\n<\/p>\n
by NALC staff<\/em><\/p>\n Since January 2021, almost every state has proposed at least one piece of legislation to prohibit or restrict foreign investments and landholdings in land, particularly private agricultural land, located within the boundaries of their states to some degrees. In fact, over the past few years, the number of states with a foreign ownership law has increased from fourteen to twenty-five. This trend continues in 2025 as the majority of states in the U.S. are considering measures that will enact a foreign ownership law or will amend certain provisions of their states\u2019 foreign ownership law.<\/p>\n This is the fourth article of a series discussing recent state proposals that seek to limit or restrict foreign investments in land. The other articles in this series are available here<\/a>. This article discusses the proposals introduced in Arizona, North Carolina, and North Dakota.<\/p>\n Arizona<\/strong><\/p>\n Arizona is not one of twenty-five states that have enacted a foreign ownership law. Under Arizona state law, individuals and business entities are prohibited from purchasing more than 160 acres of public agricultural land and no more than 640 acres of public grazing land located within the state. See<\/em> Ariz. Const, art. 10 \u00a7 1<\/a>; Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 37-240<\/a>. Thus, this restriction applies to all persons, not just foreign individuals or business entities, and does not restrict purchases of private agricultural and grazing land. Currently, the Arizona state legislature is seeking to enact a law that restricts certain foreign investors from acquiring an interest in any public or private real property located within the state.<\/p>\n Senate Bill 1066<\/a> (\u201cSB 1066\u201d) will extend its current restriction on public land purchases to prohibit foreign governments and foreign government-controlled business entities from acquiring any interest in public agricultural land or grazing land. However, this measure will exempt foreign governments and governmental entities from this restriction if it obtains majority approval of the purchase by the Arizona state legislature. SB 1066 also seeks to prohibit private land to be conveyed to a foreign entity that is hostile to the U.S., unless the foreign investor received approval of the Arizona state legislature to acquire the land. However, it is unclear which entities are subject to the restriction because the bill does not define which entities are \u201chostile\u201d to the U.S.<\/p>\n Also, this measure will require the seller of land to submit to the Arizona Real Estate Department a form of identification of the person acquiring the land. SB 1066 has been referred to the Federalism Committee for consideration. At this stage, the committee can review the bill, hear testimony in support and opposition of the bill, amend the bill, pass the bill for consideration by its respective chamber, or vote to fail passage of the bill out of committee.<\/p>\n The Arizona state legislature is also considering Senate Bill 1109<\/a> (\u201cSB 1109\u201d). Under this bill, a \u201cforeign principal\u201d\u2014which is defined as a government and its officials, political party and its members, a business entity, or an individual of a designated country\u2014will be prohibited from owning or acquiring an interest in private Arizona real property. This measure defines \u201cdesignated country\u201d as a country identified as a country that poses a risk to U.S. national security in the three most recent Annual Threat Assessments<\/a> of the U.S. Intelligence Community. Countries identified in these assessments include China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia. SB 1109 seeks to require the Arizona attorney general to enforce the restriction and bring legal action against any potential violations. If a court determines a violation has occurred, the bill will require the court to order the real property be sold.<\/p>\n While this measure will impose a restriction on certain foreign investments in real property, it does provide some exceptions to the prohibition. First, it will permit a foreign principal to own or hold an interest in residential real property\u2014on a parcel that is less than 2 acres\u2014that is more than 50 miles from a military installation or crucial infrastructure and more than 25 miles from an air force range. Second, SB 1109 exempts foreign principals who are natural persons. However, it is unclear whether all foreign principals that are natural persons are exempt from the restriction because individuals who are domiciled in a designated country are subject to the restriction. Last, the bill permits foreign principals to acquire real property by inheritance or enforcement of a security interest or debt, but foreign principals will be required to divest of their interest in the property within 3 years.<\/p>\n SB 1109 has also been referred to the Federalism Committee for consideration.<\/p>\n North Carolina<\/strong><\/p>\n North Carolina is another state that has not enacted a foreign ownership law. Currently, North Carolina state law expressly permits \u201caliens to take by purchase\u2026any lands\u2026and to hold and convey the same fully as citizens\u2026\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 64-1<\/a>. However, House Bill 133<\/a> (\u201cHB 133\u201d) was recently introduced in the North Carolina state legislature to limit certain foreign investments in land located within the state. Specifically, this measure seeks to restrict an adversarial foreign government from purchasing, acquiring, leasing, or holding any interest in agricultural land located within the state.<\/p>\n Like any piece of legislation, the definitions contained under HB 133 are important because they provide context to how the words or phrases are to be understood throughout the legislative text. HB 133 defines \u201cadversarial foreign government\u201d as a government of a country or group subject to International Traffic in Arms Regulations (\u201cITAR\u201d). See<\/em> 22 C.F.R. \u00a7 126.1<\/a>. This definition also includes business entities owned or controlled by governments or groups subject to ITAR. Some countries currently subject to ITAR include China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, and Syria. Accordingly, governments and government-controlled entities of these countries are prohibited from acquiring North Carolina agricultural land under HB 133.<\/p>\n The bill defines \u201cagricultural land\u201d as land \u201cused for agricultural production purposes.\u201d Under this definition, it is unclear whether an adversarial foreign government may acquire an interest in agricultural land located within state so long as the foreign investor does not use the land for agricultural production. Further, definition specifically excludes agricultural land leased for the purpose of research and development of agricultural products and inputs, so long as the aggregate agricultural acreage leased does not exceed 250 acres.<\/p>\n Under HB 133, any conveyance of land to an adversarial foreign government in violation of the restriction is void. Also, individuals and entities who are not subject to the restriction are not required to determine whether a conveyance of agricultural land is in violation of the restriction, and they are not subject to civil or criminal liability for failing to determine whether the investor is an adversarial foreign government.<\/p>\n On February 18, 2025, HB 133 was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Military and Veterans Affairs for consideration.<\/p>\n North Dakota<\/strong><\/p>\n Since 1979, North Dakota state law restricts certain nonresident aliens and foreign businesses from acquiring or holding more than 160 acres of agricultural land located within the state. See<\/em> N.D. Cent. Code Ann. \u00a7 47-10.1 et seq<\/em><\/a>. In 2023, North Dakota was one of many states to amends its foreign ownership law (under House Bill 1135<\/a> (\u201cHB 1135\u201d) and Senate Bill 2371<\/a> (\u201cSB 2371\u201d)) to further limit certain foreign investments in the state. HB 1135 extended the state\u2019s foreign ownership law to limit foreign governments and foreign governmental business entities from acquiring an interest in more than 160 acres of North Dakota agricultural land, and SB 2371 restricts business entities and governments identified by U.S. Secretary of Commerce as a foreign adversary<\/a> from acquiring or holding an interest in any public or private real property within the state.<\/p>\n During the 2025 legislative session, the North Dakota state legislature has considered several proposals (Senate Bill 2026<\/a>, Senate Bill 2314<\/a>, Senate Bill 2337<\/a>, and Senate Bill 2361<\/a>) that seek to amend certain portions of its foreign ownership law. However, each of these measures failed to be enacted by the Senate. Although these measures failed, the state legislature is considering House Bill 1209<\/a> (\u201cHB 1209\u201d), which seeks to identify foreign threats to the state\u2019s agricultural industry. While this measure does not seek to extend the state\u2019s foreign ownership restriction, it will require the North Dakota Department of Emergency Services (\u201cDES\u201d) to assess the state\u2019s vulnerabilities and identify threats that foreign adversaries pose on certain industries within the state, including the agricultural industry. HB 1209 will require DES to provide mitigation strategies relating to the identified risks and vulnerabilities to enhance the state\u2019s ability to combat any threats posed by foreign adversaries. On January 27, 2025, HB 1209 passed the North Dakota House and was sent to the state senate. The measure has been referred to the Senate State and Local Government Committee.<\/p>\n Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n Over the past few years, the issue of restricting foreign ownership and investments in real property, particularly agricultural and forestland, has emerged or reemerged in almost every state. In fact, fourteen states in 2024 enacted a foreign ownership law or amended its foreign ownership law. So far in 2025, this trend has continued as most states have introduced at least one piece of foreign ownership legislation in their state.<\/p>\n To read NALC articles discussing foreign investments in U.S. agriculture, click here<\/a>. Subscribe to NALC\u2019s bi-weekly newsletter The Feed for recent legal developments affecting agriculture, including foreign ownership of agricultural land here<\/a>. by NALC staff Since January 2021, almost every state has proposed at least one piece of legislation to prohibit or restrict foreign investments and landholdings in land, particularly private agricultural land, located within the boundaries of their states to some degrees. In fact, over the past few years, the number of states with a foreign […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12026],"tags":[13743,14102,18031,14701,11237,12685,22022,5306,3341,32119,1146,14523,5296],"dealstore":[],"offerexpiration":[],"class_list":["post-102753","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-agriculture","tag-agricultural","tag-center","tag-efforts","tag-foreign","tag-investments","tag-law","tag-legislative","tag-national","tag-part","tag-restrict","tag-sale","tag-soil","tag-state"],"yoast_head":"\n
To learn more about foreign ownership of U.S. land, click here<\/a>.<\/p>\n
For previous issues of The Feed, click here<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"