Lawmakers Join Opposition to SFR Provision
House members are pushing back against restrictions on which investors can acquire these units.
Seventy-six members of the House have signed on to a letter from a pair of housing-related Congressional caucuses that calls on leadership to drop the part of the ROAD to Housing Act that restricts institutional investors from acquiring single-family rentals.
In the letter, the bi-partisan caucuses, the Build America Caucus and the Real Estate Caucuses, “demand” that House lawmakers jettison Section 901 of the bill, maintained that, quoting the Urban Institute, it would curtail the production of “at least” 72,000 built-to-rent units annually.
That, the 76 lawmakers from both sides of the aisle pronounced, would “undermine” the purpose of the legislation, which is supposed to address the nation’s housing crisis. But they claimed Section 901 would do the opposite.
The ROAD to Housing Act has passed the Senate as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2026 and is now awaiting consideration by the House. The Real Estate Caucus was relaunched last year after being dormant for several years. The Build America Caucus also was established last year.
The Senate measure restricts large institutional investors from buying certain single-family houses. Houses acquired under the few allowed exceptions must be sold or otherwise disposed of within seven years. The purpose, proponents say, is to prevent market concentration and speculative buying.
LIKE THIS CONTENT? Check Out the Other Policy Issues MHN Is Covering
But by curbing the activity of Wall Street investors, among other large-scale owners of single-family rental houses, Section 901 “effectively bans new housing development,” the letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) stated.
“Section 901, as drafted, would have far-reaching and unintended consequences that run counter to the bill’s stated goal of expanding housing opportunity,” the groups penned. “Instead of narrowly targeting corporate competition in the public market for existing single-family homes, Section 901’s sweeping definition of ‘purchase’ captures the construction of new single-family rental communities and other channels that add needed supply, going far beyond its intended purpose in ways that reduce housing options for renters.”
The letter’s signers also objected to the mandatory seven-year divestiture requirement, saying it “would effectively halt” build-to-rent production. BTR properties would not be redirected as for-sale units but rather would not be built at all, they maintain. And that, they add, runs counter to the legislation’s purpose.
“Limiting this form of development would exacerbate the existing housing deficit and undermine broader efforts within the bill of increase supply,” the signers wrote.
The lawmakers also warned that the divestiture provision would result in the forced displacement of thousands of renters, creating “unnecessary disruption in communities already facing housing instability.” The burden, they wrote, would fall disproportionately on middle-class and military families.
Lastly, they raised the concern that the Senate bill’s language “would unnecessarily restrict capital formation and investment in rental housing, undermining long-term efforts to increase housing production and affordability.”
