In recent years, the landscape of foreign land ownership in the United States has been shifting, with states increasingly proposing and enacting legislation to restrict or prohibit foreign investments in agricultural land. This trend, which has seen the number of states with foreign ownership laws rise from fourteen to twenty-five, continues into 2025. The latest developments in Arizona, North Carolina, and North Dakota illustrate the varied approaches states are taking to address this issue.
Arizona, which currently does not have a foreign ownership law, is considering two significant bills. Senate Bill 1066 aims to extend existing restrictions on public land purchases to prohibit foreign governments and government-controlled entities from acquiring any interest in public agricultural or grazing land. Notably, the bill includes an exemption for foreign governments if they obtain majority approval from the Arizona state legislature. Additionally, it seeks to prohibit the conveyance of private land to foreign entities deemed hostile to the U.S., although the bill lacks a clear definition of what constitutes a “hostile” entity. This measure also requires sellers to submit identification forms to the Arizona Real Estate Department, adding a layer of scrutiny to land transactions.
Senate Bill 1109 takes a different approach by targeting “foreign principals” from designated countries, including China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia. This bill prohibits these entities from owning or acquiring an interest in private Arizona real property, with exceptions for residential properties under certain conditions and for foreign principals who are natural persons. However, the bill’s effectiveness may be hindered by its lack of clarity regarding the exemption for natural persons domiciled in designated countries. Both bills are currently under consideration by the Federalism Committee, where they will face scrutiny and potential amendments.
North Carolina, which currently allows aliens to purchase and hold land, is considering House Bill 133. This bill seeks to restrict adversarial foreign governments, as defined by the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), from acquiring agricultural land. The bill’s definition of “adversarial foreign government” includes countries like China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, and Syria. However, the bill’s effectiveness may be limited by its definition of “agricultural land,” which could potentially allow adversarial foreign governments to acquire land not used for agricultural production. HB 133 is currently under consideration by the Committee on Homeland Security and Military and Veterans Affairs.
North Dakota, which has had restrictions on foreign land ownership since 1979, recently amended its laws to further limit foreign investments. House Bill 1135 extended the state’s foreign ownership law to restrict foreign governments and governmental business entities from acquiring more than 160 acres of agricultural land. Senate Bill 2371 went further, restricting business entities and governments identified by the U.S. Secretary of Commerce as foreign adversaries from acquiring any real property within the state. These amendments reflect North Dakota’s proactive approach to regulating foreign land ownership.
The implications of these legislative efforts are significant. They reflect a growing concern among states about the potential national security and economic risks associated with foreign land ownership. However, the varied approaches and potential loopholes in these bills highlight the complexity of the issue. As more states consider similar measures, the landscape of foreign land ownership in the U.S. is likely to continue evolving, with states seeking to balance economic interests with national security concerns.