'Mobile homes' aren't mobile anymore - and that's a problem
Private equity is taking over the land that manufactured homes sit on and the owners are trapped
• A U.S. Senator seeks answers from six major investment firms amid rising lot rents and complaints of deteriorating living conditions
• Letters cite growing corporate consolidation in manufactured housing and heightened risks for residents with limited mobility
• Inquiry follows reports of sharp rent increases, alleged retaliation and maintenance failures in communities across New England
Senator targets corporate owners as complaints surge
U.S. Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH), the ranking member of the Joint Economic Committee, is demanding answers from six corporate owners of manufactured housing communities amid mounting concerns about affordability and living conditions for millions of residents.
Hassan sent letters to Alden Global Capital (parent of Homes of America), Patriot Holdings, Philips International, Legacy Communities, the BoaVida Group and Sun Communities, asking each to explain how their business practices are affecting manufactured housing communities in New England.
Roughly 22 million Americans live in manufactured homes, according to the Urban Institute. They are commonly located in land-lease communities where residents own their homes but rent the ground beneath them.
“From the state where 20% of our homes are mobile ‘cause that’s how we roll, I’m Brooke Mosteller, Miss South Carolina.” - a recent p.r. release
Corporate consolidation raises affordability concerns
Hassan’s letter notes that investment firms have rapidly expanded their ownership of mobile-home parks in recent years, with acquisitions reaching an estimated $9.4 billion in 2021. Between 2019 and 2021, such firms accounted for 23% of manufactured housing community purchases, including properties acquired by Alden Global Capital.
The senator warned that residents—who include “significant numbers of seniors, people with disabilities, low-income families, and rural households”—have limited ability to move because manufactured homes are expensive to relocate and often hard to sell. As a result, she said, residents have “few if any options” when confronted with steep rent hikes, lease changes or other decisions by corporate owners.
Rent hikes far outpace traditional housing
Hassan cited reports showing that rents in manufactured housing communities rose more than five times faster than apartment rents between 2023 and 2024. In Maine, communities owned by the BoaVida Group and Philips International reportedly saw rent increases exceeding 50% since 2021.
Some companies explicitly highlight rent growth as part of their investment strategy. Patriot Holdings, which owns several communities in New England, promotes expected “rent increases in line with market demand,” which it describes as “booming.”
The senator also noted recent legal scrutiny: in 2024, Homes of America agreed to repay residents in West Virginia after settling claims over an allegedly unlawful rent increase that plaintiffs called “unconscionable.”
Allegations of collusion and deteriorating conditions
Beyond rent hikes, Hassan pointed to broader allegations of anticompetitive behavior. A 2023 federal complaint in Illinois accused Sun Communities and others of sharing sensitive, non-public data through a third-party analytics provider to “systematically and unlawfully” raise lot rents above inflation and historical norms. Attorneys general in Connecticut and Minnesota have launched similar inquiries into investor-owned properties.
Residents have also reported worsening living conditions under some corporate owners. Complaints include insufficient maintenance, staffing cuts, decaying infrastructure, pest infestations, poor water quality and health hazards such as respiratory illness.
Reports of retaliation and barriers to legal action
Hassan additionally highlighted claims that some firms have sought to intimidate or legally pressure residents who challenge business practices. Residents in West Virginia alleged that Homes of America threatened substantial rent increases unless they waived rights under state law. In another case, the same company reportedly sued a resident for “interfering” with its contractual relationships after she organized rights-education clinics.
Meanwhile, complex ownership structures and arbitration provisions may hinder residents’ ability to pursue claims. A study cited by Hassan found that some firms use “onerous” arbitration clauses that raise costs and reduce procedural protections, while multiple shell companies often obscure who actually owns a community. The Government Accountability Office has similarly warned that ownership information for manufactured housing communities is often limited or opaque.
Trailer for sale or rent, rooms to let 50 cents - Roger Miller
Inquiry aims to inform congressional oversight
Hassan said the requested information will help Congress better understand how corporate consolidation is affecting affordability and safety in a critical segment of the nation’s housing stock. “Given this impact on our economy… and the pressing need to increase access to safe, reliable housing that people can afford, I seek more information on your business practices,” she wrote.
The six companies have been asked to respond to the committee with detailed information about their rent-setting practices, ownership structures, maintenance policies and procedures for addressing resident complaints.
Don’t call them “mobile”
A lower-cost ownership model under pressure
Manufactured homes have long been one of the nation’s most affordable paths to homeownership. The homes themselves typically cost 30–50% less per square foot than site-built houses, making them an attractive option for lower-income households, seniors and rural residents. But unlike traditional homeowners, many manufactured-home residents do not own the land beneath their homes, creating vulnerabilities that skew the economics sharply.
Manufactured housing: the economic fundamentals
• Lower home price, higher long-term risk
Manufactured homes are relatively affordable upfront, but residents often face escalating lot rents and limited control over the stability of their housing. Because moving a manufactured home can cost $5,000–$15,000—and risks structural damage—most owners stay put, giving landowners significant leverage over rent setting.
• Rent increases outpacing the broader market
Lot rents in corporate-owned communities have grown five times faster than apartment rents over the last year. In some New England properties, rates have jumped 50% or more since 2021—far above inflation and typical wage growth.
• Investors seek predictable cash flow
Private equity firms increasingly view manufactured housing as a stable, recession-resistant asset. The business model hinges on:
Rising lot rents (predictable, recurring revenue)
Low resident mobility (reduced turnover)
Underinvestment opportunities (cutting staff or maintenance to widen margins)
These dynamics can generate high returns for investors while reducing affordability for residents.
Traditional housing: more mobility, more protection
• Homeowners typically control their land
In the site-built market, owners rarely face sudden land rent increases or rapid shifts in lease terms. Property taxes rise over time, but they are regulated and publicly disclosed.
• Moving and refinancing are realistic options
Traditional homeowners can refinance, sell or relocate more easily. Manufactured homeowners often cannot sell quickly because buyers may be deterred by high lot rents or poor park conditions.
• Maintenance responsibilities differ
Site-built homeowners maintain their own property but can also rely on local code enforcement. In manufactured housing communities, owners may be responsible for the home while relying on park managers for roads, water systems and infrastructure—services that can decline under absentee or investor ownership.
It doesn’t have to be this way
Manufactured homes have long fascinated theorists and idealists. The celebrated 1960s futurist R. Buckminster Fuller tirelessly promoted his geodesic domes as a economical and ecologically sound alternative to traditional and manufactured housing. More recently, The Pew Charitable Trusts organized a conference of housing advocates, lenders, and policymakers, who emphasized the urgent need to modernize financing rules for manufactured homes, which are often cheaper, energy-efficient, and just as durable as traditional houses.
As the United States grapples with a historic housing shortage of 4 to 7 million homes, experts eye the once-derided “house trailer” as a solution hiding in plain sight.
Affordable yet out of reach
Modern manufactured homes, built under updated HUD construction codes, can cost up to two-thirds less per square foot than site-built homes. More than 22 million Americans currently live in them, yet many remain locked out of affordable financing due to outdated laws and systemic lending obstacles, Pew researchers say.
A key issue? Titling. In most states, manufactured homes are automatically titled as personal property, like a vehicle—rather than real estate. This classification often disqualifies buyers from mortgages, forcing them into higher-cost, riskier alternatives.
“Manufactured home financing is the major holdback,” said Dave Anderson, executive director of the National Manufactured Home Owners Association. “If the financing was improved, it would open the floodgate.”
The risks of alternative financing
According to Pew, only 44% of manufactured home buyers have a mortgage. The rest rely on home-only loans, which carry higher interest rates, shorter terms, and fewer protections.
Worse, a significant portion—particularly those unable to title their home as real estate—resort to contract financing arrangements like lease-purchase or land contracts. These deals often lack clear terms and legal protections, putting borrowers at elevated risk of eviction, equity loss, or fraud.
Three key policy opportunities
Speakers at the Pew event identified three major reforms to unlock safer, more accessible financing for manufactured homebuyers:
Modernize Titling Laws: States can revise legal frameworks to make it easier for manufactured homes to be titled as real estate, enabling access to mortgages and refinancing options.
Revive FHA Title I Loan Program: The Federal Housing Administration should update its home-only loan program to mirror standard mortgage policies—such as underwriting automation and allowable fees—making it more attractive for lenders.
Enhance Protections for Contract Financing: Lawmakers at both the federal and state level should bolster consumer protections for borrowers using nontraditional financing arrangements