Support Equitable Access to Farmland
Background
As the current generation of farmers and landowners retires, the U.S. undergoing a huge land transition, with an estimated 400 million acres of farmland changing hands over this decade. How this transition takes place will dramatically impact rural viability, our response to the climate crisis, and our ability to continue to feed ourselves. For many farmers, especially young, beginning, and immigrant farmers and farmers of color, land access is a major barrier, as farmland prices doubled from 2009 to 2023 and over 2,000 acres in the U.S. convert to nonfarm use every day.[1]
Numerous pressures are driving up land prices and increasing farmland inaccessibility; one factor has been the entrance of new players in the market. As farms and agricultural businesses have grown, corporations and other large entities have become major buyers, making it nearly impossible for smaller, less-capitalized farmers to compete. Additionally, since the 2008 financial crisis, financial companies, institutions, and pension funds have been buying farmland as an investment.[2]
There are a number of ways that state policymakers can address these challenges and make farmland more accessible to new farmers and others who have historically been excluded from land ownership (see Champion Farmer Equity for more on this topic). Most directly, easements and tax exemptions to keep high-value farmland from development can incentivize landowners to transfer their land in a way that will keep it in agricultural use. Policymakers can support farm incubation programs, which train new farmers and often work with older farmers to transition their land to the next generation. FarmLink programs, which can be managed by state agriculture departments or a nonprofit with state support, can be invaluable in connecting landowners with beginning farmers. Any of these initiatives can be designed to expand availability to new and immigrant farmers and farmers of color.
Native communities face an additional barrier to land access, as privatization and some conservation actions have blocked many tribes from access to land for hunting, fishing, foraging, or other traditional activities. Lawmakers can also ensure that Native peoples have access to traditional grounds for traditional activities, particularly on state lands.
Corporate and Foreign Farmland Ownership
Across the country, 19 states prohibit farmland acquisition by foreign corporations; nine of these also have laws about corporate farmland ownership more broadly. The two terms are often used together, but it is worth separating them out.
In today’s anti-immigrant political climate, state bills prohibiting foreign land ownership have proliferated. Foreign is too often used as a racist dog whistle in policymaking, including on this issue. (For example: Florida’s farm/land ownership laws.) From our perspective, ownership of farmland by unaccountable corporations is a more important concern. Land prices increase and communities lose control over their land, no matter whether the buyer is US-based Tyson or public employee pension fund TIAA or Chinese-owned Smithfield – or timber companies based in California or China. Keeping the focus on corporate land acquisition both guides the narrative about the real problem – large-scale corporate control – and avoids inadvertent xenophobia.
It is important to note that many farm families incorporate their farm business for liability and succession-planning reasons, and may therefore see themselves in the term “corporate farm.” Policymakers should therefore be clear about what kinds of operations fall under the umbrella of “corporate farm.”
States with specific anti-corporate farming laws are: Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. However, successful challenges have been mounted to many of these anti-corporate farming laws on the basis that they violate the dormant Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. In each case, the courts found that all or part of the law benefitted in-state economic interests at the expense of those residing or organized out of state. More details can be found here.
Speculative Land Investment
Many analysts attribute skyrocketing farmland costs to land acquisition by large-scale investors like pension funds, university endowments, and hedge funds. Since the 2008 financial crisis, these players have invested in farmland both as a way to diversify their portfolios and as a stable and lucrative asset in its own right. As the climate crisis intensifies, fertile land with secure water rights will be one of the most lucrative investments possible.[3] Hedge funds and private equity firms speculating on land is not only increasing barriers for new and beginning farmers, but is also making it increasingly difficult for BIPOC producers to access affordable land and capital.[4] Policymakers can establish guardrails to restrict speculators from buying farmland in their states and driving up prices.
Last updated April 2025
Policy Priorities
- Federal: Support the Young and Beginning Farmers Act (H.R. 4201) and the Farmland for Farmers Act, which would restrict corporations, multilayered subsidiaries, pension funds and investment funds from purchasing or leasing agricultural land (with exemptions for farmer-run LLCs, farmer cooperatives, and others); strengthen state-level authority to regulate corporations, both domestic and foreign, involved in farmland ownership; and impose penalties on corporate entities that violate ownership restrictions.
- State: Protect productive farmland through statewide and regional land use planning and supporting access to public lands for farmers.
- State: Provide state support for permanent farmland protections such as working farm easements.
- State: Fund farm incubators and land link programs, with a priority for initiatives led by farmers of color.
- State: Provide income tax and capital gains exemptions for land sale or lease into working farm easements.
- State: Allow Native peoples access to state lands for traditional activities of hunting and gathering of foods and medicine.
- State: Restrict or prohibit corporate ownership of farmland.
State Examples
- South Carolina (2024 SC HB 3951) passed the Working Agricultural Lands Preservation Act, which creates a fund for matching grants to landowners for voluntary conservation easements, aiming to preserve working agricultural lands and prevent their conversion to non-agricultural uses.
- California (2025 CA AB524) introduced the Farmland Access and Conservation for Thriving Communities Act, to provide financial and technical assistance for agricultural land acquisition and protection, prioritizing support for socially disadvantaged and beginning farmers and ranchers in California.
- New York (2024 NY SB1056-A) proposed broadening the definition of “land used in agricultural production,” to allow start-up, beginning, and small farms to qualify for property tax benefits through the Agricultural Assessment.
- California (2019 CA AB-986) considered a bill to provide grant funding to eligible conservation entities to protect farmland from development, facilitate sales or long-term leases to farmers of color, and provide assistance for down payment costs and infrastructure improvement.
- Michigan (2023 MI SB 11) and Iowa (2021 IA HF 694) are two states that have considered a tax credit for agricultural-asset holders who lease agriculture assets to young and beginning farmers.
- Minnesota (2021 MN HF 1524) appropriated funding in the Department of Agriculture budget for farm transition teams to provide services like technical assistance to young and beginning farmers. Minnesota also coordinates a FarmLink farmland matching program out of the state department of agriculture.
- North Carolina (2012 NC HB 737) prioritized new and beginning farmers and socially disadvantaged farmers in a cost share program to help farmers access agricultural markets.
Corporate & Foreign Ownership
- Minnesota (Sec. 500.24 MN Statutes) has what many advocates consider the strongest law in the nation against corporate ownership of farmland.
- Hawai’i (2025 HI HB 192) is proposing to address foreign ownership of land and increase small, local farmers’ access to land, and has introduced a bill (2025 HI HB 929) to implement a conveyance tax surcharge for agricultural lands to prevent speculators from buying, holding, and flipping land for a profit.
- North Dakota (N.D. Cent. Code § 10-06.1-02) statute prohibits corporations and foreign countries from owning farmland in the state. A 2018 court decision found that an important section of the law violated the dormant Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The section was severable and the rest of the law stands, though it also includes significant exemptions for corporations involved in surface mining and residential and business development.
- The Oklahoma constitution (OK Const. Art. 22, § 1) prohibits foreign corporations from engaging in or owning or leasing farming or ranching operations and prohibits all corporations from real estate transactions outside of cities or towns.
For additional examples, National Agricultural Law Center maintains a database of Statutes Regulating Ownership of Agricultural Land.
Toolkits
Inspired? Ready to dig in on these issues with your rural neighbors? Our practical communications toolkits will help you connect with new communities through common values. The toolkits provide examples on narrative framing, press release templates, sample talking points, and more.
Click here for the communications toolkit on Access to Rural Economic Opportunity.