Union (OH) Investor Pulse Report (2025-Q4)

In Union County, Ohio, landlords collectively own 2,895 single-family residential (SFR) properties, representing 16.6% of the total SFR market. This establishes a significant, albeit minority, presence of investor-owned housing.

The landscape of landlord ownership is heavily skewed towards individual investors, who account for 2,600 properties, or 89.8% of the entire investor-owned SFR portfolio. In contrast, company-owned properties represent a much smaller share at 344 properties, or 11.9%, indicating a market dominated by mom-and-pop entities rather than large corporate landlords.

Further analysis of landlord types by entity count reinforces this pattern, with individual landlords numbering 4,027 (94.8%) compared to just 223 (5.2%) company landlords. This significant numerical disparity between individual and company entities reveals a fragmented and highly individualized investor base.

A striking 97.7% of all landlord-owned properties are rented, totaling 2,829 properties, highlighting the market's primary function as a rental housing provider. This strong non-owner-occupied rate confirms that these properties are almost exclusively held for income generation.

Regarding acquisition methods, 1,793 properties (61.9%) are financed, while 1,102 properties (38.1%) were acquired using cash. This blend suggests that both leveraged and unleveraged investment strategies are prevalent among landlords in the county, reflecting diverse financial approaches to property acquisition.

In Q4 2025, landlords in Union County demonstrated a notable pricing advantage, acquiring properties at an average of $437,978. This represents a $19,734 discount, or 4.3% less, compared to the $457,712 paid by traditional homeowners during the same period.

The quarter-over-quarter trend in pricing differences has been highly dynamic. In Q1 2025, landlords benefited from a 1.6% discount, paying $7,126 less than homeowners. However, this trend reversed in Q2 and Q3, where landlords paid slight premiums of 0.9% ($4,332) and 2.1% ($9,829) respectively, suggesting a period of more competitive bidding or different property profiles.

The return to a significant discount in Q4 indicates a potential shift in market conditions or a change in landlord purchasing strategies, allowing them to secure properties at more favorable prices compared to individual homeowners.

Comparing annual pricing, the average landlord acquisition price for Year 2025 was $457,061. This represents an 11.8% increase over the average acquisition price of $408,710 during the pandemic-era boom of 2020-2023, signaling continued property value appreciation in the market despite fluctuations in landlord vs. homeowner price gaps.

Landlords significantly impacted the Union County SFR market in Q4 2025, accounting for 91 (49.7%) of the total 183 SFR purchases. This demonstrates a substantial market presence, with almost half of all properties sold entering investor portfolios.

The vast majority of this landlord purchasing activity originated from mom-and-pop investors (Tiers 01-04), who acquired 85 properties, representing an impressive 93.4% of all landlord purchases. This highlights their continued dominance in market acquisition trends, rather than institutional players.

Specifically, single-property landlords (Tier 01) were the most active segment, purchasing 80 properties, which equates to 87.9% of all landlord acquisitions in Q4. This influx of 80 new single-property landlords underscores a strong entry rate for smaller-scale investors in the market.

In stark contrast, institutional investors (Tier 09, 1000+ properties) made only 1 purchase in Q4, accounting for a mere 1.1% of landlord acquisitions. This minimal activity suggests that large-scale corporate buying is not a significant driver of current market dynamics in Union County.

The distribution across other mid-size tiers was also low, with Tiers 05-08 contributing 6 properties (6.6%) to landlord purchases. This further solidifies the narrative of a market propelled by small and emerging landlords.

Mom-and-pop landlords, encompassing those with 1 to 10 properties (Tiers 01-04), collectively control an overwhelming 96.3% of all investor-owned SFR properties in Union County, Ohio, totaling 2,788 properties. This finding strongly contradicts any narrative suggesting a corporate takeover of the local housing market.

The vast majority of this mom-and-pop dominance comes from single-property landlords (Tier 01), who own 2,499 properties, representing 85.6% of the entire investor-owned portfolio. This highlights the crucial role of individual, entry-level investors in shaping the market's composition.

In contrast, institutional investors (Tier 09, 1000+ properties) hold a very limited footprint in Union County, owning only 69 properties, which amounts to a mere 2.4% of the total investor-owned SFR. This low concentration indicates that large-scale investment firms have not significantly penetrated this local market.

The distribution shows a steep drop-off after Tier 01, with Tier 02 holding 3.0% (89 properties), Tier 03-05 holding 4.9% (142 properties), and Tier 06-10 holding 2.0% (58 properties). This rapid decline in share across larger small-to-mid-size tiers further emphasizes the fragmented nature of ownership.

Mid-size landlords (Tiers 05-08) collectively own a small 1.9% share (54 properties), indicating that growth beyond the mom-and-pop scale rapidly consolidates into a few larger entities, but still pales in comparison to the smallest investors.

Individual investors overwhelmingly dominate the smaller portfolio tiers in Union County, maintaining significant control up to 10 properties. Single-property portfolios (Tier 01) are 94.9% individual-owned (2,406 properties), with company ownership at a mere 5.1% (129 properties).

This individual dominance gradually decreases but remains strong through the mom-and-pop segments: two-property tiers are 80.9% individual (72 properties), and 3-5 property tiers are 73.2% individual (104 properties). Even in the 6-10 property tier, individuals still hold a majority at 55.2% (37 properties).

A distinct crossover point occurs at the 11-20 property tier, where company ownership dramatically overtakes individual holdings. In this tier, companies control an astonishing 96.8% of properties (30 properties), while individual investors account for a minimal 3.2% (1 property).

This pattern indicates that while initial market entry and small-scale investment are primarily driven by individuals, larger portfolio accumulation rapidly shifts towards corporate entities, highlighting different operational and growth strategies.

This demonstrates a clear segmentation of the market: small-scale investment is largely personal, whereas mid-to-large-scale portfolios are almost exclusively managed by companies, indicating a strategic preference for corporate structures as portfolios expand.

Within Union County, Ohio, investor-owned properties are heavily concentrated in specific zip codes. OH-Union-43040 significantly leads in sheer volume, with 1,302 investor-owned SFR properties, representing 15.7% of its local market. This zip code is clearly the primary hub for investor activity by count.

Following a substantial drop-off, OH-Union-43045 registers 131 investor-owned properties, but boasts a higher investor ownership rate of 21.9%. This suggests that while it has fewer properties overall, a larger proportion of its available housing stock is held by investors, indicating a more saturated local market.

A striking finding is in OH-Union-43036, which, despite not appearing in the top ranks by property count, shows an exceptionally high investor ownership rate of 72.2%. This indicates a highly specialized or niche sub-market within the county where investors dominate nearly three-quarters of the SFR properties.

Other notable zip codes by count include OH-Union-43016 with 90 investor-owned properties and a 9.9% ownership rate. The presence of several zip codes with "nan" properties highlights data limitations but underscores the importance of focusing on regions with complete and robust data for accurate analysis.

The contrast between leading by property count (OH-Union-43040) and leading by ownership percentage (OH-Union-43036) reveals distinct market characteristics, where some areas attract high volume of investment, while others experience deep investor penetration regardless of overall property stock.

Landlords in Union County have consistently been strong net buyers throughout 2025, demonstrating robust property accumulation. In Q4 alone, they purchased 137 properties while selling only 13, resulting in an impressive buy/sell ratio of 10.54x.

Looking at the entire year, landlords acquired 622 properties against 47 sells, achieving an even higher buy/sell ratio of 13.23x for 2025. This long-term trend confirms a sustained strategy of expansion and investment in the local SFR market, outpacing divestment significantly.

The overall landlord buying activity also saw a slight quarter-over-quarter fluctuation within 2025, with Q3 registering the highest buy count at 184 properties (15.33x ratio) compared to Q4's 137 buys. However, all quarters consistently showed landlords as net accumulators.

In stark contrast to the overall landlord market, institutional investors (1000+ properties) exhibit a dramatically different transaction pattern. In 2025, they maintained a neutral stance with 2 buys and 2 sells, resulting in a 1.0x buy/sell ratio, indicating neither accumulation nor significant divestment.

Furthermore, in 2024, institutional investors were net sellers, with 3 buys against 5 sells, resulting in a 0.6x buy/sell ratio. This divergence suggests that while the broader landlord market is expanding, institutional players are either maintaining existing portfolios or slightly divesting rather than actively growing their presence in Union County.

Landlords played a substantial role in the Union County SFR market in Q4 2025, participating in 137 transactions, which represents 46.9% of the total 292 transactions recorded. This indicates a highly liquid market with significant investor involvement.

Transaction volumes varied dramatically by investor tier. Single-property landlords (Tier 01) were by far the most active, accounting for 126 transactions. In contrast, institutional investors (Tier 09) and mid-sized landlords (Tiers 02-08) showed minimal activity, each contributing between 1 and 3 transactions.

A striking price disparity emerged across tiers: single-property landlords (Tier 01) paid the highest average purchase price at $435,000. In contrast, institutional investors (Tier 09) paid substantially less, averaging $143,333, which is a 67.0% discount compared to Tier 01 buyers. This highlights distinct strategies, with larger investors potentially targeting lower-priced or distressed assets.

Inter-landlord trading activity was relatively low overall, with single-property landlords (Tier 01) acquiring only 8 properties (6.3% of their purchases) from other landlords. However, a small group of small-medium landlords (Tier 21-50) showed a higher reliance on this channel, with 1 of their 2 transactions (50.0%) coming from other landlords, suggesting niche market dynamics.

The concentration of transactions among single-property landlords, coupled with their higher average purchase prices, suggests that the newest and smallest investors are primarily engaging with higher-value properties, while larger players are strategically acquiring lower-cost assets, indicating a segmented market based on investor size and price point.