For decades, property ownership was one of the more straightforward variables in a site selection process. Zoning, price, access, and timing mattered far more than who ultimately held title. That assumption no longer holds.

Today, ownership itself has become a constraint—particularly for foreign manufacturers evaluating U.S. expansion. In some cases, it is now as consequential as labor availability, infrastructure capacity, or permitting timelines. And unlike those traditional factors, ownership rules are changing rapidly and unevenly across the country.

State-level legislation restricting land ownership by foreign nationals or foreign-controlled entities is evolving at a pace that makes long-term planning challenging. In many states, these laws are updated annually, sometimes monthly, and they vary significantly in scope. Some focus narrowly on agricultural land. Others extend to industrial or commercial property. Some apply to nationals (individuals). Others to companies or government entities. Still others combine both.

For companies considering U.S. investment, this creates a level of uncertainty that did not exist even a few years ago. From a site selection standpoint, it requires a far more detailed and localized understanding of property law before a location can realistically be considered viable.

What complicates matters further is that legislation is only part of the picture. Economic development policy does not always move in lockstep with statutory restrictions. There are states where the law creates barriers, but local or regional development organizations remain open to engaging with foreign industrial clients. In other cases, the signal is clearly the opposite despite non-regulation.

Navigating that gap between law and policy has become one of the most challenging aspects of the process. It requires not only familiarity with the statutes themselves, but also an understanding of how they are interpreted, enforced, and paired with local development priorities.

Uncertainty Is Driving “Wait and See”

For many foreign manufacturers—particularly Chinese industrial companies—the result has been a cautious, more circumspect approach. Some are diverting attention toward Europe or Mexico. Others are pausing entirely, waiting for more clarity on trade policy, tariffs, and future agreements.

The pending renegotiation of the USMCA agreement only adds to that uncertainty. Companies evaluating a Mexico-based strategy to serve U.S. customers are doing so without a reliable view of what market access will look like in the near future. That ambiguity has slowed decision-making, with no definitive timelines for clarity in sight.

At the same time, there is a genuine sense of urgency. Many of these companies are already serving a customer base in the United States. Tariffs and other trade barriers like the ease and availability of securing visas directly affect pricing, competitiveness, and speed to market. Other would-be investors are simply trying to shorten supply chains and operate closer to end users, just as multinational manufacturers from every country have done for decades.

In this context, “wait and see” is not a lack of interest. It is a risk management strategy.

Industrial Reality Still Matters

One reality that cannot be ignored is the existence and scale of global industrial production. China represents a substantial share of worldwide manufacturing output—far exceeding any other country. That production capacity does not disappear because of legislative discomfort or political tension.

From a practical standpoint, that means U.S. site selection professionals, economic developers, and policymakers must grapple with how engagement occurs, not whether it occurs at all. Everyone can agree that protecting family farms, agricultural lands and sensitive military assets is vitally important. However, ignoring the reality of exceptionally capable foreign companies does not eliminate demand or competition; it simply pushes activity elsewhere, creates workaround joint ventures and mergers, generates new and unregulated border economies, or simply delays investment decisions altogether.

There is also historical perspective worth remembering. In the 1960s and 1970s, Japanese manufacturers faced intense skepticism in the U.S. market, especially the automotive sector. Their products were dismissed, access was constrained, and voluntary export restraints were imposed. Over time, competition drove improvements in quality, efficiency, and innovation—benefiting both foreign producers and domestic industries.

That evolution did not happen in spite of competition. It happened because of it.

The Path Forward: Precision Over Prohibition

None of this minimizes legitimate national security concerns. The United States already has a formal process through CFIUS to assess risks tied to foreign investment. That framework exists precisely to evaluate sensitive cases at a national level. This too has become an ever-more important consideration in the site selection process.

At the local level, economic developers are very capable of conducting robust due diligence when necessary. The challenge arises when broad, inflexible restrictions remove the ability to evaluate projects on their individual merits.

From a site selection perspective, precision matters. Treating all foreign investment the same—regardless of industry, customer base, operational footprint, or ultimate location—limits options and valuable economic growth for both communities and companies alike. It also introduces unnecessary friction into a process that already faces tight timelines and rising costs.

As property law increasingly shapes where and how projects can move forward, existing and proposed legislation and land ownership must be evaluated early and carefully in any location strategy. It is no longer a back-end legal detail. It is a front-end site constraint.

The most effective path forward will balance security with flexibility—allowing individual projects to be assessed thoughtfully rather than broadly excluded. For companies navigating this environment, and for regions competing for investment, that balance will determine who remains competitive in an increasingly complex industrial landscape.