The Pacific Legal Foundation recently published “Locking Squatters Out: How States Can Protect Property Owners From Squatters,” a report authored Kyle Sweetland and Mark Miller. It’s a great summary of what we know of the scope of the squatter problem, what states have done (or not done) in response, and what reforms can help protect property owners more effectively. Here’s an excerpt:
Squatting is the act of occupying someone else’s property without any legal claim or title to it and without consent from the property owner. Beyond trespassing, squatters often cause other trouble by selling the owner’s belongings, trashing the property, or using it for a prostitution ring or drug den.1
Removing squatters is difficult in most states. Although trespassing is a criminal offense, most state governments treat squatter removal as a landlord–tenant eviction—i.e., civil—dispute.
Law enforcement often tells property owners to file an eviction case and refuse to remove squatters so that officers avoid violence, legal mess, or additional work. Law enforcement cannot easily determine whether squatters who claim to have a lease are indeed tenants or are presenting a fraudulent lease—and may lack the resources to do so.2 Given this and “the increase in tenants’ defenses to eviction and a growing sense that landlord–tenant confrontations often lead to violence,” police departments may see it as unwise to get involved in removing a squatter.3 Law enforcement also encourages homeowners to use the eviction process “to ensure that any adverse claims filed [by squatters] are invalid.”4
However, waiting for civil procedures to run their course can leave property owners unable to live in their own homes for months or years as they try to evict squatters and can cost thousands of dollars in repairs, increased utility bills, and legal fees. In Tennessee, it can take up to two years to evict a squatter, and in Maryland and Pennsylvania, it can cost $3,000 to $10,000 to get a squatter eviction case through the court system.5 During this time, squatters can wreak havoc on property owners’ homes. In one egregious example, a Dallas woman sustained more than $150,000 in property damage from squatters. And a New York City homeowner saw his utility bill increase by more than $1,000 per month when squatters took over his home….6
In response to the rise in squatting, some states are using legislation to turn squatting into a criminal offense and make it easier for property owners to remove squatters. As of May 2024, Alabama, California, Florida, Georgia, Nevada, Tennessee, Washington, and West Virginia have passed laws that criminalize squatting, while eleven other states have introduced bills to do so (figure 2). Most states, however, have not yet addressed the issue legislatively, leaving property owners’ doors wide open to squatters and requiring the civil court system to resolve the issue through the much-slower eviction process….
Conferring criminal status to squatting does not guarantee a sped-up process for removing squatters. California charges squatters with a trespassing misdemeanor if a property owner has filed a no-trespass letter with police in advance of a squatting incident, but eviction is still required if the property owner failed to file a letter.16 Conversely, the process of removing squatters can be sped up without criminalizing the activity. In Colorado, legislators created a special eviction process for squatters that takes significantly less time than normal evictions, but the activity is not considered criminal….
One of the most effective ways states can help protect property rights against squatters is by reforming laws to make it easier and faster for property owners to remove squatters from their property. Pacific Legal Foundation’s model bill, the Stop Squatters Act, is a template for legislators to craft laws that would better protect property rights, give owners remedies against squatting, and penalize squatters as criminals.
In addition, states could bring greater awareness to the issue by collecting and publishing comprehensive data on squatting.
In a post written in March of this year, I explained why squatters’ rights laws that make it difficult or impossible to quickly evict squatters violate the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. But reasons outlined there, a takings lawsuit is often not the best way to deal with such cases. Swift eviction combined with criminal or civil penalties will often be preferable.
In the same post, I also explained why laws protecting squatters ultimately harms legitimate tenants, as well as property owners:
[S]quatters’ rights laws end up harming the very people they are supposed to help: low-income tenants. If property owners have reason to fear that squatters can occupy their land without their consent, they will be less willing to rent property to begin with, charge higher rents, screen potential tenants more carefully (thereby potentially excluding those with low income, few or nor references, and the like), or some combination of all of these measures. They may also be incentivized to impose more costly and elaborate security restrictions on access to land (which in turn is likely to raise rents). All of this predictably reduces the availability of housing and increases its costs.
NOTE: My wife, Alison Somin, is an employee of the Pacific Legal Foundation, which published the report discussed in the post. She does not work on property rights issues, and was not involved in the preparation of the report.
