Wondering if this is constitutional? 

Limiting for-profit entities to two residential property purchases in disaster zones for five years, requiring transparency on affiliated ownership — is legally defensible under current constitutional interpretations, especially if:

• it's narrowly tailored, as suggested
• time-limited, as suggested
• serves a compelling public interest

Remember: companies are companies, even though they like to pretend they are people.  Don't worry, company: No one is being treated unfairly. It would apply evenly to all for-profit entities.

Courts allow governments to distinguish between for-profit and non-profit or individual buyers if there’s a rational basis — such as protecting housing access and disaster recovery.  

Courts have also ruled that reasonable zoning, land-use, or economic regulations that serve the public interest — like preventing disaster profiteering — do not constitute a "taking" unless they deprive the owner of all viable economic use.  This wouldn't stop them from doing business elsewhere or making money in other ways the line. The property still has value and could be bought, used, or eventually sold. Don't conflate 'maximum profits' with 'a taking'.

The bottom line is: Which is more important:  public interest and protection, and preventing speculative property hoarding during recovery periods or a company's "right" to purchase multiple properties in a disaster zone?