Corporate home ownership has risen sharply in Richmond. Will City Council move to curb it?

Richmond is considering an ordinance to head-off a nationwide trend of investor-backed corporations buying up houses that might otherwise go to first-time homebuyers or working-class families . 

The ordinance, under review by the city attorney, aims to effectively ban deep-pocketed investors from the residential housing market. 

National housing trends are showing that the percent of first-time-buyers in the market is at an all time low. At the same time Richmond City Council is considering legislation to curb corporate home sales, Congress appears set to pass a comprehensive housing plan that would address this trend on a broader scale. 

In February, the City Council voted unanimously for a legal review of an ordinance proposed by Soheila Bana and the Sustainable Economies Law Center, an Oakland nonprofit advocating for community resilience. The ordinance would allow only individual people, housing-based nonprofits or cooperatives, and governmental entities to purchase residential properties. It also would put a cap on the number of residential properties — defined as a single-family dwelling, duplex, triplex, or four-plex — that individuals are allowed to acquire.

Additionally, individual homeowners would not be allowed to purchase more than four residential properties. This provision is meant to close the loophole of individual investors buying up homes under their own names. 

While the ordinance is designed as a preventive measure, Bana, a real estate agent, said she has been contacted repeatedly by out-of-town investors interested in buying residential properties in the area. 

“When investors want to buy something they usually have cash, they close fast, and they buy as is,” Bana said, all of which can be very agreeable to a seller. “This makes a very uneven playing field for first-time buyers. It makes it very hard for them to compete, and we would like to provide some equity.”

While no individual or corporation would be required to sell or divest from properties they already own, no additional purchases would be allowed under the ordinance. The city could void any transfer that violates the ordinance and charge fines up to $10,000 per violation per month. 

Upwards of 1,000 residential properties are currently under corporate ownership in Richmond, according to housing data from Old Republic Title company. In 2025, corporate landlords, primarily limited liability corporations, acquired 38 properties in Richmond, up from 33 properties in 2024 and 11 in 2023. 

“I feel like we’re at a really important inflection point to where we can actually be on the offense here and stop the corporate takeover of the Bay Area,” said Hope Williams, director of legislative advocacy  at the Sustainable Economies Law Center. “Especially in the city of Richmond, which is one of the last Black bastions of homeowners.” 

The largest corporate landlords in the country have driven displacement of long-term residents in majority Black communities in Atlanta, Charlotte and Memphis, according to a report by Americans for Financial Reform. In 2021, 1 in 3 home purchases in majority Black ZIP codes was a corporate investor, compared to 1 in 8 in other ZIP codes. 

After the Eaton Fire last year in Altadena last year, 26 out of 61 damaged for-sale properties were bought up by corporate landlords, according to a December report by Redfin. Altadena, an unincorporated community in Los Angeles, was home to California’s first Black middle class. Before the Eaton fire, 81% of Black families in Altadena owned their homes — double the national average, according to U.S. Census data. 

Neighborhoods in Malibu and Pacific Palisades were also damaged by wildfires in 2025 and have seen similar trends in corporate landlords buying up single-family homes, according to the report.

Federal bill gains support

Last year, the national share of home sales that went to first-time homebuyers fell to a record low of 21%, according to an annual report by the National Association of Realtors. The average age of first-time buyers reached an all-time high of 40. 

Meanwhile, investors, including corporations and private equity firms, purchased nearly one-third of all homes nationwide. 

In response to these national trends, the Trump administration issued an executive order on Jan. 20, which directed the Federal Trade Commission to prosecute anti-competitive practices in the home rental market. One well-documented example of such a practice employed by corporate landlords is the use of algorithmic rent-setting software, which was banned in California this year. 

On March 12, the Senate passed the 21st Century Renewing Opportunity in the American Dream Housing Act to increase home affordability and homeownership in the United States. Touted as the most comprehensive housing bill in decades, it would restrict the purchase of new single-family homes by large institutional investors that own at least 350 single-family homes.

The bill, authored by Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, and Republican Tim Scott of South Carolina, includes a section titled “Homes are for people, not corporations,” that looks to curb corporate involvement in the housing market.

The primary sticking point for opponents of the bill, which is now being considered by the House, is a provision that would force corporations that build homes for rent to sell those homes to individuals within seven years.

U.S. Rep. John Garamendi, who represents parts of Contra Costa and Solano counties, said there is bipartisan support for the bill, though there continues to be disagreement about the restrictions on corporations. 

“There will be some representatives, who will be listening to their Wall Street buddies who do not want to have their investment opportunities restricted,” Garamendi said. “I disagree with them. We’ll fight that out. I suspect that those restrictions will stay in place.”

‘No complaints’ with corporate landlord

The primary factor leading to institutional investment is low housing prices coupled with strong rental demand. The largest impact has been in areas where corporate investors bought up to 25% of homes, enough to control the market, the U.S. Government Accountability Office has reported.

Both the federal bill and the Richmond ordinance presumably would lower costs for home buyers. The more institutional investors excluded from the market, the greater the reduction in home prices, said Olivia Bordeu, who teaches economics and real estate at UC Berkeley. The overall effect on renters, however, is more difficult to predict.

“In my mind it’s like, unambiguously, this is going to help buyers,” she said. “But whether it’s going to help or hurt renters depends.” 

The economic question of how corporate landlords affect rental prices has been the subject of numerous academic studies, with varying results. While there are examples of corporations buying up swaths of homes in neighborhoods, resulting in rising numbers of evictions and rental prices, there are also examples of corporate landlords who provide stability and simplicity for renters. 

For the past six years, Violeta Garcia and her husband, Hever, have rented a home in Richmond’s Belding Woods neighborhood. The home is owned by Fallen Leaf Properties LLC, one of the largest owners of residential homes in Richmond. The Garcias are happy with the arrangement and said the company is responsive and efficient with requests for maintenance, which they file through an app on their phone. Their rent goes up about $50 a year. 

“I have no complaints,” Violeta Garcia said.

Nothing about the Garcias’ situation would change because of this ordinance, but companies like Fallen Leaf would not be allowed to purchase any more residential properties in Richmond.

In San Diego, however, corporate ownership of rental properties has led to rent spikes that were double the average increase across the area, according to a report by the Private Equity Stakeholder Project, a nonprofit tracking predatory private equity firms.

In multiple cases, a corporate landlord increased the rent by more than 70% over the course of two years. Tenants also reported aggressive eviction tactics, including receiving an eviction notice after a single late payment. 

The attorneys at the Sustainable Economies Law Center, who have worked with Richmond Council members for the past two years on this ordinance, believe it will prevent predatory practices from becoming a problem.

The ordinance is expected to return to City Council for a vote in a few months, according to the city attorney’s office. 

---

Group behind Richmond Arts Corridor asks City Council for more time and money to put a plan together