I think the comparison you're trying to draw is to the Rayleigh quotient minimization
\begin{align}
\min_x &\frac{\left( Ax \right)^\top \left( Ax \right)}{x^\top
x},\\
\end{align}
to try to find the eigenvalues of $A^{\top}A$.
The chief difference I see between those problems is that if $x$ is an optimal solution to the Rayleigh quotient minimization, then so is $cx$ for all scalar $c \neq 0$ (which makes sense; $x$ would be an eigenvector of $A^{\top}A$, so $cx$ is also an eigenvector for $c \neq 0$).
There is no such scale-invariance for solutions of the constrained optimization problem you've shown. Adding constraints and affine terms to the numerator of the objective destroys the property exploited by Rayleigh quotient iteration. Consequently, I would guess that you are correct: you probably cannot solve this problem using the same methods as Rayleigh quotient iteration.
The problem you've formulated looks to me like it's a nonlinear (probably nonconvex) program. It might be worth reformulating it so that it looks more like
\begin{align}
\min_{x, f} &f \\
\textrm{s.t.} & (Ax - b)^{\top}(Ax - b) - f x^{\top}x = 0 \\
& Ax - b \geq 0;
\end{align}
this sort of reformulation works great for linear fractional programming, but I don't know that it will help you much for your problem, other than to avoid issues occurring if the objective function is evaluated at $x = 0$. The $f$ term is a new variable introduced to stand for the fractional objective function. The term $f x^{\top}x$ is now a potential source of nonconvexity, along with the nonlinear equality constraint.