An Act amending the act of April 6, 1980 (P.L.102, No.39), referred to as the Agricultural Land Acquisition by Aliens Law, further prohibiting certain entities from acquiring an interest in agricultur . . .al land; providing for investigation by Attorney General and for responsibilities of purchaser and Attorney General; further providing for forfeiture of lands; providing for real estate auction; and further providing for definitions.
HB163 would expand Pennsylvania’s existing Agricultural Land Acquisition by Aliens Law to bar a broader set of foreign-linked persons and entities from acquiring interests in agricultural land. In addition to the current prohibition on certain nonresident aliens and foreign governments, the bill would prohibit entities organized under the laws of a “country of concern,” foreign principals, entities controlled by foreign principals, foreign political parties and their members, and individuals domiciled in a country of concern who are not lawful U.S. citizens or permanent residents. The bill also defines “country of concern” to include China, Russia, Belarus, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Syria, and any other country that does not allow Americans to buy farmland there.
The measure gives the Attorney General explicit authority to investigate suspected violations, including issuing subpoenas for witnesses, records, and testimony. It also places a new compliance duty on title companies involved in agricultural land transactions: a title company that willfully fails to determine whether a purchaser is prohibited under the act would face a $1,000 civil penalty enforced by the Attorney General. At the same time, the bill states that other lawful purchasers generally have no duty to investigate the status of another buyer and bear no civil or criminal liability under the act.
HB163 would also strengthen enforcement and remedies by providing that agricultural land acquired or held in violation of the law is forfeited to the Commonwealth, subject to a five-year enforcement window. The Attorney General would be required to record notices of pending and completed forfeiture actions in county land records. If land is forfeited, the Department of General Services would sell it at real estate auction, with proceeds used first to cover sale costs, then approved investigation and litigation costs, then bona fide lienholders, and finally the General Fund.
The bill’s overall impact would be to tighten restrictions on foreign ownership of Pennsylvania farmland and create a more active enforcement framework centered on the Attorney General and title companies. It would amend the definitions section of the existing law, broaden the categories of prohibited purchasers, and add new procedures for investigation, forfeiture, and sale of seized agricultural land. The bill would take effect 60 days after enactment.
No committee transcript or vote history was provided, so there is no recorded legislative debate or voting pattern to assess. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears aimed at protecting farmland from foreign acquisition, with likely support from lawmakers concerned about national security, food security, and foreign influence. The main points of potential contention are the breadth of the new prohibitions, the inclusion of specific countries and entities, and the compliance burden placed on title companies and real estate transactions.
HB163 would amend Pennsylvania’s Agricultural Land Acquisition by Aliens Law to broaden the class of prohibited purchasers and add enforcement mechanisms. It would create new duties for the Attorney General, impose a civil penalty on title companies that willfully fail to screen prohibited purchasers, and establish a forfeiture-and-auction process for land acquired in violation of the act. The bill would directly affect foreign governments, foreign-linked entities and individuals, title companies, the Attorney General’s office, the Department of General Services, and owners or purchasers of agricultural land in Pennsylvania.
No committee discussion or vote data was provided, so there is no recorded public sentiment from hearings or roll calls. From the bill’s content and sponsorship, the measure appears to reflect a protective, security-focused policy approach toward farmland ownership, likely appealing to lawmakers concerned about foreign control of agricultural assets. At the same time, the bill’s expanded restrictions and enforcement provisions suggest it could draw scrutiny from those concerned about overbreadth, implementation costs, or impacts on real estate transactions.
The most likely points of contention are the bill’s broad definition of prohibited foreign-linked purchasers, especially the inclusion of specific countries of concern and entities tied to them, and whether those restrictions are too expansive or difficult to administer. Another likely issue is the new compliance obligation on title companies, which may be viewed as an added burden in agricultural land transactions. The forfeiture provisions and Attorney General subpoena authority may also raise concerns about due process, property rights, and the practical enforcement of the law.