Florida’s Foreign Direct Investment Restrictions: A Focused Sector Overview

Florida has entered a new regulatory phase in its treatment of foreign direct investment (FDI). Enacted in 2023, the legislation restricts certain foreign investors (“foreign principals”) classified under statutory definitions as being associated with “foreign countries of concern” from acquiring or holding interests in specified categories of property within the state. For Florida law firms advising on cross-border transactions, real estate acquisitions, technology investments, and agribusiness matters, these developments materially alter the compliance landscape.

With this move, Florida now joins a growing group of U.S. states asserting state-level oversight over foreign investment, operating alongside federal review mechanisms.

Scope and Framework of Florida’s FDI Restrictions

The Florida statute empowers state authorities to prevent, review, or unwind transactions that fall within its prohibitions, including:

• Acquiring or controlling agricultural land anywhere in Florida; and
  
• Acquiring real property located within a ten-mile radius of military installations or critical infrastructure facilities.

The definition of “critical infrastructure” is intentionally expansive and encompasses, among other assets, power generation facilities, refineries, chemical plants, airports, seaports, telecommunications hubs, water treatment facilities, and transportation networks.

In parallel, Florida prohibits state and local government entities from contracting with companies linked to such foreign principals where the contractual engagement would grant access to sensitive personal data. This provision reflects growing concern around data security, digital infrastructure, and indirect foreign influence over public systems.

These state-level controls operate in conjunction with federal mechanisms reviewed by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). Importantly, Florida’s geographic thresholds and asset classifications do not always mirror federal review parameters. As a result, transactions that appear compliant under one regime may still trigger exposure under the other, necessitating a coordinated compliance strategy.

Sectoral Impact Analysis

Real Estate

Florida’s real estate market has long attracted international capital, particularly in urban, coastal, and commercial development projects. The new FDI restrictions, however, impose categorical prohibitions on property acquisitions by restricted foreign principals in both agricultural land and designated sensitive zones.

Any transaction involving real estate located near military bases, ports, power plants, or similar infrastructure now requires affirmative verification of the buyer’s status. Purchasers must provide statutory affidavits confirming they are not foreign principals from restricted jurisdictions, and failure to comply exposes transactions to invalidation.

The enforcement mechanisms are significant. The state may seek forfeiture of property acquired in violation of the law, rendering the transaction void and exposing both buyers and intermediaries to legal and financial risk. Consequently, sellers, developers, lenders, and legal counsel must embed enhanced nationality and ownership screening into transaction workflows.

While Florida remains attractive to global investors from non-restricted jurisdictions, the compliance burden has increased substantially, making rigorous pre-transaction diligence indispensable.

Technology and Critical Infrastructure

Although framed largely through property ownership restrictions, Florida’s FDI regime has direct implications for technology companies and infrastructure operators. Assets classified as critical infrastructure are effectively removed from the pool of permissible foreign acquisition by restricted principals.

Additionally, the prohibition on public contracts involving access to personal data significantly affects IT service providers, cloud platforms, software vendors, and data-driven enterprises. Companies with ownership ties to restricted jurisdictions are effectively excluded from a wide range of government-facing opportunities.

From a transactional perspective, technology investments involving foreign capital now require careful assessment of:

• Ownership and control rights;
• Data access and governance structures; and
• Physical proximity of facilities to protected infrastructure.

Agriculture and Forestry

Florida’s agricultural sector is subject to the most absolute restriction under the new framework. The law prohibits restricted foreign principals from owning or acquiring agricultural land anywhere within the state, including farmland, timberland, and forestry assets.

This represents a marked departure from Florida’s historically permissive stance on foreign land ownership. The restriction applies not only to direct acquisitions but also to indirect ownership structures, including U.S. subsidiaries controlled by foreign parent entities.

The statute also intersects with the critical infrastructure rules, meaning agricultural land located near protected facilities may be doubly restricted. The practical effect is a narrowed pool of permissible international buyers, with compliance hinging on tracing ultimate beneficial ownership and control.

For landowners and agribusiness operators, transactional certainty now depends on ownership verification and legal structuring at an early stage.

Compliance Imperatives for Cross-Border Transactions

Given the breadth of the restrictions and the severity of enforcement consequences, FDI compliance must be treated as a core transactional risk.

Key compliance measures include:

• Investor Due Diligence: Mapping ownership structures to identify ultimate beneficial owners and assess exposure to restricted jurisdictions.
  
• Asset and Location Analysis: Determining whether property or facilities fall within restricted land categories or protected zones.
  
• Affidavit and Registration Compliance: Ensuring mandatory filings, affidavits, and registrations are completed accurately and retained.
  
• State–Federal Coordination: Aligning Florida-specific compliance with federal investment controls, export regulations, and national security review processes.
  
• Ongoing Regulatory Monitoring: Tracking legislative amendments, regulatory guidance, and judicial developments affecting FDI enforcement.
  

Non-compliance carries consequences beyond financial penalties, including transaction nullification, forced divestiture, and reputational harm.

The Role of Global Legal Networks in FDI Compliance

Understanding Florida’s FDI restrictions requires not only local regulatory knowledge but also an understanding of foreign ownership regimes, outbound investment rules, and cross-border control structures. For many Florida-based law firms, this creates a strategic need for reliable international collaboration.

Global legal networks such as Interlegal provide a practical solution. By connecting independent law firms across multiple jurisdictions, Interlegal enables coordinated due diligence, jurisdiction-specific risk assessment, and seamless cross-border advisory support.

The network membership offers:

• Immediate access to trusted foreign counsel for ownership verification and investor profiling;
  
• Integrated state and international compliance analysis;
  
• Shared intelligence on evolving FDI, trade, and investment regulations; and
  
• Enhanced credibility when advising multinational clients and investors.

In a regulatory environment where foreign investment compliance increasingly determines deal viability, the ability to deliver coordinated, multi-jurisdictional legal advice is a competitive differentiator.

Conclusion

Florida’s FDI restrictions reflect a broader recalibration of the balance between economic openness and national security. Real estate, technology, and agriculture transactions involving foreign capital are now subject to a more exacting legal framework that demands early risk identification and disciplined compliance execution.

Law firms and businesses that adapt by strengthening due diligence processes, aligning state and federal compliance strategies, and leveraging international legal collaboration will be best positioned to operate effectively within this new regime.