Union (IL) Investor Pulse Report (2026-Q1)

In Union County, investors hold a 10.8% share of the single-family residential market, owning 454 out of 4,208 total properties. This indicates a modest but established investor presence within the local housing ecosystem.

The investor landscape is defined by individuals rather than corporations. Individual landlords own 423 properties (a 93.2% share of the investor-owned stock), while companies own just 45 (a 9.9% share). This is further reflected in the entity count, where 502 individual landlords vastly outnumber the 40 company landlords.

A defining characteristic of this market is the preference for cash purchases. A commanding 83.3% of investor-owned properties (378 homes) are held without financing, compared to only 76 properties (16.7%) that carry a mortgage. This suggests a fiscally conservative and low-leverage approach to real estate investing.

The portfolio's primary purpose is clear, with 434 of the 454 properties (95.6%) being rented or otherwise non-owner-occupied. This high concentration underscores that the vast majority of investor-owned homes directly serve the local rental market.

The data paints a picture of a market dominated by local, individual investors who prefer to own their properties outright. The minimal corporate footprint suggests that large-scale, institutional strategies have not penetrated this county.

A dramatic pricing disparity defines Union County's real estate market. In Q1 2026, landlords acquired properties for an average of just $25,500, while traditional homeowners paid an average of $146,232. This represents a massive $120,732 price gap, or an 82.6% discount for investors.

The investor discount has not only been consistent but has been accelerating. The 82.6% price gap in Q1 2026 is a significant increase from the 79.6% gap in Q3 2025 and the 64.7% gap in Q1 2025, indicating a growing divergence in the types of properties targeted by investors versus homeowners.

Over the past year, landlord acquisition prices have trended downward, falling from $45,700 in Q1 2025 to the current $25,500. This suggests investors are successfully targeting distressed, off-market, or lower-value properties that do not attract conventional buyers.

In contrast, homeowner prices have remained in a much higher range, fluctuating between $129,625 and $154,394 over the same period. This highlights two parallel markets operating at vastly different price points within the same county.

This trend suggests a sophisticated acquisition strategy among local investors, who are able to identify and secure properties far below the typical market rate paid by the average homebuyer.

Investor purchasing activity in Q4 2025 was modest, with landlords acquiring 3 of the 26 total SFRs sold, capturing an 11.5% market share of sales. This level of activity points to a steady but not aggressive acquisition environment.

The entirety of Q4 purchasing was driven by small-scale investors. Mom-and-pop landlords (1-10 properties) accounted for 100% of the 3 acquisitions, with zero properties purchased by mid-size or institutional players.

Market growth is happening at the smallest level. Two new, single-property landlords entered the market in Q4, acquiring two-thirds of all investor-purchased properties for the quarter. This highlights the accessible entry point for new investors in Union County.

The remaining purchase was made by an existing small landlord in the 6-10 property tier, indicating portfolio expansion among established local investors.

The complete absence of institutional buying reinforces the theme of a locally-driven market where large capital is not a significant factor in quarterly sales activity.

The ownership structure in Union County is highly concentrated among small investors. Landlords with portfolios of 1-10 properties, often called mom-and-pops, control a commanding 95.9% of all investor-owned single-family homes.

Single-property landlords form the bedrock of the local rental market. This tier alone accounts for 354 properties, which is 76.0% of the entire investor-owned housing stock, demonstrating a highly fragmented market with hundreds of individual owners.

In stark contrast, institutional investors (1,000+ properties) have a minimal presence, owning just 4 properties in the entire county. This equates to a mere 0.9% market share, dispelling any notion of large corporate dominance in this area.

Even mid-size investors are scarce. The tiers between 11 and 1,000 properties combined own only 15 properties, reinforcing the market's dependence on its smallest participants.

This distribution reveals a market defined by grassroots investment, where the typical landlord is an individual with a very small portfolio, often just a single rental property.

Individual investors maintain majority ownership across every single investor tier in Union County, from single-property landlords to those holding over 100 homes. This pattern underscores the deeply personal and non-corporate nature of the local rental market.

Unlike in larger metropolitan areas, there is no portfolio size at which companies become the majority owners. In the 101-1000 property tier, companies hold their largest share at 30.8%, yet individuals still own the dominant 69.2% portion.

The smallest investors are almost exclusively individuals. In the single-property tier, individuals own 93.1% of the homes, and in the two-property tier, they own 89.5%.

An interesting anomaly appears in the 6-10 property tier, where 100% of the 15 properties are owned by individuals, with no company ownership recorded at all.

This data confirms that as portfolios grow larger in Union County, company involvement increases, but it never surpasses the holdings of individual investors, solidifying the market's mom-and-pop character even among its biggest players.

The geographic distribution of investor properties in Union County is not uniform. The zip code 62906 stands out as the primary hub for investor activity by sheer volume, containing 191 investor-owned SFRs.

However, the highest concentration by rate is found elsewhere. In the small zip code of 62961, investors own 55.6% of the housing stock, a controlling share that points to a very different market dynamic, likely in a less populated area.

This reveals a key pattern: the areas with the most investor properties are not the same as the areas with the highest investor penetration rates. For instance, 62906, the volume leader, has a relatively modest investor ownership rate of 9.5%.

Other areas of notable concentration include 62926, with 51 investor properties and a 13.4% ownership rate, and 62923, which has a 33.3% rate.

These geographic variations suggest that investors employ different strategies across the county, with some focusing on acquiring properties in more populated centers while others concentrate on dominating smaller, niche markets.

Investors in Union County are in a phase of steady portfolio growth, consistently buying more properties than they sell. In Q1 2026, landlords were net buyers, with 3 acquisitions against 2 sales.

This behavior continues a multi-year trend of accumulation. In 2025, investors demonstrated a strong appetite for expansion, buying 28 properties while selling only 7, a buy-to-sell ratio of 4-to-1.

The pattern was similar in 2024, when landlords acquired 34 properties and sold 10, resulting in a net gain of 24 properties and a 3.4x buy/sell ratio. This sustained net buying indicates long-term confidence in the local rental market.

While the net buying continued into Q1 2026, the pace appears to have moderated compared to the previous two years. The 1.5-to-1 buy/sell ratio is lower, suggesting a potential normalization of acquisition activity.

There was no recorded transaction activity for institutional-scale investors, which is consistent with their extremely small ownership footprint in the county.

In Q1 2026, landlord transactions represented 8.8% of the total market activity, with investors purchasing 3 of the 34 SFRs sold in Union County. This reflects a relatively small but consistent buyer presence.

All purchasing activity originated from mom-and-pop tiers. New, single-property landlords were the most active, accounting for two of the three transactions. Institutional investors made no acquisitions during the quarter.

A significant portion of deal flow occurs between investors. Half of the properties (1 of 2) bought by new landlords were acquired from other landlords. This points to an internal market where properties are traded between investors without ever hitting the open market for traditional buyers.

The purchasing strategy for the most active tier focused on affordability. The average price paid by single-property landlords was just $25,500, reinforcing the trend of investors targeting the lowest end of the price spectrum.

The remaining transaction was made by a small landlord in the 6-10 property tier, who acquired a property from the general market rather than from another investor.