Prohibit Foreign Ownership of NC Land
Senate Bill 394, the North Carolina Farmland and Military Protection Act, would prohibit certain “prohibited foreign parties” from purchasing, leasing, or otherwise holding direct interests in agricultural land or property within 50 miles of specified military installations in North Carolina. The bill defines prohibited foreign parties by reference to adversarial foreign governments listed in federal arms-export regulations and includes entities or trusts with significant foreign government ownership or control, while carving out some exceptions for entities cleared by CFIUS or operating under certain national security agreements.
The bill also creates a divestment and registration framework for foreign parties that already own covered land. Existing owners could keep preexisting interests but would be barred from acquiring additional covered land and would have to register with the Secretary of State, who would maintain a public monthly report. The bill requires buyer affidavits at closing, directs the Attorney General to investigate and enforce violations through receivership and forced sale procedures, authorizes civil penalties for late registration, and makes certain knowing violations a Class 2 misdemeanor. It also amends deed-recording and receivership statutes to support enforcement and requires the Real Estate Commission and Department of Military and Veterans Affairs to publish a map of the military-installation buffer areas.
The bill’s impact on state law would be significant, adding a new article to Chapter 64 and related provisions in Chapters 161 and 1 to regulate land ownership by foreign-linked entities. It would affect agricultural landowners, real estate buyers and sellers, lenders, title and recording officials, the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Real Estate Commission. The measure would also create a public registry and enforcement mechanisms that could lead to divestiture of covered property and forfeiture of proceeds from sales.
The general sentiment reflected in the available voting history appears strongly favorable, with the bill passing second reading in the Senate 42-0. No committee transcript excerpts were provided, so there is no recorded debate in the supplied materials, but the unanimous vote suggests broad support for the bill’s stated goals of protecting farmland, food supply, and military security.
The main points of contention inherent in the bill are the breadth of the foreign-ownership restrictions, the 50-mile military buffer, and the compliance burdens placed on property transactions. Potential concerns include how “adversarial foreign party” and “significant interest or substantial control” are determined, the effect on legitimate investment structures, the public disclosure of ownership information, and the possibility of forced divestiture and lender-triggered defaults. The bill attempts to limit collateral effects by excluding some passive or de minimis interests and by shielding non-foreign parties from liability for failing to investigate ownership status.
The bill would add a new Article 4 to Chapter 64 of the North Carolina General Statutes restricting land ownership by certain foreign-linked entities, and it would also amend Chapter 161 to require deed-recording affidavits and Chapter 1 to authorize receivership-based enforcement. It would prohibit covered parties from acquiring agricultural land or land within 50 miles of specified military installations, require registration of preexisting holdings, create civil penalties and misdemeanor liability for certain violations, and direct state agencies to publish and maintain a military-buffer map.
The available voting record shows clear support for the measure, with the Senate approving second reading 42-0. No committee discussion transcripts were provided, so there is no direct record of objections or amendments in the supplied context, but the unanimous vote indicates the bill was broadly viewed as a national-security and farmland-protection measure.
Likely areas of dispute include the scope of the prohibited-party definition, especially the use of federal adversarial-country lists and ownership/control thresholds; the 50-mile radius around military installations; and the practical and privacy implications of mandatory registration and public reporting. The bill also raises concerns about transaction burdens, title and lending effects, and the severity of enforcement tools such as receivership, forced sale, civil fines, and criminal penalties. Supporters appear to frame these provisions as necessary to protect farmland, food security, and military readiness, while critics would likely focus on overbreadth and administrative impact.