Farmland M&A sits at the intersection of federal agriculture law, state property law, and a shifting political environment that has produced more new legal restrictions in the past three years than in the prior three decades. The AFIDA reporting framework has been in place since 1978, but state-level foreign-ownership statutes are being enacted, amended, and litigated in near real time. For counsel advising on a farmland acquisition, the diligence checklist must address federal disclosure, state ownership restrictions, beneficial owner analysis, conservation contracts, tenant rights, water rights, mineral estates, and closing-day filings. Each of these categories is a distinct body of law, and missing any one of them creates post-closing liability that is difficult to remedy.
The analysis below covers each major category in sequence, organized to follow the chronology of a farmland acquisition from initial structure through post-closing obligations. The goal is to give counsel and principals a working framework that can be adapted to the specific state, property type, and buyer profile of any given transaction.
AFIDA Framework: Reporting Obligations Under 7 U.S.C. 3501
The Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act of 1978, codified at 7 U.S.C. 3501 through 3508, establishes the federal framework for reporting foreign acquisition and disposition of agricultural land. The statute was enacted in response to Congressional concern about the extent of foreign investment in U.S. agricultural land and the absence of any comprehensive federal data collection system. AFIDA does not prohibit foreign ownership; it requires disclosure. The operative reporting vehicle is USDA FSA Form 153, which must be filed with the local FSA county office within 90 days of the reportable transaction.
The scope of AFIDA reporting covers acquisitions, dispositions, and changes in the holder's status that result in an interest becoming or ceasing to be a foreign interest. An acquisition includes a purchase, gift, devise, or any other transfer of a legal interest in agricultural land. A disposition includes a sale, exchange, or any other transfer. The statute defines "agricultural land" as land located in the United States used for, or last used for, the production of food, fiber, timber, or other farm or ranch products, or land that is suitable for use in agricultural production, subject to specific acreage thresholds that have been adjusted by regulation.
AFIDA's definition of "foreign person" is broad. It includes foreign governments, individuals who are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents, corporations and partnerships organized under foreign law, and domestic entities in which foreign persons hold a significant ownership or control interest. The applicable threshold for entity-level foreign person status under AFIDA regulations is 10 percent or more beneficial ownership by a foreign person or by foreign persons acting in concert. This threshold means that minority foreign ownership of a domestic acquisition vehicle is sufficient to trigger AFIDA reporting obligations even if the direct purchaser is a U.S.-formed entity.
FSA Form 153 requires disclosure of the identity of the foreign person, the legal description and acreage of the land, the nature of the interest acquired or disposed of, the date of the transaction, the consideration paid, the intended use of the land, and the citizenship and nationality of each foreign person with an ownership or control interest. The form is submitted to the FSA county office where the land is located. For parcels spanning multiple counties, a separate form is required for each county. FSA transmits the compiled data to the Secretary of Agriculture, who is required to report annually to Congress on the aggregate results.
Civil penalties for failure to file, late filing, or filing materially false or incomplete information can reach 25 percent of the fair market value of the interest involved. FSA has authority to pursue these penalties through administrative proceedings, and the penalties are not subject to a cap based on the amount of the filing fee or any other administrative benchmark. The penalty exposure on a significant farmland acquisition is therefore substantial, and the 90-day filing deadline should be treated as a hard closing deliverable, not a post-closing administrative task.
Counsel preparing for closing should determine AFIDA applicability at the outset of diligence by assessing the buyer's foreign person status, the nature of the interest being acquired, and whether the land qualifies as agricultural under the statute and regulations. Where AFIDA applies, Form 153 preparation should be integrated into the closing checklist alongside deed recording and FSA farm record updates. The seller has no AFIDA reporting obligation on a disposition to a foreign person; the reporting obligation runs to the acquirer. However, sellers who know or have reason to know that a buyer is a foreign person should confirm that the AFIDA obligation has been addressed as a condition of closing.
State-by-State Farmland Ownership Restrictions
State alien land laws governing agricultural property predate AFIDA by decades, and the patchwork of state restrictions is both more comprehensive and more varied than the federal framework. Iowa, Missouri, Minnesota, Indiana, and Wisconsin have maintained agricultural alien land restrictions since the 1970s and 1980s, and each state's statute reflects distinct policy choices about who is restricted, what land is covered, and what remedies apply.
Iowa Code Chapter 9H is among the most restrictive. It prohibits foreign persons and entities from acquiring agricultural land in Iowa and requires that existing nonconforming holdings be divested within a specified period. Iowa defines "agricultural land" broadly to include cropland, pastureland, and other land used for agricultural production. The statute defines "foreign person" to include aliens, foreign governments, and domestic entities in which a foreign person holds a qualifying interest. Iowa's prohibition applies to leases of one year or more as well as to fee ownership, making it one of the few state statutes that explicitly captures long-term leasehold interests within its restriction framework.
Missouri Revised Statutes Section 442.571 restricts nonresident alien ownership of agricultural land and provides for forfeiture of land acquired in violation of the statute. Minnesota Statutes Section 500.221 limits alien ownership of agricultural land to specified acreage and imposes reporting requirements for qualifying interests. Indiana Code Section 32-22-6 restricts alien ownership and provides civil and criminal penalties for violations. Wisconsin Chapter 710 addresses alien land ownership with particular provisions relating to heritage and rural land, though Wisconsin's restrictions have been interpreted more narrowly by courts than those of Iowa or Minnesota.
These statutes vary significantly on the definition of the restricted party. Some restrict "aliens," a term that in older statutes means non-U.S.-citizens, without specific reference to entity structures. Others define "foreign person" to include domestic entities owned or controlled by aliens, capturing entity-level acquisition vehicles. The threshold for entity-level restriction ranges from any foreign ownership to a majority or controlling interest, depending on the state. These definitional differences create planning opportunities for counsel who understands the applicable statute's scope, but they also create risk for buyers who assume that one state's approach applies in another.
Penalties for violations of state alien land laws range from civil forfeiture, under which title to land acquired in violation of the statute escheats to the state, to civil fines and divestiture orders. Iowa and Indiana have provisions authorizing the state attorney general to bring forfeiture proceedings against land acquired in violation of the applicable statute. The severity of the forfeiture remedy makes it imperative that counsel confirm state compliance before closing, not after.
For domestic buyers with no foreign ownership, these statutes generally pose no obstacle. The analysis changes where the buyer is an entity with any foreign beneficial ownership, a joint venture with foreign co-investors, or a fund with foreign limited partners. In any of these scenarios, counsel must conduct a state-specific analysis of the applicable statute's entity-level definition before advising on the permissibility of the acquisition structure.
Recent State Restrictions Targeting Foreign Adversaries
The period from 2022 through 2026 has produced a distinct category of state farmland restriction that targets nationals and entities of designated foreign adversary nations, specifically China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea, with heightened scrutiny applied to land near military installations, critical infrastructure, and national security assets. These statutes represent a departure from the general alien land restriction model in that they are explicitly national-security-motivated and are designed to address perceived risks specific to adversarial-nation ownership.
Florida's SB 264, enacted in 2023, prohibits "foreign principals" of covered countries from purchasing or acquiring real property, including agricultural land, in Florida, with specific distance-based restrictions on land near military installations. A "foreign principal" under the Florida statute includes individuals who are domiciled in or are citizens of a covered country, as well as entities organized under the laws of or having their principal place of business in a covered country. The statute also covers entities in which a foreign principal holds a qualifying ownership interest, which the statute defines as more than 25 percent.
Texas House Bill 17, enacted in 2023, prohibits persons from China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia from acquiring real property in Texas and imposes criminal penalties on real estate professionals who knowingly participate in covered transactions. The Texas statute applies to individuals, government entities, and companies formed under the laws of covered countries, as well as to U.S. entities in which a covered country or its nationals hold a controlling interest. Texas added an exemption for U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents who happen to hold citizenship in a covered country, but the exemption requires affirmative documentation.
Virginia's HB 1608 and Ohio's companion legislation followed similar frameworks, with variations in the definition of covered persons, the scope of covered real property, and the penalties for violations. Virginia's statute includes agricultural land within its scope and imposes civil forfeiture for violations. Ohio's legislation targeted land near critical infrastructure and military installations, with provisions that reach farmland where proximity criteria are met.
Several of these statutes have faced constitutional challenges on equal protection, due process, and preemption grounds. The litigation landscape as of early 2026 remains unsettled, with pending challenges in multiple jurisdictions. Counsel advising on transactions subject to these statutes must track both the statutory text and the current injunction status, as enforcement may be stayed in specific jurisdictions while litigation proceeds.
The disclosure and compliance requirements for these adversarial-nation statutes add layers beyond traditional alien land law compliance. Some statutes require buyers to make affirmative representations about their nationality and ownership structure as a condition of closing. Others require state-level filings analogous to AFIDA at the state level. Closing checklists for transactions in states with adversarial-nation restrictions should include a dedicated compliance track that addresses these requirements separately from the AFIDA analysis.
Entity-Level and Beneficial Owner Analysis
The practical challenge in applying foreign-ownership restrictions to modern farmland transactions is not identifying whether the direct buyer is a foreign person; it is tracing the beneficial ownership chain through layers of domestic entities to identify any qualifying foreign interest at the ultimate level. Both AFIDA and the state statutes that define "foreign person" by reference to beneficial ownership require a look-through analysis that can be complex for fund structures, joint ventures, and multi-tier holding companies.
A single-member LLC organized in Delaware and wholly owned by a Chinese national is straightforwardly covered by AFIDA and by adversarial-nation statutes in states like Texas and Florida. The analysis becomes more complex when the Chinese national is one of several limited partners in a U.S.-formed private equity fund, which in turn is the sole member of a Delaware LLC that is the direct buyer. Whether the fund structure is caught by AFIDA's 10 percent threshold, or by a state statute's controlling-interest definition, depends on the specific facts of the ownership structure.
Corporate structures that insert U.S.-formed entities between a foreign ultimate owner and the farmland title are not, by themselves, a solution to foreign-ownership compliance. Most modern statutes are explicit that entity form does not determine compliance; beneficial ownership and control does. The AFIDA regulations define "foreign person" to include domestic entities in which foreign persons hold 10 percent or more of the ownership interest, individually or in combination. State adversarial-nation statutes use varying thresholds, but most reach domestic entities with meaningful foreign adversary ownership or control.
Trust structures present additional complexity. A domestic trust with a foreign trustee, a foreign grantor, or foreign beneficiaries may be treated as a foreign person under AFIDA or state law depending on the specific trust instrument and the applicable statute's definition. Revocable trusts are generally treated as transparent for AFIDA purposes, meaning the grantor's nationality controls. Irrevocable trusts may be analyzed differently depending on who holds beneficial interests. Foreign-grantor trust rules under federal tax law do not automatically map onto AFIDA's or state law's definitions, and a trust that is treated as a domestic entity for tax purposes may still be treated as a foreign person for AFIDA or state restriction purposes.
Partnership interests in farming operations require separate analysis. A limited partnership or general partnership that holds agricultural land must be analyzed at the partner level to determine whether any partner is a foreign person with a qualifying interest. AFIDA's regulations address this by treating a foreign person's proportionate share of partnership-held land as directly held for reporting purposes where the foreign person's interest exceeds the applicable threshold. State statutes vary in how they treat partnership interests, and some require analysis of both voting and economic interests separately.
The beneficial owner analysis should be completed before a letter of intent is signed. If the analysis reveals a potential compliance issue, the transaction structure can often be modified at the pre-LOI stage with minimal cost. A compliance issue discovered after a purchase agreement has been signed may require renegotiation, restructuring, or, in the worst case, abandonment of the transaction. Counsel who conducts the beneficial owner analysis as a diligence item, rather than as a closing-day checklist item, provides substantially more value to the client.
Foreign Ownership Compliance
Navigating AFIDA and State Restrictions Before Signing
Beneficial owner analysis and state-specific compliance review should precede the letter of intent, not follow closing. Structural issues identified early are solvable. Issues identified after signing create liability exposure that can be difficult to remedy.
Request Engagement AssessmentLeased Versus Owned Farmland: Long-Term Leases as Ownership-Equivalent
The distinction between owning and leasing agricultural land is more legally consequential in the farmland context than in most other asset classes. AFIDA applies its disclosure requirements to leaseholds of 10 years or longer, treating a long-term lease as a reportable acquisition of an interest in agricultural land. Iowa's Chapter 9H restriction applies to leases of one year or more. Several adversarial-nation statutes apply to acquisitions of "any interest" in real property, language broad enough to encompass a leasehold regardless of term. The common thread is that long-term agricultural leases have been recognized by legislators as functionally equivalent to ownership in terms of the foreign investment concerns that these statutes address.
From a transaction structuring perspective, this means that a foreign buyer who cannot acquire fee title to Iowa farmland due to Chapter 9H's prohibition cannot circumvent the restriction by acquiring a long-term lease instead. The lease is covered. A buyer whose foreign-person status triggers AFIDA reporting for a fee acquisition also triggers AFIDA reporting for a leasehold exceeding 10 years. The compliance analysis for a leasehold acquisition must therefore follow the same state and federal framework as a fee acquisition.
Farm management agreements present a related but distinct question. Under a farm management agreement, a farm management company or individual takes operational control of agricultural land owned by an absentee owner, making day-to-day decisions about planting, input purchases, equipment, and marketing. Courts and regulators in some states have analyzed farm management agreements as conferring a form of "control" over agricultural land that may implicate state restriction statutes, even where the management company does not hold a formal leasehold interest. The analysis depends heavily on the scope of authority granted by the management agreement and whether the applicable statute is drafted to capture control as distinct from ownership.
In acquisitions where the target is a farm operation rather than bare land, the distinction between owned and leased land within the target's portfolio is also significant for understanding what the buyer is actually acquiring. A farm operation that controls 10,000 acres through a combination of owned fee parcels and operating leases presents different diligence requirements than one that holds all acreage in fee. Leases have terms, renewal rights, rental rates, and landlord relationships that must be assessed as part of the acquisition analysis. The value of a leased acre is constrained by the lease term and the risk that the lease will not be renewed on acceptable terms.
For buyers acquiring fee land that is subject to an existing tenant lease, the treatment of the lease at closing requires specific attention. The existing lease does not automatically terminate upon a change in ownership; the buyer steps into the seller's position as landlord and takes subject to the lease terms. Buyers should review all tenant leases during diligence, assess rental rates relative to market, evaluate renewal and termination provisions, and understand the relationship with the current tenant before committing to a purchase price that assumes current or improved cash flow.
Tenant Farmer Leases and Flex-Rent Structures
Agricultural leases in the United States take several forms, and the applicable form affects the economic analysis of the acquisition, the relationship between buyer and tenant after closing, and the AFIDA and state restriction analysis discussed above. Cash rent leases are the most straightforward: the tenant pays a fixed annual cash amount per acre regardless of yield or commodity prices. Crop-share leases divide the crop, typically in a 50/50 or 40/60 split between landlord and tenant, with the landlord receiving a proportionate share of production rather than a fixed cash payment. Flex-rent leases represent a hybrid structure in which a base cash rent is supplemented by bonus payments triggered when commodity prices or yields exceed specified benchmarks.
Assignability of agricultural leases is not always addressed in the lease document itself, and the default rule under state law varies. In many states, a lease is not freely assignable without landlord consent unless the lease explicitly permits assignment. When fee title transfers, the buyer becomes the new landlord and typically has no obligation to permit the tenant to assign its leasehold to a third party unless the lease provides otherwise. For buyers acquiring farmland with an operating tenant in place, the question of whether the buyer wishes to continue the existing lease or eventually terminate and renegotiate should be addressed before closing, not after.
Landlord estoppel letters, in which the landlord confirms to the tenant and potentially to the tenant's lender the current status of the lease, the absence of defaults, and the remaining term, may be required by the tenant if the tenant has financed equipment or operating expenses using the leasehold as collateral. In an acquisition context, the buyer should request any outstanding estoppel letters or subordination, non-disturbance, and attornment agreements as part of the lease diligence package, because these instruments create landlord obligations that survive the change in ownership.
Bastrop structures, a term used in the central Corn Belt to describe cash rent with a crop insurance overlay, give the tenant protection against yield shortfalls while giving the landlord a fixed income stream. These arrangements typically involve the landlord acquiring multi-peril crop insurance on the tenant's behalf, with the premium deducted from or added to the cash rent calculation. Buyers acquiring farmland with a Bastrop structure in place must understand the insurance obligations, premium responsibilities, and how the crop insurance proceeds are allocated between landlord and tenant in a loss year.
Crop-share leases create a co-producer relationship in which the landlord shares in both the production and the risk of farming. This relationship has tax consequences, potential USDA farm program eligibility implications, and operational complexity that pure cash rent arrangements avoid. Buyers transitioning from a crop-share structure to a cash rent structure, or vice versa, should assess the tax and program eligibility implications before modifying lease terms with an existing tenant.
Flex-rent structures require careful review of the benchmark commodity prices and yield triggers that activate bonus payments. In a high-price commodity environment, flex-rent provisions can generate material additional landlord income above the base cash rent. In a low-price environment, only the base rent is paid. The purchase price for farmland with an active flex-rent lease should reflect the expected value of the flex component based on historical price and yield data, and the purchase agreement should address how accrued but unpaid flex-rent bonuses from the pre-closing period are treated at closing.
Conservation Easements and Farm Bill Program Contracts
Agricultural land is subject to a range of federal conservation program contracts and easements that encumber the land's use and must be identified and analyzed as part of any farmland acquisition diligence. The principal programs are the Conservation Reserve Program, the Conservation Stewardship Program, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, and the Wetland Reserve Easement program, all administered under the successive Farm Bills and overseen by USDA FSA and NRCS.
CRP contracts are tied to specific FSA farm serial numbers and tracts and impose land use restrictions, typically requiring that enrolled acreage be kept in permanent vegetative cover and removed from crop production for the contract term. In exchange, the enrolled landowner receives annual rental payments calculated using a local market-based formula. CRP contracts have terms of 10 to 15 years and may be in the middle of their term at the time of a farmland acquisition. A buyer who acquires land enrolled in CRP takes subject to the contract's use restrictions and must either assume the contract or terminate it, subject to FSA approval and potential cost-share repayment obligations.
FSA farm records are organized by farm serial number and tract number within the county where the land is located. Each farm serial number carries a history of program enrollments, base acres, yields, and payment history that is material to the value of the agricultural land and its eligibility for future program enrollment. Buyers should request a complete FSA farm record pull during diligence, which requires FSA Form CCC-36 authorization from the seller or access through the seller's FSA agent. The farm record discloses the current program status of each tract and identifies any contracts, liens, or restrictions that FSA has recorded against the property.
CSP contracts are five-year agreements under which the enrolled landowner commits to maintaining and improving conservation practices on the property in exchange for annual payments from NRCS. CSP contracts are operator-specific, meaning they are tied to the person managing the land rather than to the land itself. A change in operator, whether through a fee acquisition or through a change in tenant, may trigger a contract review and potential termination by NRCS. Buyers and their counsel should contact the relevant NRCS county office before closing to determine the status of any CSP contract and the NRCS position on continuity after a change in ownership.
EQIP contracts fund installation of specific conservation practices, such as irrigation efficiency upgrades, nutrient management plans, or precision application equipment. EQIP contracts are tied to a specific practice and a specific operation and may require repayment of cost-share funds if the practice is not maintained for the contractual period. A buyer who acquires land with an active EQIP contract must understand the practice that was funded, the maintenance obligations, and the repayment risk if the practice is discontinued or modified.
Wetland Reserve Easements and related NRCS easement programs create permanent or long-term restrictions on drained wetlands that have been restored under federal cost-share. These easements are recorded in the deed records and run with the land, binding all future owners. A buyer who discovers a WRE or similar easement during title review must assess its effect on the agricultural productivity and development potential of the encumbered acreage. WRE easements typically prohibit drainage, tillage, and other practices that would disturb the restored wetland, and they are permanent in most cases under current program rules.
Water Rights in Western States: Appropriative Doctrine and Diligence Obligations
In the eastern United States, water rights are generally governed by riparian doctrine, under which the owner of land adjacent to a watercourse has the right to make reasonable use of the water. In the western states, water is governed by prior appropriation doctrine, under which rights are acquired by putting water to beneficial use and are ranked by priority date: earlier appropriations have senior rights that must be satisfied before junior rights receive water. For agricultural buyers, this means that a farm's access to irrigation water depends not just on the existence of a water right but on the seniority of that right relative to all other appropriators on the same water source.
In Colorado, water rights are adjudicated by water courts in each of seven water divisions organized by major river basin. A water right decree specifies the priority date, the water source, the point of diversion, the amount of water in acre-feet or cubic feet per second, the place of use, and the purpose of use. Water rights are separate property from the land and are conveyed by water rights deed recorded in the county where the right is decreed. An acquisition of farmland in Colorado that does not include a conveyance of the associated water rights, or does not include water share certificates from an irrigation district, may leave the buyer with land that cannot be irrigated.
Arizona operates under an Active Management Area system for groundwater in the Phoenix, Tucson, Prescott, Pinal, and Santa Cruz AMAs. Within an AMA, groundwater use is regulated by the Arizona Department of Water Resources and is subject to annual allotments tied to grandfathered rights. Irrigation water rights within an AMA are categorized as Type 1 or Type 2 grandfathered rights, depending on the history of water use on the land. Surface water rights in Arizona are separately administered and are appropriative. Buyers acquiring farmland in an Arizona AMA must obtain a ADWR water rights history for all wells on the property, confirm that the water right allotment is adequate for the intended farming operation, and understand the restrictions on transferring grandfathered rights to new land.
California's water rights system is the most complex in the nation, combining riparian rights, pre-1914 appropriative rights, post-1914 State Water Board permits, and a groundwater regime that was significantly restructured by the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014. SGMA requires local agencies in overdrafted groundwater basins to develop and implement groundwater sustainability plans, and it imposes pumping restrictions on basins that are not meeting sustainability goals. Buyers acquiring farmland in a SGMA-designated critically overdrafted basin must assess the basin's sustainability plan, the projected pumping reductions, and the effect on the farm's water availability over the next decade.
Irrigation district membership is a common mechanism for delivering surface water to farmland in western states. Irrigation district shares, certificates, or allotments are often held separately from the land title and must be transferred as part of the acquisition. Some irrigation district shares are appurtenant to specific parcels and transfer automatically with the deed; others are held as personal property and require separate assignment. Diligence must identify all irrigation water sources, confirm the mechanism by which water rights or shares attach to the land, and address the transfer of those rights in the purchase agreement and closing documents.
Land Evaluation and Site Assessment, commonly referred to as LESA, is a scoring methodology used by USDA and some state agencies to evaluate the agricultural quality and viability of land. LESA scores factor in soil quality, proximity to agricultural support infrastructure, water availability, and other site characteristics. While LESA is not itself a legal restriction on land use or ownership, it is relevant to the agricultural productivity valuation of the property and may be referenced in USDA program eligibility determinations. State-specific forms for documenting water rights transfers, irrigation district share assignments, and groundwater well permit transfers should be identified early in the diligence process and prepared as closing deliverables.
Complex Farmland Transactions
Water Rights, Mineral Estates, and Split Title Diligence
Severed mineral rights, water rights transfers, and conservation easements require diligence that goes beyond a standard real estate title search. Transactions involving these elements benefit from counsel with experience in the specific state's property law framework.
Submit Transaction DetailsMineral Rights and Split Estates in Farmland Acquisitions
Split-estate ownership, where the surface estate and the mineral estate are held by different parties, is pervasive in the agricultural regions of the central United States. In states like North Dakota, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, and Montana, mineral rights were frequently severed from surface ownership in the early twentieth century by reservation in deed, and the severance has been maintained through successive conveyances. A surface buyer who does not investigate mineral ownership may acquire a farm subject to mineral estate rights that the new owner did not bargain for and cannot control.
The mineral estate is dominant over the surface estate in most U.S. jurisdictions. This means that the holder of the mineral estate has the right to use the surface to the extent reasonably necessary to develop the minerals, even without the surface owner's consent, subject to state statutory accommodation doctrines and applicable surface use agreements. In states with active oil and gas development, this can mean that a farmland owner finds a mineral operator placing a well pad, access road, or pipeline on the surface without the surface owner's advance approval.
Surface use agreements, where they exist, specify the terms under which mineral development can occur on the surface. A well-negotiated surface use agreement addresses the location and dimensions of surface disturbance, reclamation obligations, compensation for crop damage and lost land use, timing restrictions, and indemnification for environmental contamination. Buyers acquiring surface estates in areas with active mineral development should review any existing surface use agreements during diligence and should assess whether the terms are adequate to protect agricultural operations. The absence of a surface use agreement on a split estate is a red flag that should prompt further investigation into mineral ownership and development potential.
Pipeline easements are among the most common encumbrances on farmland in agricultural states. A pipeline easement grants a pipeline company the right to lay, operate, and maintain a pipeline across a specified portion of the surface. Pipeline easements are recorded in the deed records and run with the land, binding all future surface owners. Buyers should identify all pipeline easements during title diligence, assess the location of the pipeline relative to planned farming operations, and review the easement terms including the width, permitted uses, and compensation provisions. Easements with inadequate compensation or unclear reclamation obligations may be negotiable if the pipeline company is willing to renegotiate, but the leverage to do so is higher before closing than after.
Wind farm ground leases on farmland are a growing category of surface encumbrance, particularly in the Plains states and Midwest. A wind farm ground lease grants a wind energy developer the right to construct turbines, access roads, and transmission lines on a specified portion of the surface in exchange for annual rent and royalty payments. Wind farm leases are typically long-term, with initial terms of 20 to 30 years and multiple renewal options, and they are recorded in the deed records and run with the land. Buyers acquiring farmland subject to an active wind farm ground lease must understand the lease terms, the payment obligations, the turbine locations relative to farming operations, and the reclamation provisions at lease expiration.
Solar energy ground leases present analogous issues on farmland, with the additional consideration that large-scale solar installations typically require significant portions of the surface to be removed from agricultural production for the lease term. A farmland buyer who inadvertently acquires land subject to a solar development agreement may find that the land cannot be farmed as expected for the duration of the lease. Purchase agreement representations and warranties should specifically address the existence of any energy development agreements, and the buyer's diligence should include a search of the deed records and a review of any undisclosed agreements that may affect land use.
Farmland Valuation and GAP Appraisals
Farmland valuation is a distinct specialty within real estate appraisal that requires understanding of agricultural income capitalization, productivity-based value, and the relationship between commodity prices, input costs, and net operating income. A general real estate appraiser who does not have specific agricultural appraisal experience is not well-positioned to provide a reliable opinion of value for farmland used in row crop, specialty crop, or livestock production. For significant acquisitions, buyers should engage a Designated Agriculture Appraiser or an appraiser with the American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers' ARA credential.
The income capitalization approach to farmland value converts projected net operating income into a value indication by dividing NOI by a capitalization rate. For farmland, NOI is typically estimated as the gross cash rental rate less property taxes and other fixed ownership costs, producing a net figure that is then capitalized. The capitalization rate reflects market expectations for return on agricultural investment and is derived from analysis of comparable farmland sales. The capitalization approach is most reliable where there is an active cash rental market and where comparable sales data is available to support the cap rate selection.
The sales comparison approach relies on comparable sales of similar agricultural properties. Comparability in the farmland context is assessed by reference to soil productivity ratings, county yield history, water rights availability, location relative to grain handling infrastructure, and the presence or absence of improvements such as grain storage, equipment buildings, and tile drainage systems. Soil productivity indices, including the Corn Suitability Rating in the Corn Belt and the Storie Index in California, provide a standardized basis for comparing the agricultural productivity of different parcels.
Productivity-based valuation, sometimes called the gross income multiplier method, estimates value as a multiple of the land's gross crop revenue potential at typical yields and commodity prices. This approach is less sensitive to short-term fluctuations in cash rental rates and provides a longer-term view of value based on the land's inherent productive capacity. Productivity-based approaches are particularly useful for specialty crop land, irrigated land in western states, and land where cash rental markets are thin.
The distinction between agricultural value and highest-and-best-use value is important in periurban farmland acquisitions. Land at the fringe of an expanding metropolitan area may have an agricultural use value significantly below its speculative development value, and the applicable valuation standard for the transaction depends on the buyer's intended use and the basis for the acquisition. A buyer acquiring land for continued agricultural use should ensure that the appraisal uses an agricultural use standard, not a mixed-use or development potential standard that would produce a different value conclusion.
Lenders providing acquisition financing for farmland typically require a GAP appraisal, meaning an appraisal that complies with USPAP and the lender's specific appraisal review standards. Farm Credit System institutions, which are among the primary lenders for agricultural land acquisition, have developed detailed appraisal requirements that address soil productivity documentation, water rights, conservation contract encumbrances, and lease analysis. Buyers who anticipate financing should confirm lender appraisal requirements early in the transaction timeline, as ordering and completing a compliant farmland appraisal typically takes four to eight weeks depending on the size and complexity of the property.
Title Diligence Specific to Farmland: PLSS, Legal Descriptions, and Surface Right Exceptions
Agricultural land title work differs from urban or commercial real estate title work in several respects that reflect the historical methods by which land in the western United States was originally surveyed and conveyed. The Public Land Survey System, established under the Land Ordinance of 1785, provides the framework for legal descriptions of most agricultural land west of the original thirteen states. PLSS descriptions are stated in terms of township, range, and section, with fractions of sections expressed as quarter-sections, quarter-quarter sections, and fractional lots where the government survey created irregular parcels at the edges of townships.
Reading and verifying a PLSS legal description requires familiarity with the survey system and with the specific county's survey history. Errors in PLSS descriptions are not uncommon in historical deeds, and a legal description that appears to convey a specific quarter-section may in fact describe a different parcel if the range or township numbers are transposed. Title attorneys reviewing farmland transactions should verify that the legal description in the proposed deed matches the description in the current title insurance commitment and in the seller's deed, and should confirm that the described parcel corresponds to the land the parties intend to convey.
Government lots are a PLSS category that arises where the standard 160-acre quarter-section layout cannot be maintained due to the curvature of the earth, the presence of lakes or rivers, or other survey irregularities. Government lots are numbered within each township and their acreage varies. A farm that includes government lots will have a legal description that references both standard quarter-section fractions and government lot numbers, and the total acreage of the described parcel must be verified by reference to the original government survey plat for the township.
Surface right exceptions in title insurance commitments and deeds are common on agricultural land and require careful review. A deed conveying the "surface only" or "surface and all other rights except minerals" creates a severed estate by its terms, and the scope of the exception must be traced through the full chain of title to determine exactly what mineral, coal, oil, gas, or other subsurface rights are outstanding. Blanket exceptions for "outstanding oil, gas, and mineral interests" in title insurance commitments should not be accepted without the buyer's counsel confirming the specific scope of those interests through a mineral title search.
Ingress and egress rights are a threshold issue for agricultural operations that require access for equipment, grain trucks, and emergency vehicles. Landlocked parcels, and parcels with access only over private roads subject to third-party easement rights, present operational and legal risk. Title diligence should confirm that the property has adequate legal access, that any access easements are recorded and of adequate width for modern agricultural equipment, and that there are no pending disputes about access rights with adjoining landowners.
Tile drainage systems are a significant capital investment on agricultural land in the Corn Belt and other humid agricultural regions. Drainage tile lines run beneath the surface of the field and connect to outlets in drainage ditches or streams. Drainage easements and cooperative drainage agreements with adjoining landowners are common where tile systems cross property boundaries. These agreements are not always recorded in the deed records, and a buyer who does not discover a drainage easement obligation during diligence may find that the field tile system on the acquired land serves adjacent parcels and cannot be relocated or blocked without breaching the drainage agreement. A survey of drainage improvements and a review of any drainage district assessments or cooperative drainage agreements should be part of every Corn Belt farmland diligence process.
Closing Mechanics: AFIDA Filing, State Certifications, FSA Farm Record Updates, and Deed Types
The closing mechanics for a farmland acquisition require coordination of several concurrent obligations that differ from those in a standard commercial real estate transaction. The deed, title insurance, and lender closing requirements are present in any real property transaction, but farmland closings layer on top of these the AFIDA filing obligation, state foreign-ownership certification requirements where applicable, FSA farm record transfer, tenant notification, and conservation contract assignment or termination. Counsel managing a farmland closing should build each of these elements into the closing checklist with designated responsible parties and delivery deadlines.
AFIDA Form 153 must be filed within 90 days of closing where the buyer is a foreign person as defined under the statute. The form is filed with the FSA county office in the county where the land is located. For transactions involving land in multiple counties, a separate Form 153 is required for each county. The closing attorney or the buyer's counsel is typically responsible for preparing and filing Form 153, but the obligation runs to the buyer, not the seller or the closing agent. The purchase agreement and closing instructions should designate responsibility for AFIDA filing explicitly and should include a representation by the buyer regarding its foreign person status.
State foreign-ownership certification requirements vary by state and are evolving rapidly. Several states with adversarial-nation statutes have enacted forms or certification procedures under which buyers must attest to their compliance with the applicable state restriction before the deed can be recorded. In states where no certification form has been promulgated, counsel may draft a representation letter or affidavit addressing compliance with the applicable statute as a closing deliverable. County recorders in states with active foreign-ownership restrictions may require certification of compliance before recording a deed conveying agricultural land; counsel should confirm local recording requirements with the applicable county recorder's office before the closing date.
FSA farm record updates are required after any change in ownership of agricultural land. The new owner must contact the FSA county office after closing to update the farm records to reflect the change in operator and owner, transfer any active program contracts to the new owner where permitted, and complete any required forms for CRP or other program continuity. FSA Form CCC-36 authorizes the new owner to access and update the farm records. Failure to update FSA records promptly after closing can result in program payments being directed to the prior owner and can complicate future program enrollment.
Deed type selection in a farmland transaction follows the same general principles as in other real property transactions, but the specific deed form matters. A warranty deed conveys the property with full covenants of title and is the most buyer-protective form. A quitclaim deed conveys only whatever interest the grantor has without covenants of title and provides no protection against undisclosed claims. Special warranty deeds, sometimes called limited warranty deeds or bargain and sale deeds depending on the state, convey with covenants of title limited to claims arising through the grantor's period of ownership. For farmland transactions where the seller is an estate, trust, or other fiduciary, the applicable deed form may be constrained by the fiduciary's authority under the governing instrument, and the deed form should be confirmed with the grantor's counsel before the closing date.
Tenant notification obligations at closing depend on the terms of the existing lease and applicable state law. Some state agricultural landlord-tenant statutes require written notice to tenants of a change in ownership within a specified period after closing. Even where not required by statute, notifying the existing tenant of the change in ownership promptly after closing establishes the buyer's position as the new landlord and directs future rent payments and communications to the correct party. The purchase agreement should specify whether the seller or the buyer is responsible for tenant notification and should include a form of notice as an exhibit. Coordination with the tenant on a transition meeting before closing is a best practice for any farmland acquisition where a continuing tenant relationship is part of the acquisition plan.
Frequently Asked Questions
What AFIDA reporting timelines apply at closing?
Under the Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act, 7 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., a foreign person who acquires an interest in agricultural land must file USDA FSA Form 153 within 90 days of the acquisition date. The acquisition date is the date legal title transfers, which is typically the closing date. Late filings are subject to civil penalties of up to 25 percent of the fair market value of the interest acquired. The 90-day window applies to acquisitions and dispositions; an ongoing interest that changes character because the holder's foreign status changes also triggers a 90-day reporting obligation from the date of the change. Counsel should confirm AFIDA applicability before closing, not after, and should incorporate Form 153 preparation into the closing checklist for any transaction involving a foreign buyer or a domestic entity with foreign beneficial owners above the reporting threshold.
Which states currently restrict foreign ownership of farmland?
As of 2026, a substantial majority of states have enacted statutes restricting foreign ownership of agricultural land to some degree. Iowa's Chapter 9H prohibits foreign persons and entities from acquiring agricultural land and requires divestiture of non-compliant holdings. Missouri's Section 442.571 restricts nonresident alien ownership. Minnesota's Section 500.221 limits alien ownership of agricultural land. Indiana Code Section 32-22-6 restricts alien ownership. Wisconsin Chapter 710 addresses alien land ownership. Florida, Texas, Virginia, Ohio, and several other states have enacted statutes specifically targeting ownership by nationals of designated foreign adversary nations including China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. The scope of each restriction, including which entities qualify as foreign, what constitutes restricted agricultural land, and what penalties apply, varies significantly by state. Counsel must conduct a state-specific analysis for every farmland transaction involving any foreign nexus.
Do state foreign-ownership laws reach U.S. subsidiaries of foreign parents?
This is the central enforcement question in most contested foreign farmland transactions. The majority of state statutes that restrict foreign ownership define the prohibited owner by reference to beneficial ownership, control, or the nationality of the ultimate parent, not solely by the legal domicile of the direct titleholder. Iowa's Chapter 9H, for example, reaches entities where a foreign person holds a significant ownership or control interest, regardless of whether the direct acquirer is a U.S.-formed LLC or corporation. Many of the post-2022 adversarial-nation statutes in Florida, Texas, and Virginia go further by imposing look-through analysis to identify any ownership or control by nationals of designated nations. The practical consequence is that a Texas LLC wholly owned by a Chinese national cannot acquire Texas farmland that falls within the statute's scope by inserting a domestic entity between itself and the land. Counsel must trace the full beneficial ownership chain before advising on compliance.
How are long-term crop share and flex leases classified under state restrictions?
Several state foreign-ownership statutes treat long-term leases as functional equivalents of ownership for restriction purposes. Iowa's Chapter 9H applies to leases with terms of one year or longer, not just title acquisitions. Crop-share leases, under which a foreign lessee receives a percentage of the crop produced, can trigger reporting and restriction provisions depending on their term and structure. Flex-rent leases, which tie rent payments to commodity prices or yield benchmarks, may be analyzed as crop-share arrangements if the structure gives the lessee ongoing economic participation in production. The 2022-2026 wave of adversarial-nation statutes is less uniform on lease treatment, with some states explicitly covering leases above a specified term and others focused on ownership. Counsel should not assume a lease structure avoids state restrictions without a statute-specific analysis. AFIDA's federal reporting obligation applies to leaseholds of ten years or longer.
What CRP, CSP, and EQIP contracts carry forward and how do they transfer?
Conservation Reserve Program, Conservation Stewardship Program, and Environmental Quality Incentives Program contracts are administered by USDA FSA and NRCS and are tied to specific FSA farm serial numbers and tracts. CRP contracts have a fixed term and impose land use restrictions for the contract period; the current operator receives annual rental payments in exchange for keeping enrolled land out of production. At closing, CRP contracts may transfer to the buyer subject to FSA approval, or may be terminated by the seller with potential repayment of cost-share received. CSP and EQIP contracts similarly impose obligations tied to the FSA farm record and may require NRCS approval for assignment. Buyers must identify all active conservation contracts during diligence, understand the remaining term and payment obligations, obtain FSA or NRCS consent to assignment where required, and ensure the purchase agreement allocates pre-closing and post-closing payment rights and compliance obligations clearly.
How are severed mineral rights handled in a farm acquisition?
In a significant portion of farmland in the central and western United States, mineral rights have been severed from the surface estate and are owned separately. A surface buyer who does not also acquire the mineral rights takes subject to the rights of the mineral estate owner, including the right to use the surface as reasonably necessary for mineral development. The surface-use agreement, where one exists, specifies the terms under which the mineral owner may conduct operations on the surface. Buyers must confirm whether minerals are severed by reviewing the title chain, checking the legal description and prior deeds, and obtaining a title opinion that specifically addresses mineral ownership. If minerals are available for acquisition, the purchase price and purchase agreement must separately address the mineral estate. Pipeline easements, wind-farm ground leases, and other surface encumbrances may also exist on farmland and must be identified and reviewed as part of title diligence.
What water rights diligence is required in Arizona, California, and Colorado deals?
Western states operate under prior appropriation water law, which allocates water rights by priority date rather than by land ownership. In Arizona, groundwater rights in Active Management Areas are governed by the Arizona Department of Water Resources; buyers must obtain a water rights history for all wells on the property and confirm that irrigation water rights have been properly transferred or are appurtenant to the land. In California, water rights are a combination of riparian rights, pre-1914 appropriative rights, and post-1914 State Water Board permits; a water rights title search is a separate undertaking from the real property title search and requires counsel with state-specific expertise. In Colorado, water rights are adjudicated by water courts and transferred by deed recorded in the county where the water rights are decreed; buyers must obtain a current water rights decree search and confirm that ditches, shares, and well permits are properly appurtenant to or being conveyed with the farmland. In all three states, water availability for agricultural purposes is a material due diligence item that directly affects property value.
How does the 2024-2026 wave of state foreign-ownership legislation affect pending deals?
The period from 2024 through 2026 has produced the most significant expansion of state-level farmland foreign-ownership restrictions since the initial wave of alien land laws in the 1970s. Florida's SB 264, Texas HB 17, Virginia HB 1608, and Ohio's companion legislation have created a patchwork of restrictions targeting nationals of designated foreign adversary nations, with varying definitions of covered persons, covered land, covered transactions, and enforcement mechanisms. For deals in process, the key questions are whether the applicable statute applies to pending acquisitions or only to closings after the effective date, whether the statute contains a wind-down period for contracts signed before the effective date, and whether the buyer's ownership structure requires restructuring to comply. Several of these statutes impose divestiture obligations on existing owners, which creates risk for investors who acquired farmland before the statute's effective date. Counsel advising on any transaction with a foreign nexus in a state with adversarial-nation restrictions must monitor legislative developments and confirm the current enforcement posture of the relevant state attorney general.
Related Resources
Agribusiness, Food, and Ag M&A: Legal Guide
The complete legal framework for agribusiness and agricultural M&A transactions, from regulatory compliance through closing mechanics.
RelatedPackers and Stockyards Act USDA M&A Compliance
USDA Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration requirements, competitive conduct standards, and pre-merger notification in livestock and poultry transactions.
RelatedOrganic and FSMA Food Safety Diligence in M&A
USDA National Organic Program certification transfer, FDA FSMA preventive control requirements, and food safety compliance diligence in food and agriculture acquisitions.
Farmland M&A is not a simplified version of commercial real estate M&A with different assets. It is a distinct practice area that requires specific knowledge of federal agricultural law, state alien land statutes that are being rewritten in real time, conservation program mechanics, water and mineral rights regimes, and closing procedures that vary by state and county. The legal risk in a farmland acquisition that does not address these elements is not abstract. AFIDA penalties, state forfeiture provisions, and post-closing landlord-tenant disputes are concrete outcomes that attach to transactions that were not adequately prepared.
The transactions that close on the intended timeline and without post-closing disruption are the ones where counsel began the compliance analysis at the structure stage, completed the title and conservation diligence before signing the purchase agreement, and built every closing deliverable into a checklist that was tracked to completion. That preparation begins before the letter of intent, not after it.
Related Practice Areas
Our attorneys handle M&A transactions and securities matters nationwide. Alex Lubyansky leads every engagement personally.