Requires limited liability company to disclose ownership information when submitting deed for recording and establishes penalty.*
S399 is a real-estate transparency bill that would require limited liability companies, including foreign limited liability companies, to disclose ownership information when they acquire certain residential rental properties. Specifically, when an LLC is the grantee of a deed for residential real property intended for rental purposes with one or two dwelling units or a multiple dwelling, the company must submit an affidavit identifying its registered agent and beneficial owner, along with the beneficial owner’s name, date of birth, business street address, and a unique identifying number from an acceptable identification document. The bill also amends the deed-recording requirements to require an affidavit with similar ownership information when such property is transferred to an LLC or foreign LLC.
The bill further authorizes municipalities, by ordinance, to convert unpaid housing, building, or health code charges into municipal liens against qualifying properties after a specified period, with notice and hearing protections in most cases. It also creates a $5,000 per-violation municipal fine for LLCs that fail to comply with the disclosure requirements, with each month of noncompliance treated as a separate violation. The act would take effect immediately.
In practical terms, the bill would amend New Jersey’s deed-recording laws and supplement the state’s limited liability company and municipal code enforcement statutes. It would expand the information that must be filed with county recording officers and create new compliance obligations for LLCs and foreign LLCs purchasing certain residential rental properties. Municipalities would gain an additional enforcement tool to secure unpaid code-related charges through property liens, potentially strengthening local collection efforts.
The available legislative history suggests generally favorable committee sentiment. The Senate Community and Urban Affairs Committee reported the bill with amendments on February 5, 2026, by a 4-0 vote, indicating unanimous support among those voting. No committee transcript was provided, so there is no recorded floor debate or detailed public discussion in the materials supplied.
The main point of contention implied by the bill’s structure is privacy and compliance burden versus transparency and enforcement. Requiring disclosure of beneficial owners, dates of birth, and identification numbers may be viewed as intrusive by property investors and LLC owners, while supporters are likely to see it as a way to curb anonymous ownership, improve accountability, and help municipalities enforce housing and code violations. The lien provisions also may raise concerns among landlords and property owners about stronger municipal collection powers, although the bill includes notice and hearing procedures before conversion of charges into liens in most cases.
The bill would amend New Jersey’s deed-recording statute, P.L.1968, c.49 (C.46:15-6), to require additional affidavits when certain residential rental properties are transferred to LLCs or foreign LLCs, and it would supplement the New Jersey Limited Liability Company Act and municipal law to require disclosure of beneficial ownership information. It would also authorize municipalities to adopt ordinances converting unpaid housing, building, or health code charges into municipal liens on qualifying rental properties and impose a $5,000-per-violation penalty for noncompliance with the disclosure requirements. These changes would affect LLCs, foreign LLCs, county recording officers, municipalities, and owners of one- and two-family rental properties and multiple dwellings.
The bill appears to have been received positively in committee, as shown by the 4-0 Senate Community and Urban Affairs Committee vote to report it with amendments. The absence of recorded opposition in the provided materials suggests broad support at the committee stage. The overall tone of the bill is regulatory and enforcement-oriented, with an emphasis on transparency in property ownership and stronger municipal tools for code compliance.
The likely areas of contention are the scope of ownership disclosure and the strength of municipal enforcement. Property owners and real estate interests may object to the requirement to disclose beneficial owner identity, date of birth, and identification numbers, arguing that it increases privacy risks and administrative burden. Municipalities and housing-code advocates are likely to support the bill’s transparency and lien provisions as tools to identify responsible owners and collect unpaid code-related charges. The lien mechanism, especially the conversion of unpaid charges into tax-like liens, could also be debated as a significant expansion of local enforcement authority.