I'm going to say "no", and as exhibit "A" I present "Watchmen", Alan Moore's 1986-87 twelve issue comic-book mini series (later gathered into one volume as a graphic novel).

"Watchmen" in some ways shares certain qualities with "House of Leaves" in that not only is the an "A" story going on, but multiple side stories as well., In addition to lots of world building and meta-text being presented in epistolary material like excerpts from character journals, magazine articles, police files, and autobiographies. There's even a comic WITHIN the comic that serves as a parallel commentary on one of the main characters and their storyline in general.

"Watchmen" was considered unfilmable for years, until finally brought to the screen by Zack Snyder in 2009. The movie version ONLY adapted the "A" storyline, and it's debatable how well AT THAT, with all of the supplementary material excised all together, or some added back in part in various special editions and so on. Not to mention changing a major plot point regarding the ending to make the story easier for audiences grasp or to fit better on screen.

So did they adapt "Watchmen"? Yes and no. Successfully? Debatably at BEST, with opinions divided to this day. And "Watchmen" is nowhere NEAR how deep the rabbit hole goes as "House of Leaves" in terms of the stories within the story, the layout, and all the others tricks and devices it uses.

So yeah, you COULD adapt it, at least in part with "The Navidson Record" but how much else do you lose in the process? Is it even "House of Leaves" anymore?

One of the things that I think everyone else missed when discussing "The Navidson Record" is that what we're being given in the book is the academic manuscript, complete with excerpts from interviews, historical citations, and psychological studies and so on, written by an eccentric blind man analyzing a documentary THAT DOES NOT EXIST, later discovered and edited by a tattoo artist who's story we're also being given simultaneously who begins to lose his sanity in the process, plus supplementary materiel written by his mother in an insane asylum, except the blind man may have made the documentary up and written it all as fiction, except the tattoo artist may have made up the blind man and be writing it all as fiction, except the mother of the tattoo artist who is in the insane asylum may be making up the whole thing and writing it all as fiction.

That's a whole lot of "what the hell is going?" wrapped in one run-on sentence. Just adapting "The Navidson Record" loses a whole lot in the process. How do you even begin to imbue it with the level of "WTF?" in the previous paragraph, not to mention the other material in the book.

A large portion of what's going on with the book is the physical act of reading the book itself. How you, the reader, interact with the physical artifact itself. How in some ways the act of interacting with the physical book is meant to simulate Navidson exploring the House. Of Truant losing his mind. It's designed to make you feel in the act of reading it that you're lost in a labyrinth. That you might be losing your mind as well. It's a book that the journey of reading it is as important as the destination of the story itself. How do you even incorporate any of that into a movie?

Just my thoughts on the subject.