CAMBRIDGE, MA – A new report from the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and the Center for Geospatial Solutions (CGS) reveals where corporations have gained a significant foothold in residential real estate across the United States. The analysis of corporate ownership of residential land finds that corporations now own 8.9 percent of residential parcels in 500 counties across the US. While this national share stands at roughly 1 in 11 parcels, corporate ownership exceeds 20 percent in communities including St. Louis, Missouri, Harrisonburg, Virginia, and Franklin County, Ohio, illustrating deeply uneven impacts across the country. 

To enhance previous studies that have focused on housing units, this analysis examines corporate ownership at the parcel level, establishing a national baseline for understanding how landownership in the United States is changing. Crucially, by using a standardized and repeatable approach, the findings allow policymakers to validate lived experience, compare trends across cities and over time, and target policy solutions where they are needed most. Landownership shifts carry significant economic, environmental, and social implications for communities nationwide, and will inform future versions of the report.

The Center for Geospatial Solutions (CGS), a nonprofit data services provider operating out of the Lincoln Institute, analyzed residential parcel information from nearly 500 counties, uniquely tracing ownership records across state lines and corporate structures, providing visibility that is typically fragmented or inaccessible. The report identifies 25 county hot spots that have the highest rates of corporate control and takes a closer look at three postindustrial cities—St. Louis, Cleveland, and Baltimore—to illustrate the connections between corporate investor activity and local demographics.

The report is the latest in CGS’ efforts to bring decision-ready data to communities. Developed using Who Owns America® (WHOA), a proprietary parcel ownership classification methodology, the approach offers a consistent, scalable way to understand who owns what. CGS has worked directly with federal agencies, cities, and nonprofits to apply WHOA in emerging contexts, including identifying faith-based land suitable for affordable housing, assessing investor activity in local markets, and supporting post-COVID housing policy analysis. In the coming weeks, the Lincoln Institute will utilize CGS’ WHOA analysis of government-owned land for affordable housing to launch a national campaign aimed at advancing policy solutions that enable the development of local- and state-owned land for public needs, such as affordable housing or nature-based solutions.

“Policymakers can’t protect affordability if they can’t see who controls the land beneath our feet,” said Jeff Allenby, director of innovation at CGS. “Geospatial, parcel-level visibility reveals how corporate investment is shaping housing–from national patterns to city blocks. Leaders need this clarity to respond to emerging pressures in real time and deploy interventions where they’re needed most.” 

The report goes beyond data analysis to provide actionable policy recommendations designed to help communities preserve housing affordability and maintain local control of residential land. Solutions detailed in the report include creating rental registries, providing property tax relief programs, pursuing philanthropic or municipal buybacks, investing in homebuyer assistance, limiting harmful practices through legislation, offering rights of first refusal, launching community land trusts, and building on local- and state-owned public land. 

“It’s clear that corporate ownership of residential property is here to stay—and might even continue increasing,” said George W. McCarthy, president and CEO of the Lincoln Institute. “However, this report offers a look into key trends, establishing a national baseline that policymakers, reporters, and communities can use to best understand how to move forward.”

The full report is free to access and is available here. 

Millions of Americans, whether living in urban or rural places, face an urgent need for safe and affordable shelter. And hundreds of cities, large and small, are looking for ways to build resilience to extreme weather events that threaten their residents—and, in some cases, to adapt for an influx of new residents fleeing the impacts of a changing climate. Solutions to all these challenges share an essential ingredient: land.

Governments around the world already possess more than enough land to meet these needs; however, large amounts of publicly owned land sit vacant or underutilized, their purpose mismatched to current needs. This is especially true at more local levels of government, like cities, counties, states, school districts, and public authorities. This land could, and should, be repurposed for public benefit, especially affordable housing and nature-based solutions—but that’s easier said than done. This fall, the Lincoln Institute plans to launch a campaign focused on helping communities put the right publicly owned parcels to work to deliver solutions with enduring benefits.

As a country, we are short about 4.7 million homes. According to an analysis by the Center for Geospatial Solutions at the Lincoln Institute, the United States has more than 276,000 buildable acres of government-owned land in transit-accessible urban areas—enough to support between roughly two and seven million new homes, depending on density. This estimate deliberately excludes parks, wetlands, and rights-of-way; it concentrates on sites where development would not sacrifice open space.

The point is not that every acre should be built on. It is that publicly owned land, used strategically, can bend the cost curve for affordable housing and create room for the green infrastructure that protects neighborhoods from heat and floods.

Momentum is already visible across every level of government. The federal administration has asked agencies to identify properties that might be repurposed for housing. Meanwhile, states and cities are taking action: California has strengthened its Surplus Land Act, compelling local agencies to inventory available parcels, offer them first to affordable housing developers, and follow transparent, enforceable procedures; a law in the District of Columbia ties affordability to public land deals by requiring a substantial share of below-market units, especially near transit. Massachusetts has advanced a portfolio of surplus state parcels with the aim of producing thousands of homes; San Francisco’s Public Lands for Housing program is putting large, underperforming sites such as the 17-acre Balboa Reservoir to work for mixed-income housing; and Sound Transit in Washington state has framed a policy to dedicate surplus properties for income-restricted housing near stations. These are not one-offs; they are the building blocks of a playbook.

Repurposing publicly owned land isn’t just a housing solution—it’s also a way to build resilience. Many of the most promising parcels are ideal for nature-based solutions that manage stormwater, cool neighborhoods, and add public space. Philadelphia’s Green City, Clean Waters program uses streets, parks, schoolyards, and other public rights-of-way to capture stormwater, cutting combined sewer overflows while greening neighborhoods. Los Angeles County’s Measure W finances multi-benefit projects such as Magic Johnson Park, where water capture, habitat, recreation, and shade come together on public land. In New Orleans, the Gentilly Resilience District aggregates public and institutional parcels to store water and lower neighborhood temperatures. These projects make it clear that repurposing municipal land can make communities better places to live—but communities will need to focus on four concrete and actionable pillars for this effort to take off:

1. Find the land. Governments should create public-facing inventories of potentially developable publicly owned parcels. The Center for Geospatial Solutions can produce high-quality, jurisdiction-specific maps using its Who Owns America® methodology, complete with parcel attributes like zoning, potential contamination, access to infrastructure, proximity to jobs and transit, and known constraints and priorities. Because public officials often lack the capacity and resources to conduct this analysis, we envision working with partners to support clear decision-making. The maps can classify sites into categories: housing-first (near transit or corridors where family-sized affordable units make the most sense), resilience-first (flood pathways, riparian corridors, or heat islands that could better support water storage, cooling, and habitat), and dual-benefit (sites that can host both housing and green infrastructure).
2. Fix the rules. Good inventories only matter if the rules allow publicly owned land to be used for public benefit predictably and at scale. “Affordability-first” policies typically include five elements: a requirement to inventory surplus land and provide public notice; a first-offer or first-look process for qualified affordable housing entities; minimum affordability set-asides that are stronger near high-quality transit; explicit authority to use below-market ground leases or sales to meet affordability targets; and timelines with consequences so that processes don’t stall. For public authorities—like transit, water, and education agencies—portfolio-level targets create accountability and protect mission alignment. As our campaign evolves, we hope to provide model policy language, facilitate peer-to-peer exchanges, and offer technical support to align public-owner goals with procurement, zoning, and financing.
3. Fund it. Even with land value on the table, deeply affordable housing and modern green infrastructure require funding, especially early on. Communities should embrace a braided-capital approach that treats land value as equity in the capital stack and weaves multiple funding streams together. The Lincoln Institute’s Accelerating Community Investment initiative—which convenes public agencies, mission-driven lenders, philanthropy, and private capital to structure investable projects—is a good example of a program that helps partners pair land equity with state housing bonds, tax-credit equity, concessional or program-related investments, federal tools, and local gap funding. Once jurisdictions are able to quantify the value unlocked by land, they can negotiate confidently and transparently.

4. Fulfill the benefits. Communities rightly expect clarity, fairness, and visible public value from public land deals, which requires designing processes that build trust, from standardized RFPs to fixed land prices. Through the Lincoln Vibrant Communities program at Claremont Lincoln University, we can provide direct training, technical assistance, and coaching for cross-sector teams—public officials, community leaders, housing practitioners, and infrastructure agencies—who want to work together to deploy public land for public benefit. This team-based capacity building is essential; the success of all of this work through the point of delivery depends on coordinated execution.

To head off some predictable concerns, our inventories are designed precisely to avoid any risk of eroding open space: They exclude parks and sensitive habitats and steer attention to already paved, underused, and transit-served sites. Moreover, many resilience projects add accessible open space—a water-smart park, a shaded greenway—while protecting downstream neighborhoods from flooding. We should also note that, counter to what some critics think, below-market land deals are not “giveaways.” In fact, the public receives lasting value—permanently affordable homes, climate protection, and amenities secured by ground leases, deed restrictions, and enforceable agreements. Finally, federal land alone cannot solve the problem. Federal properties can help at the margins, but most of the opportunity lies with local governments and public authorities that control land near jobs and transit. That is why state and local programs matter most, and why our efforts will focus on helping those owners act.

This campaign will connect the dots between housing production and climate resilience in more places. And it will link policy with delivery, so that commitments turn into actual homes and green infrastructure on the ground, because the housing shortage and the climate emergency will not wait.

Publicly owned land is a public trust. Used well, it can help us house people where opportunity and need are greatest, keep neighborhoods safe from heat and floods, and renew confidence that public institutions can solve big problems. This upcoming campaign will be our invitation to all parties to get moving—together, and at the pace and scale the moment requires.

George W. McCarthy is president and CEO of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Lead image: A rendering of the mixed-income Balboa Reservoir community under development on public land in San Francisco. Credit: Van Meter Williams Pollack.

This fall in Atlanta, policymakers, lenders, and practitioners gathered with housing advocates, homeowners, developers, and researchers for the twentieth anniversary of the Innovations in Manufactured Housing (I’m HOME) Network conference. What began two decades ago as an experiment in reframing manufactured housing—from a problem to be eliminated into a solution to be scaled—has matured into one of the most diverse and influential gatherings in the housing field. The conference reflected how far manufactured housing has come and set the stage for the immense work that needs to be done to address the affordability crisis in the housing sector.

After days of critical discussion on concrete steps that can be taken to advance affordable and attainable housing solutions through off-site built housing, one resounding message emerged: manufactured housing is “just housing.” While it has long been stigmatized, 22 million people in the United States live in manufactured housing, and it now stands at the center of conversations about how to address the nation’s affordability crisis. However, policy and regulatory barriers to greater usage, often rooted in outdated myths, remain.  

Owners of manufactured homes spoke candidly about the challenges of converting titles from personal property—a category often used for manufactured housing that is more akin to a vehicle than a house—to real estate, a bureaucratic hurdle that locks too many into costly, less-protected financing. Advocates highlighted how community loan funds in places like New Hampshire have created a path to mortgages and loans for home improvement, leading to housing and community stability. Researchers pointed out that as real estate market assessments have climbed, manufactured homeowners face the same tax pressures as their site-built neighbors—a reminder that manufactured housing owners are navigating the same housing market, only with fewer protections and options. 

What is clear, participants agreed, is that the value proposition of manufactured housing has never been stronger. Manufactured housing remains one of the few naturally occurring sources of affordable housing. The homes themselves have changed: new models are more energy efficient, climate resilient, and designed with the same durability as their traditional counterparts. Manufactured homes are capable of being produced at a cost that site-built homes cannot match. According to the US Census Bureau,  manufactured homes can be built for a fraction of the cost of site-built homes, about $85 per square foot compared to $167, offering 30–50 percent savings and making them one of the most efficient sources of unsubsidized affordable housing in the country. Community preservation strategies such as Right of First Refusal laws have showed that resident ownership of mobile home communities can stabilize neighborhoods and protect affordability, while new financing products from Fannie Mae and others point toward more inclusive mortgage markets. 

The Urban Institute has documented the wealth-building potential of manufactured homes when titled as real estate, while Pew Charitable Trusts has shed light on the risks facing the half-million families who turn to contracts for deed or rent-to-own arrangements, often without the consumer protections that mortgages provide. Both research and the lived experience converge to show that manufactured housing works, but its promise will only be realized with more consistent policy and financing support. 

As our future Manufactured Housing Industry Benchmark will show, six manufactured housing factories closed in 2024, even as demand for homes grew. Production must expand just as preservation efforts intensify, and financing must adapt to reach buyers who are otherwise steered into predatory alternatives. Off-site housing has always been about more than homes; it is about gentle density, resilient communities, and a pathway into ownership. Given the urgency of the affordability crisis, the time has come for the broader housing field to embrace manufactured housing as a cornerstone rather than a sideline. 

No Time Like the Present 

Momentum is building in Washington. The recently introduced Bipartisan Road to Housing Act reflects a new federal willingness to consider factory-built housing as part of the affordability solution. Provisions in that bill that would streamline environmental reviews, encourage local zoning reforms, and develop model codes all point toward easier entry for manufactured homes in places where they are desperately needed. The bill could also unlock new financing streams, though gaps remain, notably the absence of any mention of CDFIs, which have proven to be vital intermediaries in serving lower-income buyers. Even as federal policy opens doors, participants in Atlanta underscored that the real work still happens locally. Zoning ordinances, community acceptance, and financing practices at the ground level will determine whether manufactured housing expands or stalls. 

Looking ahead, off-site construction is poised to play an important role. Modular homes—which also begin in factories, but are not built on a chassis like manufactured homes—can meet missing-middle demand, provide urban infill solutions, and normalize factory-built housing for policymakers and consumers alike. For the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, which has long invested in the innovations that make manufactured housing a viable part of the affordable housing ecosystem, the next step is clear: modular housing must be part of the I’m HOME Network. By linking modular with manufactured, the field can move beyond old distinctions and work toward a shared goal: housing that is affordable, resilient, and accessible to all. 

The story of manufactured housing has always been one of persistence against stigma, financing gaps, and policy neglect. But the I’m HOME 2025 conference showed that it is also a story of resilience, innovation, and community. With the right mix of research, policy change, and coalition building, the next twenty years can ensure that manufactured and modular housing are recognized as central pillars of the American housing system. 

Daniel Janzow is a policy analyst at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Lead image: Manufactured home owners in Vancouver, Washington. Credit: timnewman via E+/Getty Images.

Em São Paulo, encravado entre arranha-céus de escritórios, lojas de luxo e hotéis sofisticados do bairro Vila Olímpia, está um conjunto habitacional de interesse social com 272 unidades. Construído no local da antiga favela Coliseu, o edifício de condomínio residencial não é apenas um novo e mais seguro lar para centenas de famílias de baixa renda que viveram na ocupação informal por décadas, enfrentando incêndios, enchentes e ratos. Segundo os defensores, essa iniciativa prova que o investimento em um bairro não precisa causar o deslocamento de seus moradores e que é possível construir moradias populares mesmo nas áreas mais valorizadas de uma cidade.

Em março, o Lincoln Institute of Land Policy convidou um grupo diverso de pesquisadores e profissionais de diferentes países para participar de uma excursão de estudo de quatro dias junto a membros da sua equipe. Combinando aulas teóricas e visitas a campo, o estudo permitiu que os participantes conhecessem de perto esse exemplo bem conhecido de captura do valor da terra. Também conhecida como retorno do valor da terra, a captura do valor da terra diz respeito a um conjunto de políticas que permite à comunidade recuperar e reinvestir o aumento do valor da terra decorrente de investimentos públicos ou outras ações governamentais, como a construção de uma nova estação de transporte ou mudanças nas normas de zoneamento.

“Em São Paulo, temos pelo menos dois exemplos importantes de favelas que foram melhoradas em áreas em que o valor da terra é muito alto”, explica Paulo Sandroni, economista que desenvolveu o curso junto com a urbanista Camila Maleronka. “Nossa ideia foi explicar e apresentar às pessoas os instrumentos que utilizamos, primeiro, para capturar o incremento do valor da terra, e segundo, para manter as pessoas que viviam nas favelas no mesmo lugar em que estavam, mas agora em apartamentos muito bons”.

O processo funciona assim: a cidade escolhe uma área para receber alguma intervenção pública como parte de uma “Operação Urbana”. Incorporadores que desejam construir edificações maiores do que o permitido naquela zona podem comprar Certificados de Potencial Adicional de Construção, ou CEPACs, que são vendidos na bolsa de valores, o que significa que o setor privado acaba definindo seu preço. A receita gerada com esses leilões de CEPACs financia obras públicas e habitação social no mesmo bairro.

Mas o fato de ser possível capturar e reinvestir o aumento do valor da terra em habitação social não significa que isso aconteça automaticamente, especialmente em bairros de alto valor imobiliário. “A comunidade do Coliseu teve que lutar contra muitas adversidades e diversas forças de incorporadores e vizinhos que não queriam que eles permanecessem ali, incluindo algumas pessoas da própria administração”, diz Sandroni. “Mas as lideranças desse movimento disseram: ‘Temos o direito de estar aqui. A legislação nos deu as ferramentas para permanecermos aqui, e há recursos para construir esses prédios’. Foi um exemplo maravilhoso de desenvolvimento urbano inclusivo”.

As ferramentas de captura de valor em São Paulo já foram tema de muitos estudos de caso, mas ver os resultados de perto, no local, ajudou a dar vida ao conceito para muitos dos participantes, vindos de organizações como a Organização para a Cooperação e Desenvolvimento Econômico (OECD), o Banco Europeu para a Reconstrução e o Desenvolvimento (BERD) e o Centre for Affordable Housing Finance in Africa, entre outros.

“Fiquei realmente impressionada com o que vi em São Paul”, disse Line Algoed, antropóloga urbana da Vrije Universiteit Brussel. “Eu conhecia o conceito de captura do valor da terra, mas nunca tinha visto os resultados pessoalmente. Eu não conhecia os CEPACs nem os outros instrumentos usados em São Paulo. Isso coloca a cidade na vanguarda do urbanismo inovado”.

Os resultados em São Paulo não foram perfeitos, acrescentou Algoed, “mas é muito positivo ver que o governo local está tentando mitigar as consequências da especulação imobiliária desenfreada”.

Hiro Ito participou do curso movido pela curiosidade sobre mecanismos financeiros que possam ajudar as cidades a financiarem infraestruturas voltadas ao enfrentamento das mudanças climáticas. Ito é gerente de programa do Green City Action Plan do BERD, onde trabalha com governos municipais para identificar investimentos e políticas capazes de prepará-los para desafios ambientais e para as mudanças climáticas. “Já desenvolvemos planos de ação com 47 cidades”, disse Ito. “Mas muitas dessas ações, especialmente as relacionadas à natureza ou à adaptação climática, acabam não sendo implementadas”, muitas vezes por falta de financiamento.

“Soluções baseadas na natureza, proteção contra enchentes, mitigação do efeito de ilha de calor urbana, esses projetos, tradicionalmente, não geram receita”, explicou Ito. “Espero que esse tipo de ferramenta seja uma nova forma de fortalecer as finanças municipais para que cidades ao redor do mundo possam fazer muito mais nesses espaços”.

Durante uma caminhada que incluiu tanto o edifício Coliseu quanto a icônica ponte Octavio Frias de Oliveira, Ito ficou impressionado com a escala e o alcance dos investimentos da cidade e se perguntou se uma ferramenta de captura do valor da terra semelhante poderia funcionar em Ancara, na Turquia, onde o BERD está ajudando a financiar a construção de uma nova linha de metrô. Logo após a viagem, Ito e seus colegas começaram a estudar “como poderíamos, potencialmente, implementar um instrumento de financiamento baseado na terra para a Prefeitura Metropolitana de Ancar”, disse ele, já que há diversos terrenos públicos nas proximidades que poderiam ser desenvolvidos. “Será que poderíamos introduzir mecanismos como os CEPACs para arrecadar recursos a partir desse processo de reurbanização? No fim das contas, o objetivo é cobrir os custos das extensões do metrô, mas esses espaços de regeneração urbana também poderiam incorporar benefícios sociais e ambientais”.

Ito valorizou o fato de os instrutores do curso, Sandroni e Maleronka, também terem apresentado as limitações, fragilidades e desafios da abordagem adotada em São Paulo. Ele reconhece que o sucesso de uma iniciativa semelhante depende de certas condições.

“Estamos testando isso na Turquia, porque a população urbana está crescendo, então há uma forte demanda por mais moradias e faz sentido para alguns incorporadores comprarem direitos adicionais”, disse Ito. “Mas nem todos os países em que o BERD atua têm essa mesma tendência demográfica”, ele acrescentou, observando que os mercados imobiliários de cidades menores da Bulgária ou da Romênia, por exemplo, podem não ser fortes o suficiente para sustentar um modelo de financiamento baseado na valorização da terra. “Mas gostamos muito da ideia de uma abordagem baseada no mercado para definir o preço… Acho que foi uma forma muito inteligente de aproveitar ao máximo o espaço”.

O que mais marcou Kecia Rust, fundadora e diretora executiva do Centre for Affordable Housing Finance in Africa, foi a ideia de que o direito de construir no espaço aéreo é um bem público.

“A abordagem geral que tornou possível o investimento no Coliseu e em outros projetos de habitação social, assim como a entrega da icônica ponte de São Paulo, do monotrilho, das vias, ciclovias e de outras obras públicas, é oriunda de uma filosofia fundamental de que o direito à propriedade privada pode se estender em termos de longitude e latitude, mas não em altura”, escreveu Rust em uma postagem no blog refletindo sobre o curso. “Os direitos de construir no espaço aéreo são um bem público, que o setor público vende para gerar receita e investir em obras públicas e habitação social”, continuou ela. “A cidade não precisa se endividar quando investe na construção de vias, pontes e moradias sociais”.

“Acho que o grande desafio que enfrentamos no contexto africano é que não temos, de fato, os dados nem a capacidade de gestão no nível das cidades locais para fazer algo da magnitude do que vimos sendo feito em São Paulo”, disse Rust. “Mas o que vi e compreendi foi muito inspirador”.

Vários membros da equipe do Lincoln Institute também participaram do curso. Muitos deles, fora da equipe da América Latina, nunca haviam tido a oportunidade de ver presencialmente esse importante exemplo global de captura do valor da terra. “Essa ideia de desenvolvimento sem deslocamento, de como proteger ou reduzir os riscos de remoção forçada quando se investe em comunidades, esse é um tema central em muito do que fazemos no instituto”, diz Enrique Silva, diretor de programas do Lincoln Institute. Silva fez questão de convidar integrantes de diferentes áreas da organização: “Essa ideia de aprender juntos, de compartilhar, aprender e trocar experiências, é algo que eu adoraria ver acontecer com mais frequência”.

Jon Gorey é redator da equipe do Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. 

Imagem principal: O conjunto habitacional social Coliseu, com 272 unidades, cercado pelos prédios mais altos do bairro Vila Olímpia em São Paulo, é um exemplo de captura do valor da terra. Crédito: Cidade de São Paulo.