SMU Law Review
ORCID (Links to author’s additional scholarship at ORCID.org)
Abstract
What happens when the American dream of homeownership becomes a corporate asset class? Institutional investor ownership of single‑family rentals (SFRs) reduces the number of homes available for individual purchase and drives up home values—a trend that is beneficial for existing homeowners, but detrimental for prospective buyers. Although the creation of new single‑family rental units has been lauded as a public good to fill the housing gap for those who cannot afford to purchase, it is perpetuating a cycle in which individuals lose out on the opportunity to build equity and intergenerational wealth.
The topic of investor ownership of SFRs has received a flurry of attention from federal legislators and the executive branch under the Trump Administration. Title X of the bipartisan 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act (ROAD to Housing Act, or the Act) bans institutional investors who own 350 or more single‑family homes from buying additional single‑family homes or duplexes. It also establishes a renter outreach resource at the Department of Housing and Urban Development for tenants of single‑family rentals owned by institutional investors to help resolve landlord disputes. Because of the nature of property law, however, and because of the limited scope of the 350 threshold, the goals of this federal intervention should be augmented when appropriate by state and local governments who may more carefully tailor their policies to local housing markets. This Article explores principles of federalism as applied to a corporate land ban, explaining the possible role of each level of government in passing and enforcing SFR restrictions.
A major critique of single‑family rental bans is that they will not solve the housing shortage. The ROAD to Housing Act aims to decrease regulatory barriers and streamline construction processes, while simultaneously banning institutional investors’ acquisition of single‑family homes—striking a balance between protectionist and pro‑development policies that may overall increase the housing stock. In an era where big government is demonized, and the budget of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the federal agency charged with financing affordable housing, has been substantially reduced, the benefits of this legislation may not translate to lower housing costs for all. Federal programs that subsidize rent for very low‑income individuals must be augmented if this bipartisan policy is truly going to lower housing costs for those who are most vulnerable to eviction and homelessness.
Title X of the Act, which includes the ban on institutional investors, is not an easy fix—it should be viewed as a base level of protection that states and localities may augment with complementary legislation. Direct regulation should also be coupled with antitrust investigations. State attorneys general can more easily examine local markets to measure investor concentration of SFRs in specific neighborhoods, determining what constitutes the market share that triggers intervention. The ROAD to Housing Act is a landmark housing policy demonstrating federal support to increase the affordability of housing, but it should be viewed as a starting point and not an end point to achieve those results.
Recommended Citation
Julie Gilgoff,
The Corporate Capture of Homeownership,
79
SMU L. Rev.
807
(2026)
