The current practice housing policies of Malaysia and Nigeria did not highlight on the affordability of formal low cost houses. There are no laws, sections or guidelines regulating the affairs of formal low cost housing. The current policies did not consider the beneficiaries of the formal low cost housing in their design; the design reflects the western culture which is not tantamount to that of the beneficiaries. It did not conform to their culture, family background and size. The current practice policies of Malaysia and Nigeria did not consider the family issues of the low income earners and did not provide for public participation in their deliberations contrary to the need of the beneficiaries. This study establishes that participation in policy deliberations will make them feel self-worth. The beneficiaries want incentives to improve their earnings. This study shows that formal low cost houses in Batu Pahat, are affordable while those in Bauchi, are not affordable. Formal low cost houses are located in the same neighborhood with medium and high cost houses in Batu Pahat and enjoy all facilities, utilities and services there. The situation is not the same in Bauchi, where formal low cost houses are located separate at the peripheries of the town outside trekking distances which repel beneficiaries because of the awkward location. The residents of the formal low cost houses Batu Pahat, have higher qualification, higher earnings, less number of defendants, while those at Bauchi, have higher number of defendants, lower income, lower qualification. This study further ascertained that the interplay of these three intangible socio economic elements is the major impediment that blocks affordability. The policy makers and the residents submit that these affordability elements should be upheld in other to ensure formal low cost housing possession by the low income earners. This article further ascertained that the intangible socio economic elements play more role than the physical or tangible elements.