Anti-SFR Update: Senate Passage, House Skeptical
March 17, 2026
On March 12, the U.S. Senate passed H.R. 6644, The 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, in an 89-10 vote.
Why it matters: The bill includes ‘Section 901 Homes Are for People, Not Corporations’ provision that would ban large institutional investors from purchasing single-family homes. It is now up to the House to act on the bill.
We’ve been covering the substantive concerns with the bill in previous editions of our Policy and Capital Markets Update. As a reminder, here are the key provisions on the SFR piece:
- BTR Forced Sale: Legislative text would mandate that any new BTR owned by an institutional investor would need to be sold to consumers within seven years.
- Institutional Investor: Large institutional investors would be defined as for-profit entities holding 350 or more single-family homes (not including exceptions in the legislation).
- Single-Family: A single-family home is defined as “means a structure that contains two or fewer dwelling units that are each intended for residential occupancy by a single household” and not a manufactured home. There are no references to tax parcels in the definition.
Despite the lopsided Senate vote, there is a growing, bipartisan chorus in the House that the final legislation needs to change before going to the President.
Substantive Issues: The overall negative impact to housing supply and the unsupported demonization of SFR (including scatter-site) have been well-covered by think tanks and in the press.
- Thus far, the macro arguments have failed to move the Senate.
- CREFC continues to work with other trades and members to provide productive suggestions to lawmakers, while emphasizing the negative consequences.
A few key themes are below:
- The bill injects a completely new regulatory regime into housing. Even with the well-intentioned exceptions, investors and capital providers will have to obtain new legal and compliance opinions, review, and sign-off to participate in any of the exempted purchases at scale.
- Single-family definition is overly broad and preempts local zoning control: The definition encompasses many BTR communities with detached homes on a single parcel. Mixed-use commercial units with two or fewer housing units also would be categorized as SF, e.g., a storefront with two apartments for rent above it.
- Build-to-Rent forced-sale would kill new housing supply: The forced-sale clause would make financing BTR properties untenable as it would create an artificial deadline to sell the homes (developed and financed with commercial underwriting) as standalone single-family homes. Financing and investing would be difficult to obtain with an artificial timeline.
- Build-to-Rent definition should exempt existing stock: The BTR exemption currently applies only to new properties. Clearer grandfathering language would help preserve liquidity for existing stock.
What’s next: The House has been much more receptive to concerns and negative impacts on supply.
- House Financial Services Committee leadership, including Chairman French Hill and Housing Chairman Mike Flood, have been calling for negotiated changes to the bill. Ranking Member Maxine Waters was quoted last week echoing the sentiment.
- Speaker Johnson and Majority Leader Scalise have also publicly endorsed the idea of edits to the Senate bill.
- The White House’s executive orders (covered below) on housing have received praise from Republicans, and the lack of a sharp statement from the President on the housing bill may give an opening for Congressional leaders to negotiate the Senate language.
Contact David McCarthy (dmccarthy@crefc.org) with questions.