HB 623 · 2025 · House · Housing Committee

Restricting corporate home purchases

relative to prohibiting corporations from purchasing single-family homes for a certain amount of time.

Restricts acquisition of single-family and multi-family housing to natural persons, with certain exceptions, and requires non-natural persons acquiring housing under those exceptions to register and file reports with the secretary of state.AI-generated

Status

Killed in the House — Inexpedient to Legislate · February 6, 2025

✓Introduced
✕House
Senate
Governor
Law

Analysis

This bill restricts the acquisition of single-family and multi-family housing to natural persons with certain exceptions. It requires any non-natural person acquiring such housing under these exceptions to register and file reports with the secretary of state.

From the bill's official ANALYSIS section.

In the bill's words

Quoted verbatim from the bill as introduced.

“Real estate with single-family housing, including single-family housing with one or more accessory dwelling units on the same parcel of land, or multi-family housing, may only be acquired, in whole or in part, by natural persons until the property has been on the market for 90 days, subject to the following exceptions:”

RSA 674:76, I

The core restriction: for the first 90 days on the market, only a natural person may buy a house.AI-generated

“Real estate acquired by a non-natural person for the purpose of developing single-family or multi-family housing may be held by a non-natural person for a period not to exceed 2 years after issuance of an occupancy permit, unless the non-natural person can show by a preponderance of the evidence that it has been attempting to convey the property to a natural person. For the purposes of this paragraph, a showing that the non-natural person engaged a person or firm licensed pursuant to RSA 331-A for the purpose of selling the property for the entire 12-month period preceding the expiration of the 2-year term is sufficient to satisfy the burden.”

RSA 674:76, I(b)

Developers keep a two-year window, and the bill spells out exactly what counts as trying to sell to a person.AI-generated

“If the court finds that the real estate in question has been acquired in violation of this subdivision or that the land has not been converted to a purpose other than single-family or multi-family housing within 5 years as provided by this subdivision, the court shall declare the land escheated to the municipality or, if in an unincorporated portion of the state, the county in which it is located. When the escheat is decreed by the court, the clerk of court shall notify the governing body of the municipality or county that the title to the real estate is vested in that subdivision of the state and authorize the subdivision of the state to follow the procedures in RSA 80, excluding the provisions requiring prior notice or right of redemption by the prior owner.”

RSA 674:80, I

The penalty that made this bill unusual: land bought in violation escheats to the town, with no right of redemption.AI-generated

“After January 1, 2026, any non-natural person which acquires real estate on which single-family housing, including single-family housing with one or more accessory dwelling units on the same parcel of land, or multi-family housing is located shall register the ownership with the secretary of state. The registration shall be made within 60 days of the acquisition of the interest in the real estate. The registration shall be in the form and manner prescribed by the secretary of state and shall, at a minimum, contain the information required to be captured pursuant to RSA 31:95-a.”

RSA 674:77

The disclosure half — a registry of corporate residential owners at the secretary of state.AI-generated

Official record

Bill page — docket & status

gc.nh.gov · the authoritative source

Public testimony

56 signed in online · 10 wrote testimony

93% support7% oppose0% neutral

In their wordsVerbatim, exactly as submitted

“Corporate monopolization runs rampant across this country. Such monopolization should not expand beyond business to housing as well. After all, home ownership is the majority of people's primary form of wealth generation and asset generation.…”

— Taylor Barry, Nashuasupports

“There should be a higher age limit to marriage. Age 18 should be the minimum”

— Christine Greene, Straffordsupports

“I applaud this effort to maintain the residential character of New Hampshire.. That said, I think that this approach is questionable.…”

— Daniel Itse, Manchestersupports

“I understand the intent but this is not the proper way to loosen housing market. The corporate raid to corner single family houses should be dealt with as creating as anti-trust legislation.”

— Daniel Richardson, Nashuaopposes

Verbatim excerpts of submitted testimony, quoted from the testimony tool.

Read the testimony · as of Aug 12, 2026

Votes

yeanay

Starting text: Bill as introduced

Jan 28, 2025HouseCommittee report· regular calendar: Inexpedient to Legislate10–8
Overall
56% yea
Feb 6, 2025HouseRoll callLay HB623 on Table (Rep. A. Murray)Failed149–207How they voted
Overall
42% yea
Party-line vote
Republicans
1–2060% yea
Democrats
148–199% yea
Feb 6, 2025HouseRoll callInexpedient to LegislateAdopted216–141How they voted
Overall
61% yea
Party-line vote
Republicans
208–0100% yea
Democrats
8–1415% yea

Hearings and debates

Jan 28, 2025Public hearingHouse Housing5:11:52–5:19:267m 34slocated in the stream transcriptMajority Committee Report: Inexpedient to Legislate — roll call; Public Hearing; Executive Session
Feb 6, 2025Floor debateHouse floor1:30:24–1:47:3517m 11slocated in the stream transcriptInexpedient to Legislate — adopted, roll call 216-141; Lay HB623 on Table (Rep. A. Murray) — failed, roll call 149-207

Timestamps locate where this bill is taken up in the chamber's YouTube stream.

Legislative history

Jan 9, 2025HouseIntroduced (in recess of) 01/09/2025 and referred to Housing HJ 3 P. 19
Jan 28, 2025HousePublic Hearing: 01/28/2025 02:30 pm LOB 305
Jan 28, 2025HouseExecutive Session: 01/28/2025 02:30 pm LOB 305
Jan 28, 2025HouseMajority : Inexpedient to Legislate 01/28/2025 (Vote 10-8; RC) HC 10 P. 9
Jan 30, 2025HouseMinority : Ought to Pass
Feb 6, 2025HouseLay HB623 on Table (Rep. A. Murray): MF RC 149-207 02/06/2025 HJ 4 P. 27
Feb 6, 2025HouseInexpedient to Legislate: MA RC 216-141 02/06/2025 HJ 4 P. 29

Coverage

The first four housing reform bills of 2025Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy · Feb 1, 2025
A free-market critique of HB 623 alongside the session's other housing bills.AI-generated
Ayotte signs slate of bills to encourage housing construction, but not all ideas advanceNew Hampshire Bulletin · Jul 23, 2025
Where the corporate-purchase restriction landed in a session otherwise focused on supply.AI-generated

Background reading

Evergreen reading on the policy area — spanning perspectives — not coverage of this specific bill.

Just cause eviction policiesExplainer
Local Housing Solutions (NYU Furman Center) — What a good-cause requirement does, what it costs, and where it has been adopted.AI-generated
“Just cause” eviction lawsAcademic — evidence
Urban Institute — What the research finds about eviction filings where just-cause rules exist.AI-generated
Advancing tenant protections: just cause eviction lawsTenant side
National Low Income Housing Coalition — The tenant-advocacy case for limiting no-fault terminations.AI-generated
The first four housing reform bills of 2025Free market — NH
Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy — The supply-side reading of New Hampshire's housing bills, including limits on corporate buyers.AI-generated
Good cause eviction policies don’t hamper construction, new research showsResearch reporting
Shelterforce — The construction-effects question that dominates the legislative argument.AI-generated

Documents (PDF)

Bill text & amendments link direct to gc.nh.gov; committee reports stream from the state record.