In the heart of the American South, North Carolina is grappling with a wave of legislative proposals aimed at restricting foreign investments in real property, particularly agricultural land and areas near military installations. This trend is not unique to North Carolina; since January 2021, nearly every state has proposed legislation to limit or restrict foreign landholdings to some degree. The number of states with foreign ownership laws has swelled from fourteen to twenty-five in recent years, and 2025 is seeing a continuation of this trend.
North Carolina currently stands out as one of the few states that do not impose limits on foreign investments in real property. The state’s code explicitly allows foreigners to acquire, hold, and convey land as fully as any citizen. However, this could soon change as the state legislature considers several bills that seek to tighten restrictions on foreign ownership.
At the forefront of these proposals is House Bill 133 (HB 133), which aims to prohibit “adversarial foreign governments” from acquiring or holding any interest in agricultural land and land within a 75-mile radius of a military installation. The bill defines adversarial foreign governments as those subject to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), which include countries like China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia. The bill exempts foreign entities that have been cleared by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS) and those with national security agreements.
HB 133 has been referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Military of the House and Veterans Affairs for consideration. The committee will review the bill, hear testimonies, and decide whether to amend, pass, or fail the bill. Senate Bill 504 (SB 504) contains almost identical language to HB 133 and is also under consideration.
Another bill, Senate Bill 338 (SB 338), shares similarities with HB 133 and SB 504 but has some key differences. SB 338 defines adversarial foreign governments as those designated as “foreign adversaries” by the U.S. Secretary of Commerce, which currently includes China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and Venezuela’s Maduro Regime. This bill restricts a narrower set of governments and government-controlled businesses and prohibits them from acquiring land within a 25-mile radius of military installations, rather than the 75-mile radius proposed in the other bills.
The most comprehensive and stringent proposal is Senate Bill 394 (SB 394). This bill restricts “prohibited foreign parties” (PFPs) from acquiring interests in agricultural land, land within 25 miles of a military installation, and land under special use airspace. PFPs include individuals, business entities, or governments of adversarial nations, as well as entities significantly controlled by these parties. SB 394 also imposes penalties for violations, including fines and potential imprisonment, and requires PFPs to register their landholdings with the state.
The implications of these proposals are significant. If enacted, they could limit foreign investments in North Carolina’s agricultural sector, potentially affecting farm operations, land values, and the state’s economy. The bills also raise questions about national security and the balance between protecting strategic interests and maintaining an open investment environment.
The legislative process is ongoing, and the fate of these bills remains uncertain. However, the trend towards restricting foreign landholdings is clear, and North Carolina’s legislative actions will be closely watched by other states and stakeholders in the agricultural and real estate sectors. As the debate unfolds, the state will need to navigate the complexities of national security, economic interests, and the rights of foreign investors.