SB 463: Specialized Land Transactions; business enterprises or business enterprises controlled by natural born persons from owning an interest in more than 500 single-family residential properties; prohibit

In plain language

What the bill does

Who it affects

Why it matters

Key provisions

From the bill

Discussed in meetings (14)

The House and Senate meetings that took this bill up, from their machine transcripts. Each account was written by Georgia Commons with AI and is not part of the record; the video is what was said.

1. Senate Economic Development and Tourism Committee, February 17, 2026

   From 0:16:05 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel

   Summary by Georgia Commons: The sponsor presented a substitute for SB 463, saying cash-rich investors disadvantage families seeking homes. The sponsor described a 500-home ownership cap, restrictions on foreign investment vehicles owning rental homes, private lawsuits and loss of certain tax credits and deductions. According to the sponsor, existing owners above the cap could retain their holdings but not expand; new construction, townhouses, apartments and condos would be exempt. Members questioned proof of harm, identifying foreign buyers, brokers’ duties and the cap. The sponsor acknowledged enforcement difficulties, said brokers would only disclose the restrictions, and described 500 as a threshold intended to spare smaller landlords. Asked about tax penalties prompting sales, the sponsor said divestment would be acceptable. Another member requested time to sell when a foreign owner moves out and wants to rent a home; the sponsor was open to an amendment, but none was adopted. A build-to-rent developer opposed restrictions on sellers’ choices and warned of reduced construction. A Home Builders Association of Georgia witness raised property-rights and constitutional concerns. A Georgia Association of Realtors witness warned of effects on locally owned rental businesses, retirement investments and home values from large-scale sales, and suggested a different tax approach. The committee passed the bill after a show-of-hands vote; the full count was not stated.

2. Senate Rules Committee, February 26, 2026

   From 0:13:44 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel

   Summary by Georgia Commons: A speaker described SB 463 as stopping hedge funds from buying houses in Georgia. No details or questions followed. A member later selected it for the floor calendar, which the committee unanimously approved.

3. Senate floor session, March 3, 2026 (legislative day 26)

   From 2:41:20 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel · Confirmed by the bill's status history (Senate Third Read)

   Summary by Georgia Commons: The sponsor said SB 463 would limit investors to 500 existing single-family homes in Georgia, prohibit foreign investment vehicles from purchasing single-family rental property, and allow civil lawsuits with $100,000 damages per violation. The sponsor described tax-credit and deduction restrictions as additional enforcement tools. Citing 2022 Government Accountability Office data, the sponsor said investors owning over 1,000 homes held 25% of Atlanta's single-family rental market. The sponsor argued their cash offers and quick closings disadvantaged families seeking homes. Asked about existing holdings and construction, the sponsor said owners would not have to sell homes, but could not acquire more while over the limit, and newly built rental neighborhoods would be exempt. Members asked why the limit was not lower. The sponsor called 500 a compromise intended to avoid smaller local owners and improve prospects for House passage, while acknowledging limited data on affected owners. Another member questioned effects on financing and rehabilitation. The sponsor distinguished exempt new construction and homes renovated for resale from purchases of existing homes for rentals. The Senate adopted the committee substitute and passed the bill 49-3.

4. House Small Business Development Committee, March 17, 2026

   From 0:36:28 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel

   Summary by Georgia Commons: The Georgia Association of Realtors’ advocacy director opposed SB 463, citing its 500-home ownership limit and provision allowing private lawsuits. The advocacy director proposed a locally optional tax alternative: assess landlords with fewer than 500 homes at 40% of assessed value and larger investors at 100%. The advocacy director argued that this approach would favor smaller landlords without requiring sales or imposing an ownership cap, while allowing counties to decide whether to participate. Later, the advocacy director said a cap could force homes onto the market but expressed concern about its effect on real estate investment. The advocacy director emphasized increasing supply and protecting smaller landlords. In closing remarks, a visiting legislator also opposed setting an arbitrary limit on the number of homes an entity or individual could own, describing investor-owned rental communities as a response to limited supply and strong demand. No amendment or vote was recorded.

5. House Judiciary Committee, March 17, 2026

   From 2:27:47 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel

   Summary by Georgia Commons: The sponsor said SB 463 would stop large investors from acquiring more than 500 single-family homes, restrict foreign investors’ purchases for rental use, remove specified tax benefits and allow $100,000 damages per violation. The sponsor said existing holdings would not require sale and builders could retain homes they constructed. The sponsor argued that investors’ cash offers and faster closings disadvantage families, citing a federal report estimating large investors held 25% of Atlanta’s single-family rental market in 2022. One member questioned the 500-home threshold and raised school and infrastructure costs. The sponsor said 250 could be considered but opposed mandatory sales because of constitutional concerns. Another member proposed an exception for businesses renovating homes for resale, which the sponsor supported. An Open Door witness requested that exception and expressed openness to a resale deadline. A homeowner advocate supported restrictions. Landmark Properties and commercial real estate witnesses requested clearer treatment of purpose-built rentals, student housing, foreign investment and redevelopment. Opposing builders and industry groups warned of reduced rental supply, financing problems and litigation. A National Home Rental Council witness argued the ownership language would force sales and violate constitutional protections. The sponsor disputed witnesses’ reading of the builder exception. A neutral Georgia Public Policy Foundation witness said ownership estimates vary by definition and reported rising homeownership in 12 studied counties. Georgia Realtors opposed the cap and proposed higher property-tax assessments for large investors instead. A police officer opposed the bill, describing help from a Progress Residential housing program. The chair held the bill for additional testimony, expected Thursday. No vote was taken.

6. House Judiciary Committee, March 26, 2026

   From 0:36:25 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel

   Summary by Georgia Commons: The chair proposed removing this bill’s existing contents and replacing them with the squatting and innkeeper language being reviewed. A member moved to approve the bill, and another seconded. One member objected that members did not have copies of the underlying bill; the chair said copies would be provided. Discussion of the proposed replacement continued. The sponsor said hotel contracts should remain innkeeper-guest arrangements regardless of length of stay. Members questioned whether the 10-day notice provision expressly allowed guests to fix violations and whether room changes could defeat the protections. The sponsor was open to amendments but warned that changes could complicate passage before the session ended. A hotel-industry witness said language allowing an agreed alternative to removal addressed the opportunity to fix violations. Members requested testimony from housing and family advocates, noting that the hotel industry had been heard. One member criticized the short public notice. The chair cited time constraints, then recessed until 1 p.m. to prepare a substitute and potentially hear more testimony. Written testimony was invited before then. No replacement text was adopted and no final vote was shown.

7. House Judiciary Committee, March 26, 2026

   From 0:10:15 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel

   Summary by Georgia Commons: A member moved to approve a substitute addressing hotel guests and long-term stays. Asked why eviction-record protections were removed, the member called it a policy decision; the sponsor said they had not requested removal. One member offered four amendments: restore protections making eviction records unavailable publicly when tenants prevailed, fulfilled settlements, or three years passed after resolution; revise hotel-stay and notice rules, including a 90-of-100-day threshold, excluding weekends from the notice period, and opportunities to resolve contract violations; remove a law enforcement provision; and restore the Senate-passed text. The member said the hotel-rule changes would prevent manipulation through room changes and allow guests to resolve violations. The member argued that existing trespass law was sufficient and law enforcement was already burdened. The vice chair countered that law enforcement needed more specific authority and said earlier squatter legislation had helped clear court dockets. Members also disputed whether restoring the Senate text fit the substitute’s subject. Another member proposed treating guests residing in a room for at least 90 of 100 days as tenants, saying this would answer a Georgia Supreme Court request to define tenancy. All five amendments failed. The chair confirmed receipt of written testimony; a member noted returning attendees could not testify. The committee approved the substitute by show of hands without an announced count.

8. House Rules Committee, March 31, 2026

   From 0:54:10 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel

   Summary by Georgia Commons: The presenter said a House Judiciary Committee substitute for SB 463 replaced its original language with squatter-reform provisions intended to help owners reclaim unlawfully occupied homes, businesses and hotel properties. One member cited a Southern Poverty Law Center estimate of about 30,000 families living in extended-stay motels in metro Atlanta and asked whether children could face eviction and homelessness. The presenter said hotel stays would remain guest relationships rather than become tenancies over time, and argued that families would be protected while paying and following their contracts. Asked for language specifically protecting children, the presenter said there was none. A second member asked about removed provisions allowing certain eviction records to be hidden from public view. The presenter confirmed that the committee removed those provisions, said they remained in another measure, and ultimately affirmed support for that protection. The presenter also confirmed this was not a governor's proposal. No decision was recorded.

• Read aloud: Senate floor session, February 5, 2026 (legislative day 13), 0:24:57
• Read aloud: Senate floor session, February 17, 2026 (legislative day 19), 0:33:40
• Read aloud: Senate floor session, February 18, 2026 (legislative day 20), 0:31:38
• Read aloud: House floor session, March 4, 2026 (legislative day 27, AM), 0:52:02
• Read aloud: House floor session, March 6, 2026 (legislative day 28, AM), 1:04:09
• Read aloud: House floor session, March 27, 2026 (legislative day 38, part 1), 0:37:45

Status timeline

Sponsors

Votes

Topics