% of mortgage applications submitted in Historic South Central were missing race and ethnicity data; by 2025, 44% of applications in the neighborhood had no race and ethnicity data. We see a similar trend in East Los Angeles, where 40% of applications in 2025 had no race or ethnicity information, compared to just 7% in 2007. This increase in missing race and ethnicity data severely limits our ability to track disparities and progress for key groups, especially in these neighborhoods. The map below shows the racial makeup of mortgage applications by neighborhood for 2007 and 2025, the earliest and latest years of our data.

Note: Data are filtered to include only applications for first-lien, owner-occupied properties.

We are primarily focused on home purchase-money mortgages, but reducing the longstanding gaps in homeownership rates across race and income groups discussed above will require not simply increasing access to homeownership but also ensuring that homeownership is sustainable. Here, we briefly examine demand for an important component of sustainable homeownership: refinancing loans. These products allow existing homeowners to “replace” their mortgage with a new one, often with a lower rate or a new term, or even to liquidate a portion of the home equity that they have already built to cover other expenses or make wealth-building investments. In Los Angeles County, refinance applications hit a series high of nearly 473,000 in 2020 as interest rates plummeted and existing homeowners rushed to take advantage of the opportunity to lower their monthly housing costs. Refinance applications remained elevated in 2021 but have since collapsed as interest rates increased. In just three years, from 2020 to 2023, refinance applications in the county fell by 93% to about 31,000. Refinance demand remained low in 2025, with just under 49,900 applications submitted. Most refinance applications submitted in 2020 and 2021 were for rate refinances, but from 2022 to 2024, the balance shifted back towards cash-out refinances. In 2025, interest in rate refinances increased as interest rates declined moderately over the year, and 56% of refinance applications submitted were for rate refinances.

White borrowers were the most likely to take advantage of historically low interest rates in 2020 and 2021 in Los Angeles County, and their demand for refinances has been persistently higher over time, in line with national trends (Gerardi, Lambie-Hanson, and Willen 2021; Gerardi, Willen, and Zhang 2023).16 When Black borrowers apply for refinances in Los Angeles County, they are more likely than other racial or ethnic groups to seek cash-out refinances. While cash-out refinances can be used to make wealth-enhancing investments or to invest in one’s children (i.e., to pay for college), they also limit the wealth-building potential of homeownership. Demand for refinances has been consistently higher among households earning $150,000 or more, reflecting that these households are more likely to exploit the benefits of refinancing and to have the up-front capital required to afford one (Loya & Carmona, 2025; Agarwal et al., 2024).

Whose Mortgage Applications Are Successful in Los Angeles County?

In 2025, fewer mortgages originated in Los Angeles County than ever before, reflecting both a drop in applications and, in recent years, an uptick in applications denied. In 2007, more than 59,000 mortgages originated in LA County. While originations dipped in 2008 due to the Great Recession, depressed demand, and tightened standards, lending activity rebounded; from 2015 to 2020, originations hovered between about 50,000 and 56,000 loans annually. In 2021, originations peaked at nearly 67,000 mortgages. But origination activity dropped alongside applications in the following years, as interest rates rose. In 2025, access to mortgage credit was low. Just 34,100 mortgages originated in Los Angeles County, a 49% drop since 2021, and the fewest mortgages originated at any point in our data series, which dates back to 2007. Some of this drop can be attributed to high interest rates, but the drop in originations was steeper in Los Angeles County than nationwide, where originations dropped by 35% over the same period. This divergence suggests that, in Los Angeles County, in addition to elevated interest rates, high home price-to-income ratios prevent many from accessing mortgage credit.

Despite a decline in mortgage activity since 2021, the denial rate on home mortgages has actually increased over the same period. In 2021, 10% of applicants in Los Angeles County were denied; in 2025, more than 12% of applicants were denied. Mortgage denial rates are also higher in Los Angeles than nationwide, where fewer than 9% of applications were denied in 2025.

There are also large, persistent racial disparities in mortgage denial rates, as seen in the chart below. Countywide, white and Asian borrowers tend to have lower denial rates on mortgages (10% and 9% in 2025, respectively), whereas denial rates for Hispanic and especially Black applicants have been consistently higher (15% and 19% in 2025, respectively).17 These gaps broadly mirror similar disparities documented nationally in 2025, when denial rates for Black (17%) and Hispanic (12%) were higher than those of white (6%) and Asian applicants (9%). Although racial/ethnic disparities in borrower characteristics such as income, debt, and credit scores likely explain some of these gaps, national research suggests that racial differences in mortgage denials also reflect discrimination (Choi & Mattingly, 2022; Bhutta, Hizmo, & Ringo, 2022; Lim & Ky, 2023). Moreover, systemic racism is embedded in the mortgage underwriting system: limited credit histories, collateral, and financial capacity among Black and Latino borrowers reflect historically limited opportunities in financial markets (Reynolds, Perry, & Choi, 2021; Choi et al., 2024).

Note: Applications are filtered to first-lien, owner-occupied properties. Applications that are withdrawn (i.e., neither approved nor denied) are excluded.

Household income, as expected, appears to exert a protective effect against denial rates. Applicants with incomes below $50,000 faced denial rates almost four times those of applicants with incomes of $150,000 and above (36% versus 9%). Addressing racial income gaps could help mitigate racial disparities in denial rate, but on the industry side, lenders may also consider designing products for borrowers with higher debt-to-income ratios and improving income verification options for extended-income households (such as multigenerational households or households made up of several families) and borrowers with nontraditional incomes (such as income from a business or rental income from a tenant), who are more likely to be Latino (Reyes 2018; Pisani 2021). However, these interventions alone will not fully erase racial disparities in denial rates. Even among borrowers with high incomes (at least $150,000), Black and Latino borrowers face higher mortgage denial rates (15% and 10% in 2025, respectively) than their white counterparts (8% in 2025).

Denial rates tend to be higher for refinance loans than for purchase loans, but we still observe severe racial disparities. In 2020, when denial rates were historically low and demand for refinances in Los Angeles County peaked, 14% of applicants were denied, but denial rates for Black (18%) and Latino (15%) applicants were higher than for white (12%) applicants. Not only do Black and Latino borrowers apply for refinancings at lower rates, but they also face higher denial rates, limiting their opportunities to build wealth through homeownership by taking advantage of changing interest-rate environments or pulling equity out of their homes to make wealth-enhancing investments. See the chart below for refinance denial rates by race and ethnicity from 2018 onward.

Note: Applications are filtered to first-lien, owner-occupied properties. Applications that are withdrawn (i.e., neither approved nor denied) are excluded.

As discussed earlier in this chapter, home prices, even relative to incomes, are much higher in Los Angeles County than in the rest of the country. In real (e.g., inflation-adjusted) terms, the median home price in LA County has risen by 41% in the past decade. Rising home prices have likely contributed to decreased mortgage demand in Los Angeles County, but they are also reflected in median loan amounts, which have increased by 26% in inflation-adjusted terms over the last decade. In 2025, the median mortgage loan amount in Los Angeles County was $705,000. In 2025, 82% of mortgages in Los Angeles County were conventional, which means that, in the absence of private mortgage insurance, which increases one’s monthly payments, they require a down payment of 20%. In 2025, this would translate to a median down payment of $141,000 – a sum that is out of reach for many households, especially low-income families and Black and Latino families. FHA-backed loans, which require lower down payments and tend to accommodate borrowers with lower credit scores, are a key pathway for increasing access to credit in Los Angeles County. But as of 2025, just 14% of originations countywide were FHA loans.

Neighborhood-level trends in mortgage access reveal significant variation in denial rates across the county. Overall, just 12% of mortgage applicants were denied in Los Angeles in 2025. But in the predominantly Black and Latino Rancho Dominguez neighborhood, 44% of applicants were denied, and in the heavily Latino Mission Hills neighborhood, 25% of applications were denied. Neighborhood-level disparities in denial rates suggest that place-based special-purpose credit programs, which allow banks to extend credit on more favorable terms to historically underserved borrowers, could improve equity in access to mortgage credit in Los Angeles County. However, within many neighborhoods, racial disparities in denial rates remain. For example, in 2025, 19% of mortgage applicants in Inglewood were denied, but the denial rate for Black applicants was 26%, compared with 14% for white borrowers. In Torrance, 42% of Black applicants were denied in 2025, compared with 17% of Latino applicants and just 8% of white applicants. Using the map below, explore mortgage denial rates overall and by race and ethnicity in 2025.

Note: Applications are filtered to first-lien, owner-occupied properties. Applications that are withdrawn (i.e., neither approved nor denied) are excluded.

As we detailed earlier in this chapter, homeownership rates in Los Angeles County are low compared with the rest of the country, and declines in homeownership have been most severe among middle-income households. Alongside limiting home price increases and increasing affordable supply, expanding mortgage access may be critical to turning the tide. Recent data from Realtor.com show that an increasing share of homes in Los Angeles, especially expensive homes, were bought in cash (Mettela, 2025). Policymakers, financial institutions, and nonprofits will need to work together to improve access to mortgages across racial and ethnic groups and income levels to ensure that homebuying is a real possibility for families in Los Angeles County, not just the wealthy.

Population Characteristics

Renters

Contributors

  • Authors
    • Amalie Zinn, USC Lusk Center for Real Estate
    • Jared N. Schachner, USC Price School of Public Policy
  • Research Team
    • Cameron Yap, USC Lusk Center for Real Estate
    • Elizabeth Grubb, USC Lusk Center for Real Estate
    • Adela G Ortiz, USC Lusk Center for Real Estate
    • Christine Steinmann, USC Lusk Center for Real Estate
    • Christa Tang, USC Lusk Center for Real Estate
    • Evan Sandlin, LABarometer
    • Kyla Thomas, LABarometer

Citations

Agarwal, S., Chomsisengphet, S., Kiefer, H., Kiefer, L. C., & Medina, P. C. (2024). Refinancing Inequality During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 59(5), 2133–2163. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022109023001059

Bentz, A. (2026, April 20). California Housing Affordability Tracker (1st Quarter 2026). California Legislative Analyst’s Office. Link

Bhutta, N., Hizmo, A., & Ringo, D. (2022). How Much Does Racial Bias Affect Mortgage Lending? Evidence from Human and Algorithmic Credit Decisions. Link

Choi, J.H., Goodman, L., & Zhu, J. (2026, May 28). Homeownership Among Young Adults Has Fallen, and It’s Worse Than You Think. Urban Institute. Link

Choi, J. H., & Mattingly, P. J. (2022, January 13). What Different Denial Rates Can Tell Us About Racial Disparities in the Mortgage Market. Urban Wire. Urban Institute. Urban Wire. Link

Choi, J.H., Pang, D., Zinn, A., & Mehrotra, A. (2024, June 4). Barriers to Accessing Mortgage Credit. Urban Institute. Link

Choi, J. H., & Zinn, A. (2024, April 19). The Wealth Gap between Homeowners and Renters Has Reached a Historic High. Urban Wire. Urban Institute. Link

Delventhal, M. (2026). A frozen tsunami: why inherited homes won’t solve the housing crisis. Cotality. Link

Gerardi, K., Lambie-Hanson, L., & Willen, P.S. (2021). Racial Differences in Mortgage Refinancing, Distress, and Housing Wealth Accumulation during COVID-19 (Current Policy Perspectives). Federal Reserve Bank of Boston. Link

Gerardi, K., Willen, P. S., & Zhang, D.H. (2023). Mortgage prepayment, race, and monetary policy. Journal of Financial Economics, 147(3), 498–524. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2022.12.001

Goodman, L. S., & Mayer, C. (2018). Homeownership and the American Dream. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 32(1), 31–58.
https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.32.1.31

Horowitz, B., Ky, K.E., & Starling, L. (2023, March 27). Higher mortgage denials for solo applicants feed racial disparities in lending. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. Link 

Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University. (2026). The State of the Nation’s Housing 2026. Link

Killewald, A., Pfeffer, F. T., & Schachner, J.N. (2017). Wealth Inequality and Accumulation. Annual Review of Sociology, 43(1), 379–404.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-060116-053331

Lim, K., & Ky, K.-E. (2023). The Role of Race in Mortgage Application Denials (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. 4331119). Social Science Research Network.
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4331119

Loya, J., & Carmona, G. (2025). House Rich, Access Poor: Refinancing Challenges for Latino and Black Homeowners in Los Angeles County. UCLA Latino Policy and Politics Institute. Link

Mettela, T. (2025, August 1). 1 in 4 Los Angeles Homebuyers Pays in Cash—With Celebrities and Foreign Buyers Fueling Sales. Realtor.com. Link

Realtor.com. (2026, July 9). Housing Inventory: Median Listing Price in Los Angeles County, CA. FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. Link

Reynolds, L., Perry, V.G., & Choi, J.H. (2021, October 13). Closing the Homeownership Gap Will Require Rooting Systemic Racism Out of Mortgage Underwriting. Urban Institute. Link

Richardson, J. (2022, August 25). The Critical Need to Address Missing Data in HMDA [National Community Reinvestment Coalition]. Research, Views. Link

Shapiro, T. M. (2006). Race, Homeownership and Wealth. Washington University Journal of Law & Policy, 20(1), 53–74.

Footnotes

  1. The Great Recession refers to the global economic downturn that began in December 2007 and lasted until June 2009. It was the most severe financial crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s, triggered by the collapse of the housing bubble and the subsequent banking and financial crisis. The housing market crash, particularly the subprime mortgage crisis, led to widespread foreclosures, massive job losses, and a sharp decline in consumer wealth, severely impacting both the U.S. and global economies.
  2. Value is captured by asking the head of household’s estimate of how much the property (house and lot, mobile home and lot (if lot owned), or condominium unit) would sell for if it were for sale.
  3. Household income is calculated by adding the individual income of the head of a household and the incomes of all other inhabitants above 15 years of age, regardless of their relation to the head of the household. Income is defined as any money that a person earns from work, selling products or services, or any other streams such as Social Security payments, pensions, child support, public assistance, annuities, money derived from rental properties, interest and dividends, etc.
  4. “Adjusting for inflation” means using an inflation index, such as the Consumer Price Index (CPI), to account for changes in the purchasing power of money over time. This adjustment allows for a more accurate comparison of values from different years by expressing them in terms of the same dollar value.
  5. In 2024, 21% of Asian homeowners age 44 and younger did not have a mortgage, 19% of Black homeowners, 24% of Hispanic/Latino homeowners, and 18% of white homeowners.
  6. Los Angeles County’s population is rapidly aging/retiring and older adults are significantly more likely to be homeowners. As aging homeowners retire and move into lower income categories, it may cause homeownership rates in lower income categories to appear as if they are rising, when in fact, existing homeowners are just retiring. In order to avoid this trend in the data, this analysis of homeownership rates by income is limited to households where the head of household is considered “of prime working age” (between the ages of 25 and 54).
  7. All income figures have been adjusted for inflation to 2024 dollars to ensure a consistent comparison of income levels over time.
  8. The race/ethnicity of a household is determined by how the head of household (the person whose name is first on the lease or mortgage) defines their own race/ethnicity. Therefore, this definition of race/ethnicity at the household level may not correctly identify all household members in interracial households.
  9. There are higher margins of error when determining homeownership among American Indian/Alaska Native households due to smaller population sizes. We estimate a homeownership rate within the range of 27% to 41% for this group in 2024.
  10. This difference is marginally significant (p < .1) controlling for other income and other demographics.
  11. There is substantial research detailing the myriad of ways in which homeowners build wealth through and beyond asset-price appreciation. For an overview, see Goodman and Mayer (2018).
  12. For the remainder of the report, mortgage refers to mortgages for home purchase – as opposed to refinance – unless otherwise noted.
  13. We examine HMDA data dating back to 2007.
  14. The rise in missing race/ethnicity data reflects a nationwide trend (Richardson, 2022) and is in part due to a change in HMDA reporting standards that went into effect in 2018. The intent of the change was to get more detailed data on borrower race and ethnicity by offering additional breakout groups for race and ethnicity. This increased the share of borrowers reporting “multiple” racial or ethnic groups and increased visibility of previously combined populations by breaking out Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islanders from Asian, for example, but it also contributed to more applicants skipping race or ethnicity questions altogether. In addition, when loans are made online, which is increasingly common, lenders are not required to submit demographic information if the applicant does not offer it. Similarly, lenders can delete demographic and income data from records that they purchase.
  15. Increases in missing income data, like with missing race/ethnicity data, reflect changes to national reporting standards in 2018 and increased online lending.
  16. Like with purchase mortgages, the share of refinance applications missing race and ethnicity data has increased substantially. In 2025, nearly one-third (31.2%)( of refinance applications were missing race and ethnicity data.
  17. American Indian/Alaskan Native applicants, as well as Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander applicants, also tend to have higher denial rates, but since there are so few applications from these groups, these denial rates are also much more volatile year-to-year.
I1L_LCRE-NDSC_Card-Blk_RGB
Copyright 2026 © All rights Reserved. Neighborhood Data for Social Change (NDSC)
Close Menu