Onslow (NC) Investor Pulse Report (2025-Q4)

Investors hold a significant footprint in Onslow County, owning 15,479 single-family residential properties, which constitutes 25.3% of the total market of 61,078 SFRs.

The investor landscape is overwhelmingly composed of individual owners rather than corporations. Individuals own 13,509 properties, accounting for 87.3% of the investor-owned market, compared to 2,108 properties (13.6%) owned by companies.

This individual dominance extends to the entity level, where 18,460 of the 19,662 total landlords are individuals, making up 93.9% of all investor entities in the county.

In terms of financing, cash is the preferred method for holding assets. Investors hold 8,685 properties with cash, significantly more than the 6,794 properties that are financed.

The portfolio is heavily geared towards rental income, with 15,094 of the 15,479 investor-owned properties being rented, a massive 97.5% concentration that underscores the business focus of these holdings.

In a surprising reversal of typical market dynamics, landlords in Onslow County paid significantly more than traditional homeowners in Q4 2025. The average landlord acquisition price was $354,365, a 10.1% premium over the homeowner average of $321,857.

This amounts to a $32,508 higher price tag per property for investors, indicating they are competing aggressively and directly with retail buyers for inventory.

This trend of paying a premium has been consistent throughout 2025. Landlords paid 33.0% more in Q3 ($108,040 premium), 10.2% more in Q2 ($33,825 premium), and 17.2% more in Q1 ($55,758 premium), signaling a sustained, competitive purchasing environment.

Comparing recent activity to the pandemic era (2020-2023), property values have seen substantial appreciation. The average landlord acquisition price in 2025 ($383,432) is 38.5% higher than the average during the 2020-2023 period ($276,894).

Investors were a major force in the Q4 2025 market, purchasing 174 of the 835 total SFRs sold, capturing a 20.8% market share of all transactions.

The market continues to be fueled by new and small investors. In Q4, 141 new single-property landlords entered the market, acquiring 97 properties, which represents 55.4% of all landlord purchases for the quarter.

Mom-and-pop landlords (portfolios of 1-10 properties) dominated acquisition activity, collectively buying 143 properties. This accounts for a commanding 81.7% of all investor purchases, reinforcing the grassroots nature of the local rental market.

In stark contrast, institutional investors with portfolios of over 1,000 properties had a minimal impact, purchasing only 11 homes. This means mom-and-pop investors acquired 13 times more properties than their institutional counterparts in Q4.

The small-to-mid-size investor segment (11-1000 properties) was also active but to a lesser degree, acquiring a combined 25 properties, or 14.4% of the landlord total.

The ownership structure of Onslow County's rental market is definitively controlled by small-scale investors. Mom-and-pop landlords (1-10 properties) own a combined 94.9% of the 15,479 investor-owned SFRs.

This concentration at the small end of the market challenges the narrative of large corporate dominance. Single-property landlords are the bedrock of the market, owning 12,111 properties, which accounts for 75.0% of all investor-owned housing stock.

Institutional investors (1,000+ properties) hold a minor position in the county, with a portfolio of 293 properties, or just 1.8% of the investor market. This indicates that large-scale capital has not significantly penetrated this specific geography.

The entire mid-to-large investor segment (11-1000 properties) collectively owns only 3.3% of investor-held SFRs, further emphasizing the market's reliance on small operators.

The distribution clearly shows a long-tail market structure, where thousands of small landlords, rather than a few large players, provide the vast majority of rental housing.

A clear crossover point from individual to corporate ownership emerges as portfolio sizes grow. While individuals dominate smaller tiers, companies become the majority owners (58.0%) in the small-medium tier of 11-20 properties.

The data shows a distinct downward trend in individual ownership as portfolios scale up. Individuals own 93.8% of single-property holdings, which drops to 78.3% in the 3-5 property tier and 63.6% in the 6-10 property tier.

This pattern suggests that incorporation is a key strategic step for landlords looking to professionalize and expand their operations beyond the 10-property mark.

Even in the 21-50 property tier, individual ownership remains significant at 48.8%, indicating that a substantial number of mid-size landlords continue to operate without a corporate structure.

This analysis reveals two distinct investor paths: the vast majority of individuals who operate at a small scale, and a smaller group of professionalized investors who adopt corporate structures to facilitate growth.

Geographic concentration is a defining feature of the Onslow County investor market. Just three zip codes—28546 (3,935 properties), 28540 (3,319 properties), and 28460 (2,719 properties)—account for 9,973 properties, or 64.4% of the entire investor portfolio.

There is a clear distinction between the areas with the highest count of investor properties and those with the highest percentage of investor ownership. While 28546 leads in volume, its investor ownership rate is 24.8%.

In contrast, smaller zip codes exhibit extreme investor saturation. Zip code 28572 has the highest rate at 80.0%, followed by 28547 at 50.0%, indicating these are primarily rental neighborhoods.

The zip code 28460 is a notable hotspot, appearing in the top lists for both volume (3rd with 2,719 properties) and concentration (4th with a 37.1% ownership rate), marking it as a critical hub for investor activity.

This data highlights distinct geographic strategies, with some investors targeting high-volume areas while others focus on markets with deep rental penetration.

Investors across the board demonstrated strong confidence in the Onslow County market by acting as decisive net buyers. In Q4 2025, landlords purchased 226 properties while selling only 93, resulting in a net gain of 133 properties and a buy-to-sell ratio of 2.43x.

This bullish behavior is not a recent development. The net buying trend has been consistent throughout the year, with a ratio of 3.42x in Q3 and 2.92x in Q2, culminating in 705 net properties added in 2025.

Institutional investors (1,000+ properties) are also in a strong accumulation phase. In Q4, they purchased 11 properties and sold only one, an aggressive 11x ratio that signals strategic growth.

Throughout 2025, institutional players acquired 26 properties while divesting only 5, for a net increase of 21 properties and a yearly buy-to-sell ratio of 5.2x.

The consistent net buying activity from all investor segments, from small mom-and-pops to large institutions, points to a widespread belief in the future growth and stability of the local housing market.

In Q4, landlord-involved transactions numbered 226 out of a total market of 1,315, giving investors a 17.2% share of all transaction activity.

A dramatic pricing disparity reveals fundamentally different acquisition strategies across tiers. First-time landlords (Tier 1) paid the highest average price at $449,361 per property. In sharp contrast, institutional investors (Tier 9) paid the lowest, at $174,803.

This price difference of $274,558 demonstrates that institutional buyers are not competing in the same retail market as new investors, instead leveraging scale and networks to secure properties at a 61.1% discount.

The source of acquisitions further highlights this divide. Institutional investors are heavily active in the landlord-to-landlord market, acquiring 54.5% of their properties from existing investors. This suggests access to off-market or portfolio deals.

Conversely, new single-property landlords are almost exclusively buying from the open market, with only 8.5% of their purchases coming from other landlords. This reliance on retail inventory likely contributes to the higher prices they pay.