Film tax credits and other priorities of Gov. Joe Lombardo were supposed to be the highlights of the Nevada Legislature’s special session in November. 

But legislators stole the spotlight (at least temporarily) when, for the first time in Nevada history, they added a bill to Lombardo’s session agenda seeking to limit corporate homebuying in the Silver State.

The legislation (SB10) failed by one vote. But it reignited a debate on what lawmakers can do to alleviate the runaway cost of housing, and if more limitations should be put on big corporations whose homebuying patterns are blamed for elevating costs and edging out buyers who want to live in the homes themselves. It all comes as much is still unknown about investor techniques and how heavily those influence the market. 

Sens. Dina Neal (D-North Las Vegas) and Ira Hansen (R-Sparks) spearheaded the bill, which would have capped the number of homes that all corporations combined can buy to 1,000 per year, and hailed it as a way to address the state’s housing affordability crisis. They pointed to research showing that in Las Vegas alone, investors have accounted for between 14 percent and 29 percent of all home sales each year from 2009 to 2024 (though the research doesn’t distinguish between large corporations and smaller landlords who may own a rental property or two). 

The trend picked up after the Great Recession. In the decade prior, investor purchases hovered around 10 percent.

By almost any metric, Nevada’s housing and rental costs are a greater burden than ever. A recent report by the Guinn Center for Policy Priorities, a nonpartisan statewide research center, found that more than half of Nevada renters and nearly a quarter of homeowners are cost-burdened — defined as spending at least 35 percent of gross monthly income on housing. Average rents since 2018 have skyrocketed — they’re up more than 55 percent in Clark County and 46.5 percent in Washoe County.

Though the factors behind high housing costs are complex, corporations have become one of the top scapegoats. Rep. Steven Horsford (D-NV), for example, has frequently argued that buyups by Wall Street “speculators” are disproportionately hurting single mothers and minority communities.

“Companies with no interest or connection to our communities then manipulate the market and impact hard-working, prospective homeowners or renters who are trying to afford a home for themselves and their families,” he said. 

Other states have considered similar caps, but Nevada would have been the first in the country to fully implement the proposal. 

The issue is also considered to be a winning one in a state where voters rank housing as a top issue. After Lombardo vetoes shut down wide swaths of Democrats’ housing agenda in 2023 and 2025, progressives have consistently attacked Lombardo for failing to address the affordability crunch.

Attorney General Aaron Ford, a Democrat seeking to unseat Lombardo in the 2026 gubernatorial election, went so far as to testify in support of the corporate housing bill.

While proponents lauded the legislation as key to help Nevada families being outbid by out-of-state corporations, opponents of the bill warned that the rushed passage of the measure would lead to severe logistical challenges.

Regardless, third-party researchers who are neutral on the legislation said there are still many unknowns about how corporate homebuying is affecting the state and how to address it.

Shawn McCoy, director of UNLV’s Lied Center for Real Estate, told The Nevada Independent it’s difficult to identify and track corporate housing ownership. 

“You would look at all the sales records, and you would flag a buyer who was classified as an entity, which there is, again, there isn’t actually a classification for a business entity,” McCoy said in an interview. “You have to approximate it by looking at things like, ‘does the owner’s name have the language, LLC or corporation?’”

As home prices continue to rise and as Neal and others have pledged to bring the legislation back in 2027, Nevada Housing Coalition Executive Director Maurice Page said it’s critical to have a balanced approach that allows for some corporate purchasing, which he called a “necessary evil.”

“A common ground, where we could allow them to be able to purchase, but not allow them to dictate and basically take over the market, is where we need to be,” Page said. 

Support and frustration over the bill

The special session legislation would have placed a 1,000-unit annual cap across all corporate home purchases — meaning corporations as a group could only purchase 1,000 units. (For perspective, UNLV researchers estimate investors have been buying an average of 6,700 Vegas Valley homes annually over the past 15 years).

It also would have exempted property sold by credit unions or ones that the state’s top housing official considers “in the public interest.” Similar to past bills, it also exempted apartments.

The legislation would have also required corporate entities to register with the secretary of state’s office before purchasing any real estate in Nevada. It would not have applied to any entities that owned fewer than 15 properties in Nevada. Companies would have 10 business days to report a property purchase to the state.

Ben Innes, coalition manager for the Nevada Housing Justice Alliance, said that the bill came as a surprise but it marked a time when “finally, housing was having its moment.” 

Some progress in Nevada has been made in the form of eviction reforms and efforts to increase supply, but more ambitious ideas were blocked by Lombardo; Innes called the bill a “glimmer of hope” for families struggling with high rents and making sacrifices to pay for housing. 

Others were less optimistic.

Brandon Roberts, president of the Nevada REALTORS, criticized the rushed process surrounding the bill and suggested alternative measures, such as fees or taxes on corporate investors, would be more effective.

One of the top issues with the bill was the potential for problems with title insurance, Roberts added. 

Broadly, title insurance protects homeowners and lenders from financial loss or questions of ownership because of previously unknown issues with the property, such as hidden liens or errors in public records. Financial institutions require title insurance when issuing loans for properties as a way to ensure the property has a clear record of ownership. 

The 1,000-unit cap in the bill could have created the opportunity for an issue with a title if a corporate buyer had purchased the 1,001 home without knowing it, Roberts said.

The Nevada Land Title Association submitted opposition testimony during the 2025 legislative session outlining fears that the bill as it was then proposed could inadvertently cause delays in property transactions that would then harm homebuyers and individual sellers and impose an “undue burden” on the industry

Another housing industry lobbyist Mackenzie Warren Kay added that there were constitutionality concerns about the legislation interfering with the free market and running afoul of the federal commerce clause within the U.S. Constitution.

Other unintended consequences, Warren Kay added, were the potential for a shrinking pool of buyers that could drive down the value of homes, and how the cap could hinder smaller landlords who are looking to purchase and rent homes.

Amendments to the legislation, and its death

The circumstance that allowed the bill to make it as far as it did, as one legislative observer noted, was a “perfect storm.”

Sources familiar with the situation who spoke on the condition of anonymity to freely discuss the matter said Ira Hansen was opposed to both the special legislative session being called and the proposal to expand film tax credits.

Efforts by Hansen to get the governor to add an item related to corporate housing to the agenda were unsuccessful and he wanted to bring it forward to curb rising prices. Hansen had backed an earlier version of the bill in the regular 2023 and 2025 sessions, but said in a speech in 2025 from the Senate floor that he ultimately voted against it at Lombardo’s request.

The effort to bring the bill to the special session likely succeeded because Hansen’s interest converged with Democrats’ desire to bring a popular issue ahead of an election cycle. 

Legislative insiders noted that it likely added at least a day to the special session and came as a surprise to many.

Records show more than 10 new lobbyist registrations related to housing were made after the bill’s introduction, including from Blackstone Administrative Services Partnership L.P. (a hedge fund and corporate homebuyer), Tricon Residential, Nevada’s Credit Unions and the Nevada Registered Agent Association Inc. 

Jeremy Aguero, the consultant known for presenting economic analyses on the biggest bills in recent state history, also registered as a lobbyist and was seen in meetings with Hansen, Lombardo Chief of Staff Ryan Cherry and others about the bill and potential amendments.

Aguero told The Nevada Independent those conversations were aimed at solving problems in the bill, noting that the point was broadly to help ensure that the people who were going to occupy a home were the ones to purchase it, and if the buyer was not going to occupy it, there should be some degree of limitation. 

He said there’s consensus that the matter is worth discussing. Amendments carved out banks and credit unions, and ensured that entities with a “public interest” were not limited.

“I think that the fundamental question is, can we find a way to do it right?” Aguero said. 

The death of the bill ultimately can be attributed to Assm. Alexis Hansen (R-Sparks), who is married to Ira, and along with her husband had put her name on the petition to give it the necessary two-thirds support for it to be added to the special session agenda.

The bill would have created a revenue source by requiring a registration fee with the secretary of state’s office, which means it required a two-thirds majority vote to pass under the state Constitution. Though lawmakers could likely have amended that section out, a source close to Assembly Democratic legislators indicated that they were led to believe the votes were there for the bill in its original form.

Alexis Hansen did not respond to text messages or phone calls about her decision to vote against the bill. In a floor speech on the final day of the legislative session, she clarified she had never committed her vote but wanted to give the bill a hearing.

Sources familiar noted that the Assembly Republican Caucus had been caught off guard by the petition and the new bill. Emotions were running high, with some members of the caucus frustrated with Alexis Hansen.

Sources said that Alexis Hansen, who works in the realty industry, was more cautious than her husband, Ira Hansen. She wanted a discussion, but was communicating with real estate industry representatives and considerate of their concerns.

“I just wanted us to be able to bring the bill and hear it, find those solutions that we needed to,” Alexis Hansen said in her speech ahead of her “no” vote.

Research continues

Lawmakers, housing industry representatives and analysts say they’re committed to better understanding the issue.

Warren Kay indicated that several of her clients have commissioned a study into questions about corporate homeownership as a way to have an “honest discussion” with lawmakers.

“We wanted the data to be able to speak intelligently, so we can write policy that addresses what corporate homeownership truly looks like in Nevada,” she said. “We are here in good faith. We want to have it. But, you know, a 24-hour process on a bill that would have the ripple effect as it would on housing supply inequalities is probably not the way.”

Legislators have also been doing research.

In April, Sens. Melanie Scheible (D-Las Vegas) and Julie Pazina (D-Henderson) sent letters to 74 companies operating rentals and corporate-owned homes in the state.

The request was seemingly simple: Respond to questions about trade practices within Nevada’s rental market to better understand the companies’ operations in Nevada and to inform potential legislative efforts that could ensure a fairer market.

As responses have trickled in during the intervening months, Scheible told The Nevada Independent that it’s been challenging to break through the opaqueness of the responses and some entities have pushed back, citing intellectual property concerns.

“It’s difficult to understand exactly what policies they’re utilizing, what kind of measurements they’re utilizing to make their decisions when it comes to buying houses,” Scheible said. “But what we do know is that for the average Nevada family who’s trying to buy their first home right now, it is absolutely getting in the way of being able to make that first-time home purchase.”

That difficulty in buying a home, Aguero said, is the reason lawmakers including Neal and Hansen made their pitch.

“When legislators reviewed it, I think they all did so in really good faith, because I think they know that this is a challenge for the state of Nevada, and they want to find a way to do it,” he said. “Now, whether you know this is the best way to do it or the right way to do it, that’s way beyond what I do for a living.”