Ownership of Single-family Residential Property by Business Entities:
HB 1593, titled the “Real Affordable Housing Relief Act,” would create a new section of Florida law restricting certain business entities from expanding their holdings of single-family residential property. Under the bill, a business entity that already owns an interest in more than 100 single-family homes in Florida could not buy, acquire, or otherwise obtain another single-family residential property and then lease or rent it out. The bill defines “business entity” broadly to include corporations, LLCs, partnerships, REITs, and similar legal entities, while excluding nonprofits and entities primarily engaged in acquiring, rehabilitating, or constructing market-rate or affordable housing.
The bill also defines “single-family residential property” as a parcel with one detached dwelling unit for which a certificate of occupancy has been issued. It would authorize the Attorney General to bring a civil action for violations and require courts to impose a $100,000 civil penalty per violation, order the entity to sell the property to a natural person or independent third party within one year, and award attorney fees and costs. The bill states that this enforcement mechanism would be the exclusive remedy, and it would take effect July 1, 2025.
If enacted, HB 1593 would add a new property-ownership restriction to Florida Statutes, specifically limiting large-scale business ownership of single-family homes used as rentals. It would affect institutional investors, real estate investment trusts, and other business entities with portfolios exceeding 100 single-family homes in the state, while leaving nonprofits and housing developers focused on rehabilitation or new construction outside the prohibition. The bill would also create a new enforcement role for the Attorney General and establish significant civil penalties and divestiture requirements.
The available context suggests the bill was framed as a housing-affordability measure aimed at reducing competition from large corporate landlords in the single-family housing market. However, there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, and the bill died in the Housing, Agriculture & Tourism Subcommittee, indicating it did not advance. Based on the text alone, the bill appears to have been presented as consumer- and homebuyer-oriented, but the lack of recorded debate makes the broader legislative sentiment difficult to assess beyond its failure to move forward.
The main point of contention is likely the bill’s restriction on business entities that own more than 100 single-family homes, which could be viewed by supporters as curbing institutional investor activity and by opponents as an intrusion into property rights and the rental housing market. Another likely issue is the breadth of the definition of “business entity” and the severity of the remedy, including a $100,000 penalty per violation and a mandatory sale requirement. The bill’s exemptions for nonprofits and housing developers suggest an effort to narrow its reach, but no transcript is available to show which stakeholders raised objections or support.