The debate over institutional ownership of single-family homes is heating up again. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has opened a 60-day public comment period to assess the role of large-scale investors—those owning 1,000 or more properties across multiple markets. This move could be a precursor to federal regulations targeting so-called “mega landlords” in the housing market.
At the same time, Maryland is making its own push against corporate homeownership. Senate Bill 510, titled the “End Hedge Fund Control of Maryland Homes Act of 2025,” proposes aggressive limits on how many single-family homes an entity can own. Over four years, institutional investors would be forced to scale down to a maximum of 25 properties, with hefty penalties for exceeding that threshold.
Maryland’s new bill targets large-scale real estate ownership with a phased reduction in holdings for institutional investors over four years. Any entity exceeding the cap will face a steep penalty of $10,000 per excess property. This effectively creates a financial ceiling for companies with over $50 million in real estate holdings. Supporters say it will curb corporate control and give everyday homebuyers more opportunities. Critics argue it is political posturing and unlikely to survive legal challenges.
Do These Regulations Have Teeth?
Jack BeVier, a seasoned real estate investor based in Baltimore, is skeptical. He notes that hedge funds haven’t been major players in Maryland, raising the question of whether this is more of a symbolic measure than an enforceable policy. Additionally, institutional investors have plenty of legal and financial strategies to work around such regulations—such as creating multiple smaller entities to sidestep ownership limits.
Moreover, legal challenges are almost inevitable. Similar attempts to limit institutional ownership have struggled in court, often clashing with property rights and free market principles. But while the immediate business threat may be minimal, the momentum behind such policies is concerning.
A Trend That’s Not Slowing Down
What’s happening in Maryland isn’t an isolated case. Across the U.S., lawmakers are increasingly looking at ways to rein in institutional ownership of single-family homes. While outright bans or strict ownership caps might face legal hurdles, expect incremental policies—higher taxes, stricter tenant protections, and zoning restrictions—to gain traction.
For real estate investors and landlords, the key takeaway is clear: The political climate surrounding institutional ownership is shifting, and regulations targeting large-scale landlords are not going away anytime soon. Whether these efforts succeed or not, they signal an ongoing battle over who controls the future of housing in America.
