Life, Liberty, and Property: An Analysis of Squatters’ Rights & Adverse Possession Amid a Housing Crisis

New York City has always been known as the site of change, ambition, and hope. Now, it faces a profound crisis: New York City cannot house its people. The city’s towering skyline hides a grim reality—shelter, the most basic human necessity, has become a luxury beyond reach for many. This housing crisis casts a shadow not only over current residents but also over the thousands who dream of calling the city home. Forbes projects that by 2032, New York City will fall short by 500,000 housing units. [1] New York City hardly stands alone; this problem prevails across the United States.

Florida’s Housing Coalition reported that 2.4 million Florida families spend 30% of their income to keep a roof over their heads and another staggering 1.3 million spend 50% or more. [2] Georgia’s Congresswoman Nikema Williams noted the widespread effect of this crisis, stating, “Without affordable housing, we cannot keep people in their homes and beloved neighborhoods, encourage first-generation homeownership, or close the racial wealth gap.” [3] These staggering housing deficits force individuals to seek desperate alternatives. Among these is the use of adverse possession laws to claim shelter and invocation of “squatter’s rights,” the colloquial term for adverse possession wherein someone can gain legal ownership of someone else’s property if they occupy it for a minimum required time.

In a nation where the demand for housing often far outstrips supply, understanding adverse possession is essential to the court’s ability to dictate property-based decisions. At its best, this legal doctrine offers a lifeline, transforming underused spaces into vital resources. At its worst, it creates conflict and unintended harm, particularly when wielded without a full grasp of its complexities. As the housing crisis deepens, greater awareness of adverse possession law is not just a legal necessity—it is a moral imperative.

Charles Donahue, a professor at Harvard Law, has described adverse possession as “perhaps the most significant possessory concept in the law of the land.” [4] This highlights the importance of understanding its principles and legal justification. The landmark case Belotti v. Bickhardt is pivotal in establishing the doctrine of adverse possession and clarifying its critical elements.

The case arose from a property dispute involving the plaintiff’s mother, Maria G. Belotti, and the defendant’s predecessor, Gustave Riedel, who owned adjacent properties in the Bronx, New York City. In an 1885 map, the defendant’s property was alphabetically labeled with the most important being lot “J”  which adjoined the plaintiff’s property “K.” Before Riedel acquired the land, a previous owner, Van Schaick, constructed a substantial building on lot “J” in 1892. This structure encroached twelve feet into lot “K,” covering fifty-one feet in depth.

Later in 1892, Schaick transferred ownership of his lots “H,” “I,” and “J,” including the encroaching structure, to Riedel. Riedel used the building as a saloon and roadhouse until his death in 1898. His will passed the property to Bickhardt, who, starting on August 16, 1906, used the building—including the encroaching portion—as a hotel.

The case hinged on ownership of the portion of the building encroaching onto lot “K.” Riedel and his successors had possessed the property without dispute for 14 years. Bickhardt argued that his claim, combined with his predecessors’ uninterrupted possession, satisfied the legal requirement for adverse possession. The court also considered evidence that the encroachment resulted from a faulty map, a mistake accepted by all previous owners. Additionally, the substantial stone foundation and operation of the structure as a hotel made removing the encroachment impractical. [5]

Adverse possession typically requires 20 years of occupation to establish ownership. Bickhardt, when adding his tenure to that of his predecessors, demonstrated 35 years of continuous possession. The court ruled in Bickhardt’s favor, reinforcing three principles of adverse possession:

1. A deed or document must create the appearance of ownership, even if defective, but physical occupation with supporting evidence can suffice.

2. The statutory period need not be fulfilled by a single person; successive occupants may combine their periods of possession, provided continuity is maintained.

3. A claim combining multiple occupancies requires an “unbroken chain of privity”— a legal connection such as transfer through deeds or agreements.

Belotti v. Bickhardt broadened the doctrine of adverse possession by clarifying these conditions. While Donahue emphasizes that adverse possession is not a favored means of acquiring property, he argues it is legally necessary. Resolving disputed titles remains a central objective of the U.S. court system, and he sees adverse possession as a vital mechanism to achieve this goal. [6]

Despite Donahue’s assertion of adverse possession’s legal necessity, there has been a growing wave of state legislation aimed at curtailing its scope and effectiveness. In 2024 alone, several states enacted laws targeting adverse possession and squatting.

On March 27, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed a bill permitting property owners to enlist local law enforcement to remove unlawful occupants and imposing criminal charges for squatting. [7] Less than a month later, on April 22, New York Governor Kathy Hochul included a provision in the 2025 state budget stating that squatters should never be classified as tenants, regardless of how long they occupy a property. [8] Similarly, on April 24, Georgia Governor Brian Kemp enacted the Georgia Squatter Reform Act, requiring anyone accused of squatting to provide proof of legal residency within three days or face arrest, effectively outlawing the practice. [9] Earlier, on March 22, West Virginia passed a law prohibiting squatters from receiving the legal protections typically afforded to tenants. [10]

This legislative wave reflects the dualistic nature of adverse possession. On one hand, as seen in Belotti v. Bickhardt, adverse possession provides an effective resolution for complex and divisive property disputes. On the other hand, cases like that of Paul Callins in Georgia underscore the contentious consequences of such laws. Callins, after leaving his home to care for his sick wife, returned to find it occupied by squatters, yet was initially unable to remove them. [11] The subsequent public outrage fueled the passage of the Georgia Squatter Reform Act.

This tension illustrates the competing perspectives on adverse possession. The Harvard legal expert Donahue emphasizes its role in promoting judicial efficiency and resolving property disputes. However, the lived experiences of individuals like Callins highlight the public’s concern over fairness and justice when adverse possession protects squatters at the expense of rightful owners. The debate ultimately underscores a fundamental conflict between the principles of legal utility and societal perceptions of fairness.

Beyond societal concerns, adverse possession raises significant legal issues. Jeffrey E. Stake of Indiana University Maurer School of Law, in his publication “The Uneasy Case for Adverse Possession,” highlights the legal costs associated with this doctrine. Chief among them is the way adverse possession discourages property owners from allowing others to use their land, for fear of forfeiting their ownership rights. This, in turn, diminishes land utility, as owners who might otherwise be neutral or even supportive of others utilizing their property are deterred by its legal implications. [12]

An illustrative case is Brennan v. Manchester Crossing, where an adverse possessor planted grass on an adjoining owner’s property and maintained it meticulously. The original owner, who had no objection to the encroachment, ultimately lost their right to the land because they failed to challenge the possession within the statutory period. [13]

Stake provides a personal example to underscore this point. A private road was mistakenly constructed over the corner of his property, and his neighbors used it daily to travel to and from their homes. Their use caused no harm, and Stake had no objections. However, the doctrine of prescription dictated that unless he actively prevented their use, he risked losing his ownership rights. To avoid this, Stake faced two unappealing options: either formalize a lease for a nominal fee or negotiate a license agreement with the neighbors. [14]

The lease option would create a landlord-tenant relationship, conferring rights to the neighbors and imposing administrative costs on Stake. A license agreement, while less formal, depended on the neighbors’ willingness to cooperate. While one neighbor agreed, another sought legal advice and rejected the arrangement. As a result, the statute of limitations forced Stake to either enforce his ownership or lose the encroached property. What began as a minor oversight—a road mistakenly built on Stake’s land—escalated into a legal dilemma with significant consequences.

Stake’s example illustrates how adverse possession can decrease land utility by imposing legal and financial burdens on property owners, while also straining relationships between neighbors and communities. The doctrine’s unintended effect of prioritizing property defense over cooperative land use highlights a critical tension within property law.

As the needs to protect individual rights clash with addressing community needs, this tension within property law is only exacerbated in the midst of housing shortages and inequitable housing distribution. New York City’s housing crisis is more than a numbers game—it is a profound challenge to equity, law, and the necessity of shelter in a place devoid of it. As the city’s population continues to outpace its housing supply, doctrines like adverse possession take on a dual identity: a potential solution for underutilized property and a source of social and legal tension. Cases like Belotti v. Bickhardt showcase the doctrine’s ability to resolve disputes and maximize land utility, while stories like Paul Callins’ reveal its capacity for unintended harm.

The legal intricacies of adverse possession, as explored by scholars like Jeffrey E. Stake, highlight its ripple effects—discouraging property sharing, straining community ties, and forcing individuals into legal territory often beyond their means. These complexities, juxtaposed against state-level efforts to curtail the doctrine’s reach, underscore the delicate balance between resolving property disputes and protecting property rights.

Adverse possession may not be the perfect tool to address the housing crisis, but it is a necessary one, evolving alongside the shifting legal, social, and moral landscape. To navigate this terrain responsibly, it is necessary to foster broader awareness and deeper understanding of the role of adverse possession. Only then can we hope to transform housing from a source of conflict into a shared foundation for community and stability[1] [2] .

Edited by Audrey Carbonell

[1] “New York City Housing Shortage Highlights Need For More Development.” Forbes, 20 March 2024, https://www.forbes.com/sites/shimonshkury/2024/03/20/new-york-city-housing-shortage-highlights-need-for-more-development/. Accessed 19 November 2024.

[2] Florida Housing Coalition. “Home Matters: 2024 Interactive Dashboards.” Florida Housing Coalition, 2024, https://www.flhousing.org/home/our-impact/2024-home-matters-dashboard/. Accessed 17 November 2024.

[3] “Increasing Affordable Housing Updates.” Nikema Williams, https://nikemawilliams.house.gov/resources/housing. Accessed 19 November 2024.

[4] Donahue, Charles. “Section 3. Adverse Possession.” Harvard Law Cases and Materials, Harvard Law School, http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/cdonahue/courses/prop/mat/Mats_c06.pdf. Accessed 19 November 2024.

[5] Donahue, Charles. “Section 3. Adverse Possession.” Harvard Law Cases and Materials, Harvard Law School, http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/cdonahue/courses/prop/mat/Mats_c06.pdf. Accessed 19 November 2024.

[6] Donahue, Charles. “Section 3. Adverse Possession.” Harvard Law Cases and Materials, Harvard Law School, http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/cdonahue/courses/prop/mat/Mats_c06.pdf. Accessed 19 November 2024.

[7] “House Bill 621 (2024) - The Florida Senate.” Florida Senate, 1 March 2024, https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2024/621/?Tab=BillText. Accessed 19 November 2024.

[8] Liu, John C. “Legislators announce language defining squatter in state housing law included in FY25 state budget.” The New York State Senate, 23 April 2024, https://www.nysenate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2024/john-c-liu/legislators-announce-language-defining-squatter-state. Accessed 19 November 2024.

[9] “Georgia Squatter Reform Act - GA HB1017.” BillTrack50, https://www.billtrack50.com/billdetail/1686917. Accessed 20 November 2024.

[10] Bill Status - Complete Bill History, www.wvlegislature.gov/Bill_Status/Bills_history.cfm?input=4940&year=2024&sessiontype=RS&btype=bill. Accessed 20 Nov. 2024.

[11] Oliveira, Alex. “Squatters Take Over Georgia Man's Home While He Was Caring for Sick Wife — and Now He Can't Evict Them: report.” New York Post, 3 March 2024, https://nypost.com/2024/03/03/us-news/squatters-take-over-home-georgia-mans-home-while-he-was-s-away-caring-for-sick-wife-report/. Accessed 20 November 2024.

[12] Facult, Maurer. “The Uneasy Case for Adverse Possession.” Digital Repository @ Maurer Law, https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1220&context=facpub&httpsredir=1&referer=. Accessed 20 November 2024.

[13] Facult, Maurer. “The Uneasy Case for Adverse Possession.”

[14] Facult, Maurer. “The Uneasy Case for Adverse Possession.”