In the past, several state legislatures have introduced bills attempting to limit institutional investor homeownership. This session, with growing concerns over housing affordability and supply and federal action, institutional investor homeownership has come to the forefront of housing policy.
Federal Action
In January 2026, Republican President Donald Trump issued an executive order aimed at preventing large institutional investors from buying additional single-family homes. The policy, titled “Stopping Wall Street from Competing with Main Street,” directs federal agencies to curb investor homeownership and preserve housing supply for individual buyers.
Soon after, Congress moved to codify these efforts in U.S. HR 6644, the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, a bipartisan bill that is awaiting House concurrence in Senate amendments. A key provision of the bill is a ban on large institutional investors from purchasing additional single-family houses. The bill would define “large institutional investors” as for-profit entities, such as an investment fund, corporation, general or limited partnership, that are engaged in the business of investing in, owning, renting or managing single-family homes and hold a portfolio of 350 or more properties. The bill would include targeted exceptions for certain development models, such as build- or renovate-to-rent program housing, reflecting the focus on expanding housing supply.
State-Level Efforts
Lawmakers in 16 states – Arizona, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia and Washington – have introduced a combined 31 bills this session addressing institutional investor participation in the single-family housing market.
These proposals vary widely in scope and approach. The bills differ in how they define “institutional investor” (often focusing on hedge funds or pooled investment vehicles) and in the specific limits imposed on property ownership. Some bills forgo these caps altogether and instead impose a waiting period for institutional investors after the original listing or a price change, giving individual buyers a competitive window. None of the state-level bills have been enacted at this time.
In contrast, several other states are pursuing indirect measures to disincentivize institutional investor homeownership. These include removing tax advantages for large investors or imposing additional excise taxes on owners of multiple non-owner-occupied properties, often aligning with broader policies dealing with second-homes or vacant properties.
Conclusion
Although similar policies have been introduced before, the combination of federal backing and expanded state-level activity suggests a more serious push to limit institutional ownership in the single-family housing market. As policymakers continue to test different approaches, the results will play a key role in shaping the future of the housing market in the United States.
FOCUS will continue to monitor developments on institutional investor homeownership in state legislatures across the country.
by Elsa Nygard 3/23/26
