SMU Law Review
Abstract
Beginning in 2024, a host of states across the country began enacting or considering new laws targeting squatting that seek to expedite the removal of squatters. Generally, these antisquatting laws create criminal penalties for squatters, allow sheriffs to remove squatters, and shorten the time for eviction. This wave of legislation is generally attributed to several viral videos and news stories about squatters that seem to game the system by moving into unattended homes, even those where the rightful owners or tenants are living, and then claiming they have a lease. The owners will generally call the police, who are unable to evict the squatters without a court order. This requires property owners to go through the lengthy and expensive process of eviction, exposing them to significant financial loss and possible ruin.
In response, state legislators have proposed and passed laws that make it easier for property owners to evict squatters. However, there has been some concern about how these laws affect tenants’ eviction protections because these laws seek to shift much of the burden from the landlord proving they own the property to the tenant proving they have a valid lease. The new expedited removal process raises worries that individuals with valid leases or who may have legitimate legal disputes with the landowner could be summarily evicted without the opportunity to defend their rights.
Furthermore, these laws also likely present implications for the viability of adverse possession, a legal doctrine that allows a long-term trespasser of land who meets certain requirements to gain title to that land. Adverse possession has several policy benefits, including the encouragement of utilization of land and the promotion of certainty of title, and should not be abandoned. Many adverse possession cases revolve around boundary disputes, which raises the question: What type of activities constitute squatting under these statutes? Could a neighbor with a property dispute that requires the disposition of a court turn to the local sheriff’s office to improperly evict someone who may have already gained legal title, a determination which would have been made in court? Could these statutes lead to the wholesale abandonment of the doctrine of adverse possession?
Part I of this Comment provides some background information about squatting in the United States, including its history and prevalence. Part II reviews the present state of adverse possession, eviction statutes, and relevant criminal laws, including the current remedies for a wrongly dispossessed homeowner. Part III analyzes how the antisquatting measures interact with the current body of adverse possession, eviction, and criminal law and proposes a way forward that seeks to balance landowner interests with tenant protections and ensures the continued viability of adverse possession.
Recommended Citation
Sam Fowler,
The Homeowner Strikes Back: The Rise of Antisquatter Laws,
78
SMU L. Rev.
1155
(2025)
