The Florida Legislature is weighing legislation that would prohibit large corporations, hedge funds, and venture capital firms from purchasing residential properties in the state, joining a growing national conversation about institutional investors in the housing market.

The move began last year when State Representative Berny Jacques filed HB 401 to stop corporations from buying up single-family homes in Florida. Although it did not pass, the legislature is now reconsidering enacting something similar. Another, HB 1593 in 2025, aimed to restrict certain corporate purchases of single-family homes to improve housing affordability, targeting large investors like hedge funds and private equity firms by limiting their portfolios and freeing up supply for families

The proposed measures come as Florida grapples with housing affordability challenges that have intensified in recent years. Median home prices in many Florida markets have risen significantly, and lawmakers from both parties have expressed concern about the role of institutional investors in the residential real estate sector.

What the Proposals Would Do

While specific legislative language varies, the bills under consideration generally aim to restrict entities above certain size thresholds from purchasing single-family homes and other residential properties. The proposals typically define large corporations as those with substantial asset portfolios or those primarily engaged in investment activities rather than traditional homebuilding or property management.

Some versions of the legislation would apply to new purchases going forward, while others have proposed requiring divestment of existing holdings over time. Exemptions are being discussed for traditional homebuilders, small property management companies, and real estate investment trusts (REITs) focused on rental housing development.

Arguments in Favor

Supporters of the ban argue that institutional investors distort local housing markets by purchasing properties in bulk, often with cash offers that individual buyers cannot match. They contend this practice drives up prices and converts homeownership opportunities into permanent rental properties, reducing the available inventory for prospective homeowners.

Proponents also emphasize that homeownership has historically been a primary wealth-building tool for middle-class families, and that protecting this pathway is essential for economic stability and community cohesion. They point to data showing increased institutional investor activity in a particular market, which correlates with reduced homeownership rates.

Arguments Against

Opponents of the legislation raise several concerns. Industry groups argue that institutional investors provide necessary rental housing supply in a state experiencing rapid population growth, and that restricting their participation could reduce overall housing availability and increase rents.

Some economists caution that corporate purchases account for a relatively small share of overall home sales in most markets, and that broader factors—including population growth, construction costs, zoning restrictions, and interest rates—are more significant drivers of housing affordability challenges.

Critics also warn of potential unintended consequences, such as reduced liquidity in real estate markets, decreased property tax revenue if property values decline, and the practical difficulties of defining and enforcing corporate ownership restrictions. There are also questions about whether such restrictions could face legal challenges on constitutional grounds.

Potential Effects

If enacted, the legislation could have several outcomes. In the near term, it might increase the share of homes available for purchase by individual buyers in affected markets. However, the magnitude of this effect would depend on how much of the current inventory is held or targeted by institutional investors.

The rental market could experience shifts, as institutional investors have been significant providers of single-family rental housing. If these entities exit the market or curtail purchases, rental supply could tighten, potentially putting upward pressure on rents unless other landlords fill the gap.

Property values could be affected in either direction. Reduced competition from institutional cash buyers might moderate price growth, but decreased overall demand could also impact seller pricing power and market liquidity.

The legislation could also influence where institutional capital flows within Florida’s real estate sector, redirecting investment toward multifamily developments, commercial properties, or build-to-rent communities, depending on how the law is structured.

Broader Context

Florida’s consideration of such restrictions reflects a national trend. Several other states have explored or enacted similar measures as institutional investment in residential real estate has grown following the 2008 financial crisis. The approach represents a significant policy intervention in real estate markets, where government regulation has traditionally focused on zoning, building codes, and fair housing rather than buyer qualifications based on entity type.

The debate in Florida continues as legislators weigh testimony from housing advocates, real estate professionals, and economists, along with constituent concerns about housing affordability. Any final legislation would likely need to balance multiple objectives: promoting homeownership opportunities, maintaining adequate housing supply, preserving property rights, and ensuring rental market stability.

Follow the St. Pete-Clearwater Sun on Facebook, Instagram, Threads, Google, & X

St. Pete-Clearwater Sun: local St. Pete-Clearwater news at PIE-Sun.com