Jeppesen will use the term "NA" in the "For Filing as Alternate" table if all the available approaches at the given airport are not available. For FAA charts, a pilot will know that an airport is NA for alternative planning purposes by looking at all procedures and noting the boxed "A" NA for all approaches.
I've been under the impression that NA is, well NA. This airport is not usable for planning purposes. Which bring me to an interesting question. What if the weather supported a descent from the MIA/MVA to landing under VFR? In other words, no IAP is planned.
VFR only airports are approved as IFR alternate airports assuming the weather supports a descent from MIA/MVA to landing under VFR. Assuming we had great weather in the vicinity of our required IFR alternate, why is it okay that a VFR only airport is approved but the IFR airport is NA? I understand the reasons why there is an "NA" such has unmonitored NavAid and lack of reporting WX, etc. But that would all assume we were planning on an IAP at the alternate. If that is not the plan, in otherwise, a VFR landing from the MIA/MVA, then I don't see a reason why the airport could not be listed as an IFR alternate?
Lastly, along the same lines. Non-WAAS equipped operators may file a destination and alternate airports based upon a GPS approaches, just not both. The scenario is this. The destination has only a RNAV(GPS). The desired alternate has the same as well. Again, I would agree that the desired alternate is unavailable to this pilot due to lack of conventional navigation approaches (planning purposes only). But once again, if this plan was a VFR landing from the MIA/MVA, (The GPS approaches is not planned on) and the weather forecast supported this, then again I don't see a reason why this airport couldn't be filed as an IFR alternate?