Momentum behind restricting corporate homeownership has stalled across multiple levels of government despite initial bipartisan enthusiasm. In California, Assembly Bill 1611, which would have eliminated a tax break for corporations owning more than 50 single-family homes, was shelved by the state Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee last week and may not advance this year. The measure, introduced by Assemblymember Matt Haney, a San Francisco Democrat, faced opposition from the California Apartment Association, the California Chamber of Commerce, and the California Building Industry Association.
In San Diego, City Councilmember Kent Lee is pursuing a more cautious path with a proposal to tax companies owning or renting more than 10 single-family homes or properties in small multi-unit buildings like duplexes. Lee has emphasized the need for a collaborative, transparent process to avoid unintended consequences, particularly concerns that the tax might discourage homebuilding or be passed along to tenants. At the federal level, the Senate has passed its version of the 21st Century Road to Housing Act, which would prevent investors owning at least 350 homes from purchasing additional properties, with limited exceptions. The House, which has been skeptical of corporate ownership restrictions, is working toward a compromise version.
Research data undermines a core argument of restriction advocates. A review by Lee's staff found that approximately 6,000 of San Diego's 500,000 homes—about 1.2 percent—are corporately owned. California's Research Bureau reported that under 3 percent of the state's single-family homes are owned by entities holding at least 10 properties. Nationally, only 140 corporations meet the criteria for the federal 350-home threshold, accounting for 0.59 percent of single-family homes. Corporate ownership concentrations remain higher in select regions, particularly parts of the Sunbelt around Atlanta, though Los Angeles and Riverside each register below 1 percent.
Analysis by Parcl Labs challenged whether restricting corporate ownership would meaningfully free up homes for individual buyers. Between March 2024 and January 2026, landlord portfolios under 100 units expanded while those exceeding 1,000 properties contracted. When large institutional investors sold homes during this period, smaller investors typically purchased them rather than individual buyers acquiring them for primary residences. Whether this pattern would hold under lower thresholds proposed in state and local measures remains uncertain.
An analyst from a housing research institute noted that institutional investors may actually play a constructive role in housing affordability through build-to-rent activities. The analyst suggested that if investor restrictions proceed, requirements should instead mandate acceptance of rent vouchers, greater flexibility in security deposits, credit-building through rent payments, and extended grace periods before eviction notices take effect. While corporate ownership limits might marginally increase housing available to individual purchasers, evidence suggests the impact would be limited without broader policy changes addressing housing supply constraints.
