The Law Creates a Detailed System to Protect Farmland and Property Near Military Installations
What North Carolina’s New Foreign Land Ownership Law Covers
On July 7, one bill signed by Gov. Josh Stein was overlooked by the media.
That bill is House Bill 133. It bars certain foreign governments and entities they control from acquiring agricultural land anywhere in North Carolina or other property within 50 miles of designated military installations. The measure, signed alongside the budget, became Session Law 2026-54 the next day.
The measure stands out because of the system the General Assembly created to enforce it.
The prohibition covers purchases, leases lasting at least one year and other direct interests in restricted property. It does not impose a blanket ban on foreign citizens buying homes or businesses. The statute focuses on adversarial governments, entities formed under their laws and organizations substantially owned or controlled by covered parties.
North Carolina also created a compliance system based on sworn buyer statements and public registration. Courts and the Attorney General would handle alleged violations.
Why States Are Restricting Foreign Land Ownership
The debate behind House Bill 133 has been building for several years.
Lawmakers across the country have introduced measures targeting some form of foreign land ownership. Some focus on farmland. Others cover property near military installations or critical infrastructure. Late last year, the National Conference of State Legislatures reported:
"Since 2023, at least 200 bills were introduced in 41 states to restrict foreign ownership of U.S. land. Twenty states enacted legislation: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia and West Virginia."
Federal officials have also examined the national-security risks tied to foreign interests buying land near military facilities. The Government Accountability Office has reported that officials review some transactions because of their proximity to sensitive bases. It has also found weaknesses in agricultural-ownership data that can make those reviews harder.
Farmland raises a related concern because it supports food production and rural economies.
The scale matters. USDA also reported that foreign persons held interests in nearly 46 million acres of U.S. agricultural land at the end of 2024, about 3.6% of privately held agricultural land.
Federal law already requires many foreign investors to report agricultural holdings under the Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act. That system records acquisitions, transfers and qualifying leaseholds. It generally does not prohibit them.
For a growing number of states, disclosure was no longer enough. North Carolina drew from that broader movement but assembled the pieces in its own way.
In a 2025 Carolina Journal article, Representative Jennifer Balkcom (R), representing Henderson, was quoted as saying:
"It prohibits adversary foreign governments from purchasing, acquiring, leasing and holding any interest in agriculture land, or real estate property situated within a 75-mile radius of a military installation."
Jennifer Balkcom is a Republican state representative for Henderson County’s 117th House District. She works as a mortgage loan officer and is serving her second term. Balkcom was one of four Republican primary sponsors of House Bill 133, the NC Farmland and Military Protection Act, which bars foreign land purchases.
Note on Radius Distance
Balkcom was describing an earlier version of House Bill 133. The bill initially prohibited covered foreign parties from acquiring property within 75 miles of a military installation. A Senate committee substitute adopted in June 2026 narrowed that radius to 50 miles, which is the distance in the final law.
House Bill 133 draws a distinction that often gets lost in public debate.
A lawful permanent resident living in North Carolina is not the same as a corporation controlled by a foreign government. A multinational company is not automatically a state-owned enterprise. Someone born overseas is not prohibited merely because that person is not a U.S. citizen.
The law defines a prohibited foreign party to include an adversarial foreign government, certain entities or trusts organized under its laws, and entities or trusts subject to significant foreign ownership or control.
A single covered government or party generally reaches the law’s threshold at 33% ownership. The same threshold applies when covered parties act together. Aggregate holdings of 50% can also qualify, even when the parties are not acting in concert.
The law includes exceptions. Certain passive holdings and interests below 10% in publicly traded companies are excluded. Entities cleared through the federal Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States may also fall outside the definition of a prohibited party.
Weaknesses of the Statute
Property ownership can pass through layers of companies, trusts and subsidiaries before the actual decision-makers come into view. A locally registered business may sit at the end of a much longer ownership chain.
Federal agencies have faced the same problem. GAO has found that incomplete or unreliable foreign-ownership records can limit the government’s ability to identify national-security risks tied to agricultural property.
North Carolina will now ask state agencies and courts to examine some of those same arrangements. Before the state imposes penalties or forces a sale, it will have to show that an acquisition falls under the law.
Who the New Law Applies to and How It Works
The law covers two kinds of property.
Statewide, prohibited parties generally may not purchase, acquire, lease or hold a direct interest in agricultural land. A narrow exception allows certain agricultural research and development leases when the lessee’s holdings do not exceed 250 acres in total.
Near military installations, the law reaches further. Covered parties may not acquire any type of property within 50 miles of a designated installation, regardless of how they plan to use it. That can include homes and commercial buildings as well as industrial or undeveloped land.
For the Cape Fear region, the named facilities include Military Ocean Terminal Sunny Point in Brunswick County and the Air Route Surveillance Radar site at Fort Fisher. Officials will measure the zone from military boundaries, not from a point at the center of each installation. The Real Estate Commission and Department of Military and Veterans Affairs must publish the map by April 1, 2027.
Mechanisms in the Law
A covered party could still try to use an individual, trust or business as a stand-in. The General Assembly tried to close that opening by looking beyond the buyer named on the deed. Agents, trustees and other fiduciaries acting for a prohibited party can fall under the statute. Knowingly helping complete an illegal sale can result in a Class 2 misdemeanor.
Brokers and other participants generally have no duty to investigate the buyer unless they knowingly assist a violation.
Buyers of covered property must sign an affidavit at or before closing stating under penalty of perjury that they are not prohibited parties and are complying with the law. The affidavit must accompany the deed, although a missing affidavit does not invalidate the title or make it uninsurable.
Existing Foreign Owners of Property
Existing owners generally may retain property obtained before April 1, 2027, or before their country is added to the federal regulation. They must register with the Secretary of State and cannot acquire additional restricted land.
The public registry will identify the owner, property address, parcel number, acreage and jurisdiction of incorporation.
Failure to register on time can bring a civil penalty of at least $1,000 for every day the filing is late. The state may record unpaid penalties as a lien against the property.
The Attorney General may investigate suspected violations and issue subpoenas for records and testimony. If a court finds that a prohibited party holds land unlawfully, it may appoint a receiver to sell the property.
Sale proceeds first pay receivership costs and secured creditors. The prohibited owner receives none of the remaining money.
Land acquired through inheritance, debt collection or enforcement of a security interest generally must be sold within one year. A violation may also allow a lender to declare a loan, mortgage or deed of trust in default.
Why Federal Export Rules Appear in a State Property Law
One of the statute’s most consequential choices sits in the definitions section.
Instead of writing a permanent list of covered governments into North Carolina law, the General Assembly incorporated 22 C.F.R. § 126.1(d), part of the federal International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). Referencing federal law that lists adversarial nations keeps the state law current. The General Assembly does not have to rewrite the targeted-country list every year.
Section 126.1 contains broad restrictions for some countries and narrower rules for others. Russia, for example, is covered by a policy generally denying defense-export approvals. Other countries are subject to exceptions involving humanitarian work, peacekeeping or particular end users.
What Happens Before the Law Takes Effect in 2027
Most major provisions take effect April 1, 2027.
Before then, the Real Estate Commission and Department of Military and Veterans Affairs must publish the military-zone map. The Real Estate Commission must create the buyer affidavit. The Secretary of State must prepare the ownership registry. The Attorney General must be ready to investigate alleged violations.
Attorneys, lenders, title companies and local officials will need to understand the process before covered transactions begin moving through it.
North Carolina must trace hidden control through layered companies and trusts. It must decide whether affidavits and public registration provide enough oversight. Officials also must explain changes to the federal regulation, and courts may eventually weigh the definitions, penalties and forced-sale provisions.
House Bill 133 will face its reality check on April 1, 2027: Can North Carolina expose genuine national-security risks without ensnaring people and businesses acting in good faith?
0 Comments