A BILL to amend and reenact § 55.1-1308.2 of the Code of Virginia and to amend the Code of Virginia by adding in Title 55.1 a chapter numbered 33, consisting of sections numbered 55.1-3300 and 55.1-3301, relating to prohibited acquisition of single-family homes; affidavit; civil penalty.
HB202 would restrict certain large investment entities from buying single-family homes in Virginia beginning July 1, 2026. The bill defines a “prohibited business” as a partnership, corporation, or real estate investment trust that pools investor funds, acts as a fiduciary, meets an asset threshold, and owns more than 50 single-family homes. Such entities would be barred from acquiring any additional interest in a single-family home in the Commonwealth. The bill also defines “single-family home” broadly, with specific exclusions for condominiums, townhouses, multifamily communities, certain foreclosure properties, and owner-occupied homes tied to an ownership interest in a prohibited business.
In addition to the acquisition ban, HB202 adds a new compliance mechanism for sales of manufactured home parks. When a park owner lists or agrees to sell, the owner must provide notice to the Department of Housing and Community Development and to tenants, and the Department must post the information online. If a sale is moving forward, the purchaser must submit a notarized affidavit certifying that it is not a prohibited business, and the deed cannot be conveyed until that affidavit is received. Knowingly false statements in the affidavit would be subject to a civil penalty of up to $10,000 per occurrence, with penalties directed to the Revolving Loan Fund for the Purchase of Manufactured Home Parks.
The bill would amend § 55.1-1308.2 of the Code of Virginia and add a new Chapter 33 in Title 55.1, creating new definitions and a new statewide restriction on ownership of single-family homes by certain institutional investors. It would affect real estate investment trusts, private investment partnerships, corporations with pooled investor capital, manufactured home park owners, homebuilders, tenants, and the Department of Housing and Community Development. It also appears intended to limit institutional ownership of housing stock and to increase transparency in manufactured home park sales.
The available legislative history shows no recorded votes or committee transcript discussion, and the bill was left in the House Committee on Courts of Justice. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to reflect a policy concern about large-scale investor ownership of housing and manufactured home parks, but the lack of recorded debate makes the overall sentiment difficult to measure directly. The committee disposition suggests the bill did not advance, which may indicate either limited support or unresolved concerns about its scope and enforceability.
The main points of contention likely center on the breadth of the “prohibited business” definition, the practical effect of barring acquisitions by institutional investors, and the administrative burden of the affidavit and notice requirements. Potential concerns could include impacts on housing market liquidity, how the ownership threshold would be measured, whether the restrictions could affect legitimate investment or development activity, and whether the law could be difficult to enforce given indirect ownership structures and exemptions for homebuilders and nonprofits.
HB202 would create a new statutory prohibition in Title 55.1 preventing certain large investor-owned entities from acquiring interests in single-family homes in Virginia after July 1, 2026, while also imposing notice, affidavit, and penalty requirements for sales of manufactured home parks. It would amend § 55.1-1308.2 to expand notice obligations and add Chapter 33 (§§ 55.1-3300 and 55.1-3301), affecting real estate investors, REITs, homebuilders, manufactured home park owners, tenants, and the Department of Housing and Community Development.
The bill’s stated purpose is protective and consumer-oriented, aiming to limit institutional accumulation of housing and increase transparency in manufactured home park sales. However, the absence of committee testimony or recorded votes means there is no direct evidence of support or opposition in the available materials. Its being left in committee suggests the proposal did not gain enough traction to move forward, which may reflect caution about its policy effects or implementation challenges.
Likely areas of contention include the definition of “prohibited business,” especially the ownership threshold and asset/fund-management criteria; whether the ban on acquisitions is too broad or could unintentionally affect legitimate housing providers; and whether the affidavit and notice requirements are workable and enforceable. Stakeholders most likely to object would be institutional investors, REITs, and possibly real estate industry groups, while tenant advocates and housing policy proponents would likely support the restrictions as a way to preserve homeownership opportunities and limit investor competition in the housing market.