A Look at State Efforts to Limit Chinese Land Ownership

Home | China Law Blog | Rising Tensions, Rising Restrictions: A Look at State Efforts to Limit Foreign Land Ownership Table of Contents Toggle A Growing Trend with Political and Discriminatory Undercurrents More than two-thirds of U.S. states have either enacted or are considering laws limiting foreign ownership of land. Though these restrictions often encompass multiple countries deemed hostile to U.S. interests, China is almost invariably the primary target. Proponents of land purchase restrictions argue that the federal government is failing to adequately safeguard states from potential threats posed by foreign (i.e. Chinese) ownership. However, the data paints a different picture. Though concerns regarding food security and supply chain disruptions are valid, foreign ownership of U.S. agricultural land currently accounts for a mere 3.1%, with Canada and the Netherlands holding a significantly larger stake in US farmland than China. A Flurry of Legislation and Constitutional Challenges States are concerned that foreign ownership of U.S. property and critical infrastructure could endanger U.S. National, military, data privacy, and food security. According to the Government Accountability Office, the federal concern is also that foreign investment in U.S. land can pose national security threats, especially when there are purchases of land near military installations involved. More information on recent growth in foreign land investment and the potential national security threat from the purchase of agricultural land can be found here and here. The National Law Agricultural Center also provides current information on tends restricting investments in agricultural land, and more information can be found here. Despite limited evidence of a substantial and current threat, a wave of state-level legislation is aimed at curbing foreign land ownership. More than 20 states are actively considering new restrictions or updates to existing laws, and this year South Dakota passed a law that bars Chinese citizens from scooping up farmland in the state. In fact so far in 2024, 78 bills are under consideration that would prohibit Chinese citizens from purchasing or owning property, and seven were passed and signed into law including in Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Utah. The bills considered include a wide range or property restrictions, and a detailed map of those current legislative activities and bills can be found here. Property restrictions include residential, agricultural, commercial, state land, and sensitive land. Seven bills passed in 2023 prohibit Chinese citizens from purchasing or owning some form of property, including in West Virginia, and Florida. Florida also recently passed a law that limits the ability of Chinese nationals to buy property. The law prohibits Chinese nationals, and those from other countries deemed to be a threat, from purchasing property near military and other critical infrastructure, and from purchasing agricultural land. Citizens selling property to Chinese nationals face significant penalties, and it is expected to prohibit Chinese nationals from getting mortgages entirely. Other countries under restriction include Russia, Iran, The Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Syria, and other foreign countries of concern. Florida’s law is being criticized for its criminal penalties on Chinese people as well. The law provides that Chinese nationals who buy homes could face up to five years in prison, with sellers facing up to one year in prison. Opponents of the law challenge it as an unlawful discrimination against people of Chinese origin, violating the Fair Housing Action and the U.S. Constitution’s equal protection and due process clauses. However, preliminarily the U.S. District Court rejected this argument, and determined that there was no proof the law was motivated by unlawful racial animus. More recently in February, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals blocked the law as it applied to two Chinese citizens, but allowed the law to remain in effect. Opponents say that their determination was too narrow, as most Chinese nationals are now prohibited from buying property in the state entirely. But the law has faced some judicial resistance, with one appellate judge calling the law a “blatant violation of the 14th Amendment.” And just last week, attorneys for several plaintiffs asked the court to block the law more broadly. It is still too early to tell how the court will rule in that case. Conclusion The debate surrounding these laws underscores broader questions about discrimination, constitutional rights, and the balance between security and economic openness. Criticisms of these laws, particularly regarding their potential discriminatory impact and constitutionality, highlight the need for careful consideration and robust legal scrutiny by the courts. As legal challenges unfold and the public discourse continues, it remains imperative to critically evaluate the motivations behind such legislation, while balancing any legitimate security concerns. A final determination on the constitutionality of these laws is on the horizon as the legal challenges in Court continue to unfold. In the interim, Chinese nationals face increasingly steep hurdles in purchasing property in the U.S. Check Out Our China Law Services Share Twitter Facebook LinkedIn E-mail Comment Elijah Hartman Elijah is a business, intellectual property, entertainment, and litigation attorney. A collaborative team member and keen negotiator, he helps businesses navigate complex problems with simple and straightforward solutions. Whether working hands-on with clients to develop and protect their brands, or spearheading a novel legal matter, Elijah is dedicated to crafting meaningful and lasting legal solutions for his clients. Harris Sliwoski Attorney Read more posts [email protected] Read More Foreign Investment, Legal News Learn more about our Foreign Direct Investment Practice Related Posts September 15, 2026 Your AI-Drafted China Contract Says It Needs a Lawyer. Listen to It. September 11, 2026 Forensic Accountants in China Business Litigation: How True Numbers Can Tell the Wrong Story September 4, 2026 China NNN Agreement or Trademark Registration? You Usually Need Both September 1, 2026 AI Didn't Replace Lawyers. It Gave Us the 48-Page Contract. August 27, 2026 Do I Need a China NNN Agreement or a China Manufacturing Agreement? Usually Both. August 26, 2026 China’s New Overseas Investment Rules: Can Your Chinese Investor Actually Get the Money Out? August 24, 2026 International IP Protection for Startups: What to Protect and Where August 19, 2026 The Documents Are the International Deal August 19, 2026 China Supplier Fraud in Yiwu: Why We Recommended the Police, Not a Lawsuit August 17, 2026 China Trademark Registration: Why U.S. Companies Need More Than a Filing Agent August 10, 2026 Buying Expensive Equipment from China: Seven Questions to Answer Before You Pay August 7, 2026 DDP Shipping Risks: What Boise Cascade’s Guilty Plea Means for U.S. Buyers August 6, 2026 Protecting Your Artwork Internationally: What Artists Need to Do Before the Work Travels August 5, 2026 Your China Employee Signed the Vacation Policy. You Can Still Lose. July 29, 2026 The RedNote Contract Lesson for Companies Doing Business in China Leave a comment Cancel reply