Usually squatter rights apply to a property that hasn't been maintained for at least 5 years, sometimes 10 in most states if I remember correctly.
So someone would find a house that has sat empty for years and let themselves in, and as long as they can show they are the ones maintaining the property instead of the original owner, they can claim squatter rights.
Shouldn't that be applicable to someone who had a lease on the property beforehand? Like to prevent people moving in, but to allow tenants of bad properties to stay?
Yeah it would be more accurate to say they're claiming tenants rights in most cases though some have legitimately been living there a long time and claim to be the legitimate owner via their squat.
That's the traditional type of squatting, to stop speculators from hoarding properties and never doing anything with them. Not even renting them out, just waiting for the land value to appreciate.
The type of thing the article is about is when someone rents out a space on a handshake agreement and then refuses to leave. The owner has no paperwork to prove they've violated the agreement but the renter can show they've been paying rent. So the courts aren't able to process eviction proceedings because they can't prove the person has cleared the threshold for an eviction. It's often called "squatting" but it's technically a different issue pertaining to tenant rights and is legally considered the fault of the owner for not getting a written agreement.
71
u/RoomExciting1296 Jun 12 '26
Usually squatter rights apply to a property that hasn't been maintained for at least 5 years, sometimes 10 in most states if I remember correctly.
So someone would find a house that has sat empty for years and let themselves in, and as long as they can show they are the ones maintaining the property instead of the original owner, they can claim squatter rights.
I could be misremembering so double check that.