Colorado’s adverse possession laws, more commonly known as “squatter’s rights,” allow people to claim ownership of a property they’ve occupied without permission, once specific criteria is met. These laws — designed to settle disputes over land use — have become increasingly contentious in a modern context, raising questions about their impact on property owners in the context of a broadening housing crisis.
Under Colorado law, adverse possession requires continuous, open, exclusive and hostile use (without the owner’s permission or consent) of a property for at least 18 years. That period can drop to seven years if the squatter has been paying property taxes and holds “color of title,” a document that appears to grant ownership, even if it’s legally defective.
For landlords, squatters present financial, logistical and emotional challenges. Colorado law prohibits property owners from forcibly removing squatters. Rather, they are tasked with a lengthy legal process that can take years to complete. This uphill battle begins with a Verified Motion for Order to Remove Unauthorized Persons. This can take weeks or months, and during that time, the squatter is free to stay on the property.
Legal fees, property damage and lost rental income are common outcomes. Squatters are commonly cited as a cause for why landlords can be picky during the vetting process of new tenants before signing a lease agreement.
Tenants rights
It is far more common, however, according to an attorney in Carbondale, for folks to get tenants rights and squatter’s rights confused. The two terms mean entirely different things.
The legal process required for landlords to remove tenants is also lengthy, but this doesn’t necessarily make them squatters. Additionally, a tenant is anyone who has a rental agreement with a landlord, the attorney explained, but this agreement does not have to be a written contract that states the respective tenant pays rent on a specific date every month. In fact, it can be as lax as a verbal agreement between distant relatives.
In recent years, the attorney continued, the eviction process has become a lengthier legal pursuit for landlords, because they must first give tenants what is essentially a “heads-up” as to what rule they’re breaking and then a period of time to fix the problem. But once again, this applies to tenants, not squatters.
As with many issues, there are extremes, and those are the cases that get the most attention.
In October 2024, a case in Colorado Springs made national headlines. A 76-year-old man with dementia allowed a homeless woman into his home while under the impression she was there to help him do household chores, according to his adult children. Once inside, the woman essentially moved in, and, over a period of several weeks, moved two family members in, and a pet, and allegedly started a mushroom-growing operation. When asked to leave, she refused.
Local police, however, explained that legally they couldn’t intervene because the man had invited the woman in himself. The story went viral, starting a social media debate over squatter’s rights, although technically, it wasn’t actually a case of squatting, in the legal sense.
Soaring housing costs have left many families in dire situations. Some individuals turn to vacant properties as a last resort for shelter, while others misunderstand property boundaries or genuinely believe they have a right to occupy unclaimed land.
Squatter’s rights laws have their origins in an era when property boundaries were often unclear, and unused land was plentiful. Adverse possession ensured land was put to productive use and allowed individuals who had maintained property for years to formalize ownership. However, critics argue these laws are outdated, particularly in urban areas where housing is scarce and property values are high.
Efforts to prevent squatting often cite the importance of early intervention. Squatting is more likely to occur when a landlord lives far away from their property and doesn’t visit or inspect it often, giving squatters a window of opportunity.
For housing advocates, stories of individuals or families turning to squatting due to desperation are emblematic of systemic failures. Affordable housing advocates argue that rising cost of living and rent prices force many into impossible situations. Activists view squatting less as a legal violation and more as a survival mechanism driven by an unjust society, with some going as far as to say they’re the modern-day Robin Hoods of housing.
Community nonprofit organizations have raised the issue of extreme weather conditions causing homeless shelters to quickly fill up, giving these folks no other choice but to utilize vacant properties.
Housing attorneys also emphasize that adverse possession is not a “free pass for squatters,” as it is much more complicated than just claiming adverse possession and calling it a day. Colorado’s laws require a high threshold of proof, and courts carefully scrutinize claims to ensure they meet all legal criteria.