Blog: 15 Areas in Greenville, SC to find great rental properties


Realtor.com has named Greenville, South Carolina, as one of the top 10 housing markets positioned for growth in 2023. With an expected 11.4% increase in home sales and a predicted 5.7% rise in prices, Greenville is an attractive location for real estate investors.


The population growth and a strong job market have contributed to this position, making Greenville a hotspot for potential buyers. The area's value for rental property investment is also high, with rising home values and rent prices adding to the attraction.


Key takeaways

Greenville is home to nearly 71,000 residents in the city and almost 1.5 million in the metropolitan area. Home values in metropolitan Greenville have increased by 18.6% over the past year, while rent prices have grown by 21% year over year. Neighborhoods in Greenville with more renters than homeowners include Anderson, Spartanburg, and the city of Greenville.


Why invest in Greenville?

Population growth in Greenville and most of the 10-county upstate South Carolina region was among the largest in the state, with the influx of new residents creating a shortage of available housing.


As The Post and Courier Greenville reports, Greenville added more new residents than almost any other county in the state since 2010, while Spartanburg County also saw double-digit population growth.


Population growth in Greenville is also helping to keep the job market robust. Unemployment is down to just 3.2%, with job sectors such as manufacturing, trade and transportation, and financial activities showing the most growth (Bureau of Labor Statistics, January 2022).


Rising home values in Greenville are also helping to keep the demand for rental property strong. Zillow reports the typical value of a middle-price -ier home increased by 18.6% year over year, while monthly rents for 3-bedroom properties grew by 21% over the past year, according to Zumper.


Greenville, South Carolina, consists of 2 dozen different neighborhoods, 10 counties, and about 100 cities and towns in the metropolitan area.


Here are 15 areas in Greenville to consider for investment properties, based on data from:

  • Niche.com (population, median rent, percentage of renter-occupied households, and median household income)
  • Redfin (median sales price, change in sales price, and days on market)

Greenville

Greenville has more renters than homeowners, making the city a good place to consider for buying investment property. Greenville is the sixth-largest city in South Carolina, has an urban-suburban feel, and is located midway between Charlotte and Atlanta:

  • Population: 70,720
  • Median sale price: $318,000
  • Change in sales price (year over year): 21.3%
  • Days on market: 41
  • Median rent: $984
  • Renter-occupied households: 56%
  • Median household income: $56,609
  • ZIP codes: 29601, 29604, 29609, 29615

Spartanburg

Spartanburg is another city in the Greenville metropolitan area with more renters than homeowners. Located 30 miles northeast of Greenville via I-85, Spartanburg has a dense suburban feel and is ranked as one of the best places to live in Spartanburg County by Niche.com:

  • Population: 37,424
  • Median sale price: $197,500
  • Change in sales price (year over year): 2.0%
  • Days on market: 28
  • Median rent: $810
  • Renter-occupied households: 54%
  • Median household income: $40,053
  • ZIP codes: 29301, 29304, 29307, 29319

Anderson

Located 30 miles southwest of Greenville, the city of Anderson also has more residents who rent their homes than own. Anderson is home to AnMed Health Medical Center and Anderson University and has a dense suburban feel:

  • Population: 27,289
  • Median sale price: $220,000
  • Change in sales price (year over year): 10.4%
  • Days on market: 34
  • Median rent: $761
  • Renter-occupied households: 53%
  • Median household income: $33,351
  • ZIP codes: 29621, 29622, 29624, 29625

Greenwood

Greenwood is midway between Greenville and Augusta and is another popular city for renters. Greenwood has a sparse suburban feel, good options for dining and entertainment, and more renters than homeowners:

  • Population: 23,269
  • Median sale price: $240,000
  • Change in sales price (year over year): -10.5%
  • Days on market: 39
  • Median rent: $719
  • Renter-occupied households: 53%
  • Median household income: $33,699
  • ZIP codes: 29646, 29647, 29648, 29649

Greer

Greer is home to the BMW manufacturing plant and the North American Headquarters for Michelin North America. Greer is 15 miles northeast of Greenville, near the suburbs of Taylors and Wade Hampton, and has a dense suburban feel:

  • Population: 30,854
  • Median sale price: $301,000
  • Change in sales price (year over year): 17.5%
  • Days on market: 41
  • Median rent: $917
  • Renter-occupied households: 38%
  • Median household income: $61,744
  • ZIP codes: 29365, 29651, 29652, 29687

Mauldin

Mauldin is located near the intersection of I-385 and I-85, about 12 miles southeast of Greenville. Mauldin is ranked among the best suburbs to live in the Greenville area by Niche.com and has seen home prices rapidly rise over the past year:

  • Population: 25,217
  • Median sale price: $305,000
  • Change in sales price (year over year): 42.1%
  • Days on market: 22
  • Median rent: $1,002
  • Renter-occupied households: 30%
  • Median household income: $67,860
  • ZIP codes: 29607, 29662, 29681

Easley

Niche.com ranks Easley as one of the best places to live in Pickens County. The city has a sparse suburban feel with lots of parks, and is home to Prisma Health Baptist Easley Hospital:

  • Population: 20,923
  • Median sale price: $259,495
  • Change in sales price (year over year): -0.4%
  • Days on market: 38
  • Median rent: $762
  • Renter-occupied households: 36%
  • Median household income: $52,414
  • ZIP codes: 29640, 29641, 29642

Simpsonville

Simpsonville is 15 miles southeast of Greenville, near the intersection of I-185 and I-385. The city has a sparse suburban feel with a lot of parks nearby:

  • Population: 22,234
  • Median sale price: $345,000
  • Change in sales price (year over year): 13.0%
  • Days on market: 51
  • Median rent: $1,059
  • Renter-occupied households: 25%
  • Median household income: $71,990
  • ZIP codes: 29680, 29681

Taylors

The suburb of Taylors is 9 miles northeast of Greenville, near the cities of Wade Hampton and Greer. Taylors is a short distance from 2 Greenville Technical Colleges and Bob Jones University, and has a sparse suburban feel, with a lot of restaurants and parks:

  • Population: 22,230
  • Median sale price: $299,500
  • Change in sales price (year over year): 28.8%
  • Days on market: 41
  • Median rent: $917
  • Renter-occupied households: 27%
  • Median household income: $61,667
  • ZIP codes: 29609, 29650, 29687

Wade Hampton

Wade Hampton is ranked as the second-best place to live in Greenville County by Niche.com. Located 6 miles northeast of Greenville, Wade Hampton has a dense suburban feel and a lot of restaurants and parks:

  • Population: 20,906
  • Median sale price: $291,000
  • Change in sales price (year over year): 26.5%
  • Days on market: 78
  • Median rent: $907
  • Renter-occupied households: 37%
  • Median household income: $54,331
  • ZIP codes: 29609, 29615, 29687

Clemson

Clemson is home to Clemson University, a leading upstate South Carolina public research institution. Located 35 miles southwest of Greenville, Clemson has a dense suburban feel and more renters than homeowners:

  • Population: 16,463
  • Median sale price: $325,000
  • Change in sales price (year over year): 13.0%
  • Days on market: 28
  • Median rent: $928
  • Renter-occupied households: 58%
  • Median household income: $43,568
  • ZIP code: 29631

Gaffney

Known as the “Peach Capital of South Carolina,” the small city of Gaffney is located 50 miles northeast of Greenville via I-85. Gaffney has a sparse suburban feel, and nearly half of residents rent their homes:

  • Population: 12,582
  • Median sale price: $240,000
  • Change in sales price (year over year): -17.0%
  • Days on market: 58
  • Median rent: $689
  • Renter-occupied households: 48%
  • Median household income: $31,047
  • ZIP codes: 29340, 29341, 29342

Berea

Berea is 5 miles northwest of Greenville, near Furman University and the Greenville-Pickens Speedway. Berea has a sparse suburban feel, and nearly half of residents rent their homes:

  • Population: 14,652
  • Median sale price: $216,250
  • Change in sales price (year over year): 20.1%
  • Days on market: 49
  • Median rent: $774
  • Renter-occupied households: 44%
  • Median household income: $37,125
  • ZIP codes: 29611, 29617

Five Forks

Five Forks is one of the most affluent suburbs of Greenville and is ranked as the best place to live in the Greenville area by Niche.com. Located 12 miles southeast of Greenville, Five Forks has a rural feel, with a lot of parks and nearby dining and entertainment options:

  • Population: 17,844
  • Median sale price: $409,132
  • Change in sales price (year over year): 3.3%
  • Days on market: 33
  • Median rent: $1,635
  • Renter-occupied households: 10%
  • Median household income: $114,049
  • ZIP code: 29681

Gantt

Gantt is 7 miles south of Greenville, near Greenville Memorial Hospital and Donaldson Center Airport. The city has a sparse suburban feel, a lot of restaurants and parks, and a large proportion of renters:

  • Population: 15,138
  • Median sale price: $215,500
  • Change in sales price (year over year): 18.9%
  • Days on market: 39
  • Median rent: $809
  • Renter-occupied households: 44%
  • Median household income: $38,341
  • ZIP codes: 29605, 29673

Trump Restricts Institutional SFR Ownership: Now What?

By Christian O'Neal • January 29, 2026
Would a Ban on Institutional SFR Ownership Actually Improve U.S. Housing Affordability? Proposals to restrict or ban institutional investors from purchasing single family homes have reentered the public conversation. The political narrative is simple and emotionally resonant. Large investors are blamed for crowding out everyday buyers, pushing prices higher, and worsening affordability. When examined through the lens of capital flows, liquidity, and housing supply, however, the economic impact of such a policy appears far more limited than advertised. At a national level, restricting institutional ownership would likely have minimal effect on affordability and could introduce unintended distortions across adjacent housing sectors. The United States has roughly 85 million single family homes. Institutional investors own only a small fraction of that total. The two largest publicly traded single family rental platforms together control approximately 150,000 homes, representing less than two tenths of one percent of national inventory. Even when expanding the definition to include private equity platforms, pension backed vehicles, and insurance capital, institutional ownership remains concentrated in a narrow set of metropolitan areas. Outside of select Sunbelt markets such as Austin or Charlotte, institutional investors account for a minimal share of single family rental stock. Housing prices are shaped locally, not nationally. Still, national affordability outcomes cannot meaningfully change when policy targets a participant that operates at the margins of total supply. At any given time, roughly three to six million homes are listed for sale across the country. Even under an extreme assumption where all institutional owners liquidated simultaneously, those homes would represent only a modest share of available listings. Any resulting price impact would likely be temporary and geographically concentrated. In practice, even markets with higher institutional presence such as Charlotte, Phoenix, Dallas, Austin, or Tampa would likely see only modest declines, perhaps five to ten percent at most. That assumes perfect coordination and no offsetting demand, both of which are unrealistic. Housing markets function on liquidity. Buyers and sellers must be willing to transact. Capital must be available at reasonable terms. When liquidity declines, volatility increases and pricing becomes less stable. Institutional investors, regardless of public perception, provide consistent liquidity. They transact through cycles. They underwrite based on yield rather than emotion. They often absorb inventory during periods when individual buyers pull back. Restricting institutional participation does not remove capital from the system. It alters the market’s risk profile. Reduced liquidity leads to wider bid ask spreads, higher perceived risk, and a higher cost of capital for builders and developers. That higher cost does not disappear. It is ultimately passed through in the form of higher rents, higher home prices, or reduced construction activity. If institutional buyers are restricted from acquiring scattered site single family homes, capital will not sit idle. It will migrate toward structures that remain permissible and scalable. Stabilized rental portfolios become more attractive. Purpose built rental communities draw increased attention. Multifamily assets with single family characteristics absorb additional demand. This redirection of capital would likely push valuations higher in these segments. A policy designed to curb investor influence in one part of the market may unintentionally inflate prices in others. Build for rent communities are particularly well positioned in this scenario. They offer operational efficiency, regulatory clarity, and institutional scale. As competition increases, yields compress and replacement costs rise, making new housing more expensive to deliver. In this way, a ban could create a construction drag by shifting capital away from for sale housing while simultaneously increasing the cost of producing new rental supply. The most powerful force restricting housing supply today is mortgage lock in. Roughly eighty percent of homeowners hold mortgages at four percent or lower, with many locked near three percent. At current borrowing costs, selling often means doubling monthly debt service. Even households looking to downsize face higher payments. As a result, existing owners choose not to sell. This dynamic has dramatically reduced resale inventory and supported prices despite affordability challenges. Restricting institutional buyers does nothing to address this structural bottleneck. One of the most effective demand side interventions would be the widespread adoption of transferable or assumable mortgages. Allowing buyers to inherit existing low rate debt would unlock supply, improve transaction volume, and relieve pricing pressure without distorting capital flows. Rents respond to household formation, supply growth, and replacement cost. They do not decline simply because ownership changes hands. If institutional ownership is restricted while new supply remains constrained, rents are unlikely to fall. In many markets, rents could rise modestly as higher capital costs are passed through and professional operators retreat. Without a material increase in housing units, rental affordability remains challenged. A realistic forecast points to limited national impact. Certain markets with high institutional concentration may experience short term volatility, but any adjustment is likely to be measured rather than dramatic. At the same time, sectors absorbing displaced capital such as build for rent communities or stabilized rental portfolios could see upward pricing pressure. Home prices ultimately reflect supply relative to household demand. Policies that fail to materially increase supply rarely generate sustained price relief. For those building housing products, the signal is clear. Long term affordability is driven by supply creation, not ownership restrictions. New housing of all forms remains structurally undersupplied. Projects that deliver density, efficiency, and speed to market will remain advantaged. Build for rent and purpose built rental communities are likely beneficiaries of redirected capital. Development strategies should anticipate rising land values and stronger institutional exit demand in these segments. Ownership enabling products deserve renewed focus. Structures that help households access low cost debt or transition from renting to owning align more closely with the true constraints of the market. Capital efficient design will matter more than ever. Smaller units, higher density, modular construction, and flexible zoning strategies offer resilience in an environment where the cost of capital remains elevated. A ban on institutional single family home ownership may satisfy a political narrative, but it does little to address the core mechanics of housing affordability. Institutional investors own too small a share of the market to move national outcomes. Liquidity would decline. Capital would reallocate. Supply constraints would persist. Without policies that unlock mobility, expand supply, and reduce financing friction, affordability challenges will remain largely unchanged. For developers and operators, the opportunity lies not in reacting to headlines, but in building the housing the market structurally lacks. And that is exactly what we at Alpha Equity Group are doing, very carefully, while providing investors with peace of mind through downside protected investments.

Thinking Big with Taylor Lyles

By Christian O'Neal • October 13, 2025
Michael Fernandez featured on "Think Big with Taylor Lyles" Podcast 

Coker Creek Estates

By Christian O'Neal • October 13, 2025
Coker Creek Featured in the Post & Courier 
Show More