Molecular orbital diagram for nitrogen monoxide, the nitrosyl cation and the nitrosyl anion
As usual with these simple molecules: It's not as simple as it seems. Here it actually doubles down quite a bit more.
The short and very dis-satisfactory answer is: It is very, very complicated. For this reason, I am reluctant to present a molecular orbital diagram. However, I will provide calculated MOs. While it may be tempting to just look at the pictures, the rationalisation behind it is more important. What will follow now are a few attempts at that rationalisation.

In the nitric oxide series, $\ce{NO+}$ is surprisingly the simplest. Why is that surprising? Because it is isoelectronic with $\ce{CO}$; and this molecule is one of the most complicated ones there are. You can read a bit more about it here: How can the dipole moment of carbon monoxide be rationalised by molecular orbital theory?
I do compare $\ce{NO+}$ more with $\ce{CO}$ rather than $\ce{N2}$ to which it is also isoelectronic, because of the asymmetry introduced by the different nuclei. The molecule is the simplest to explain, because it is a singlet ground state. All electrons are neatly paired, and spacial symmetry can easily be matched with the degeneracy of the orbitals.
The &pi;-orbitals are not the HOMO, instead it is the &sigma; lone pair at nitrogen. 

The next more complicated is $\ce{NO-}$, which is isoelectronic to $\ce{O2}$. In this case it is hard to find a less symmetric isoelectronic version. It is well known, that the ground state is a triplet because of the degeneracy of the &pi;-orbitals. While we would expect the orbital ordering to be the same as in $\ce{NO+}$, it is not. This is mainly due to the fact, that occupied orbitals behave differently than unoccupied orbitals.
In some way, because of the paramagnetic character, we have a situation wich cannot be described by a single molecular orbital description. You need at least two: one for &alpha;-electrons (or spin up) and one for &beta;-electrons (or spin down). The good thing however is, that both of these descriptions may still be matched with spatial symmetry.
The bonding &pi; orbitals become higher in energy than the &sigma; lone pair because the anti-bonding counterparts are partially filled.

The most complicated molecule in the series is the radical $\ce{NO}$. There is absolutely no simple description. Because of the unpaired electron, you need at least two descriptions again. However, this is not enough because now one of the spin-state description cannot match the spatial symmetry. This is because one electron cannot occupy two orbitals at the same time in an MO description. Because of that (from a technical point of view) the orbital degeneracy has to be broken. Physically this is not possible.
The molecule has to be treated with a multi-reference approach, i.e. one MO description for every possible configuration. It is probably safe to assume that the orbitals of &pi; symmetry don't split that much and are higher in energy than the &sigma; lone pair.

Below you can find the calculated MO. The level of theory used for $\ce{NO+}$ was RMP2/def2-QZVPP, because this is equivalent to the level the other molecules were treated, which is ROMP2//UMP2/def2-QZVPP. One can clearly see how the orbital symmetry for $\ce{NO}$ breaks the degeneracy of the pi orbitals.
For $\ce{NO+}$ MOs 5,6 and 8,9 are degenerated. For $\ce{NO-}$ MOs 6,7 and 8,9 are degenerated.
Colour code: blue/orange, &alpha;, &beta;-occupied; purple/yellow-orange, &alpha;/&beta;-occupied; red/yellow, unoccupied; contour value, 0.1.





With a little more literature research (prior to answering the question) one would have found the following publication:
Renato P. Orenha and Sérgio E. Galembeck. Molecular Orbitals of $\ce{NO}$, $\ce{NO+}$, and $\ce{NO–}$: A Computational Quantum Chemistry Experiment. J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91 (7), 1064–1069.