Executive Summary

California’s legal landscape creates a confusing clash between criminal trespass and civil landlord-tenant protections.  Unauthorized occupants sometimes exploit that friction—brandishing fake leases or claiming tenant status—to delay removal.  Meanwhile, the doctrine of adverse possession exists but is rarely successful due to strict requirements, especially the requirement of five years of continuous possession and the timely payment of all property taxes. 

Policymakers have proposed reforms (notably SB 448) to expedite the removal of non-tenants while preserving protections for lawful renters.  Owners who act quickly—lawfully and with strong documentation—stand the best chance of minimizing losses.

1) The Legal Framework—What the Law Actually Says

Trespass & Illegal Lodging (Criminal Law)

• Trespass: Entering/remaining on property without consent is a misdemeanor under Penal Code § 602; unlawful, long-term “lodging” is prohibited by Penal Code § 647(e).  Police can act when an occupant cannot show any legal right to possession.

Eviction & No Self-Help (Civil Law)

• California forbids self-help evictions.  Owners cannot lock occupants out, cut utilities, or remove doors/windows to force them out.  Eviction requires a court judgment and a writ of possession, and only the Sheriff/Marshal may physically remove occupants.  Violations trigger civil penalties (Civil Code § 789.3) and potential criminal liability (Penal Code § 418).

Adverse Possession (Pathway to Title—Strict & Rare)

• To acquire title by adverse possession in California, a claimant must possess openly, notoriously, exclusively, and hostily for five continuous years and timely pay all assessed property taxes, proven by certified tax records (Code of Civil Procedure § 325). Courts often reject claims that fail the tax element.
• In Gilardi v. Hallam (1981), the California Supreme Court underscored the tax‑payment requirement and rejected a claim where taxes weren’t paid on the disputed portion.
• Legal commentary emphasizes “timely” tax payment—catch-up/lump-sum payments on delinquencies don’t satisfy the statute.

Tenant Protection Act (AB 1482; strengthened by SB 567)

• For lawful tenants, statewide rent caps and cause eviction rules apply; these protections do not convert trespassers into tenants.  Confusion between tenant protections and squatting drives misinformation (e.g., the “30-day” myth).

2) SB 448—What the Trespassing Response & Remedies Act Would Change

SB 448 (2025–2026) proposes a fast-track removal process for non-tenants (“squatters”), giving Law enforcement more apparent authority to intervene when no legitimate tenancy exists:

• Defines “squatter”: Someone who unlawfully enters/remains, refuses to leave on request, or falsely claims a legal right of possession.
• Demand to Vacate + Sworn Affidavit: Owner serves a demand; if ignored, submits a penalty‑of‑perjury affidavit to the local agency attesting ownership, lack of right to possession, and service of demand.  The agency verifies and removes unlawful occupants without unreasonable delay.  
• Safeguards & Penalties: Wrongful removal by owners and fraudulent interference by squatters (e.g., fake paperwork) carry penalties; agencies may assess a processing fee and enjoy good‑faith immunity.
• Status: As of 23 May 2025, SB 448 was held in committee (not enacted), but it frames the policy debate and may resurface in amended form.

Why it matters: SB 448 targets the procedural gray zone where police hesitate after an occupant claims tenant status, forcing owners into a slow, costly civil eviction despite no real tenancy.

3) Myths vs. Reality

• Myth: “Squatters gain rights after 30 days.”
  Reality: Title claims require five years and timely tax payments.  The “30-day” idea stems from tenant (not trespasser) protections and the time it takes for civil cases, not from adverse possession Law.  
• Myth: “Police can never remove squatters.”
  Reality: Police can remove trespassers/illegal lodgers when there’s no tenancy or rights to possession; the bottleneck occurs when paperwork (even fake) is presented, shifting officers into a civil posture pending a court decision.

4) California Case Studies—Squatting in Practice

Below are condensed narratives from reported incidents across California, followed by key lessons for owners:

Case 1: Hollywood Hills Mansions

Scenario: Two luxury homes left vacant during renovations were overtaken by squatters and taggers.  Occupants presented fake leases, and police initially treated the matter as a civil matter.  The owner spent months in court; losses exceed $ 150,000 (legal, repairs, security).
Lesson: Regular inspections, alarms, and documentation foster confidence in owners and legal professionals by demonstrating proactive property management.

Case 2: Beverly Hills $5M Home

Scenario: Squatters produced forged rental agreements; police declined to issue an immediate removal order—nearly a year of unlawful detainer litigation; losses $200,000+.
Lesson: Acting swiftly—serving proper notices and initiating unlawful detainer-gives owners a Sense of control and reassurance in handling squatters.

Case 3: Los Angeles “Squatter Hunter”

Scenario: Owner hired a private “squatter hunter” who moved in to make conditions intolerable.  Squatters left, but the approach is legally risky; $10,000–$20,000 spent on private removal/security.
Lesson: Staying lawful and collaborating with counsel and law enforcement builds trust and confidence in effective squatter management.

Case 4: Inland Empire Adverse Possession Attempt

Scenario: Occupants claimed adverse possession; the court dismissed them for failure to pay taxes for 5 years.  The owner still bore $50,000–$75,000 in costs and repairs.
Lesson: Adverse possession is rare without timely tax payment.  Keep taxes current and monitor vacancies to block long-term occupation.

Case 5: Bay Area Social‑Media–Coordinated Occupation

Scenario: A $1.2M home targeted via social media; occupants produced fabricated documents.  Eviction took nearly a year; losses $120,000+ (rent, fees, damage).
Lesson: Squatters coordinate online.  Maintain property visibility, harden entries, and use surveillance; instruct listing agents to physically check vacant homes.

5) Owner Playbook—Fast, Lawful, Documented

A. First 24–48 Hours (Triage)

•   Call police to report trespass or illegal lodging (Penal Code §§ 602, 647[e]); provide clear proof of ownership such as deed or recent tax bills, and detailed photos/videos. Clarify the typical police response timeline and what owners can expect during initial contact to help legal professionals advise clients effectively.
•   Do not change locks, shut utilities, or remove doors/windows (self-help is illegal).
•   Preserve evidence (damage logs, utility records, communications).

B. If They Claim to Be Tenants

•   Serve the correct notice and file the unlawful detainer promptly; only the Sheriff/Marshal executes the writ.
•   Prepare to challenge fake paperwork; seek expedited hearings where available.

C. Prevention & Hardening

•   Vacancy protocol: monitored alarms, cameras, timed lights, mail holds, landscaping, and No Trespass signage; consider filing any local no‑trespass police notices where offered.
•   Tax vigilance: adverse possession often fails on tax payment, but your taxes must be current to avoid confusion.
•   Neighbor & agent coordination: Ask listing agents and neighbors to check the property; squatters target stale listings and signs of neglect.

6) Policy Outlook—Balancing Property Rights and Housing Realities

• Pro-reform advocates (e.g., CalRHA) argue that unauthorized occupants weaponize tenant protections, forcing owners into extended civil processes even when no lease exists; they support SB 448’s affidavit‑and‑verification removal track.
• Opponents warn that fast-track removal could harm vulnerable people and contend that existing trespass laws already allow police to act when no tenancy exists; the Assembly killed AB 897 in April 2025 over such concerns.
• Bottom line: Expect continued debate and incremental changes rather than a single fix.  For now, owners must work within the current split system: criminal trespass vs. civil eviction.

7) Quick Reference: Key Statutes & Cases

• Trespass / Illegal Lodging: Penal Code §§ 602, 647(e). [ipropertym...gement.com], [fortralaw.com]
• No Self‑Help Evictions: Civil Code § 789.3; Penal Code § 418; AG Guidance to Law enforcement (2022 bulletin). [landlorddoc.com]
• Adverse Possession: Code Civ. Proc. § 325 (five years; timely taxes; open/hostile/exclusive possession). [ridleydefense.com]
• Case Law: Gilardi v. Hallam, 30 Cal. 3d 317 (1981) (tax payment essential).  [shouselaw.com]
• Tenant Protections: AB 1482; strengthened by SB 567 (2024).  [squattersrights.org], [legiscan.com]
• SB 448 (proposed): Affidavit-based, Law‑enforcement removal of squatters; held in committee 23 May 2025.  [mellorlawfirm.com]

8) Case Study Table—At‑a‑Glance

9) Editorial Note

California’s current regime unintentionally rewards delay.  Unauthorized occupants who can manufacture a tenant claim often buy months of free occupancy while owners shoulder six-figure losses.  SB 448 would narrow the civil/criminal gap by empowering police to act once an owner has verified ownership and no legal right to possession.  Even without new laws, owners who prepare, document, and move quickly can materially reduce exposure.

10) Practical Checklist 

• Proof of ownership ready (deed, tax bill).
• Immediate police call if there is no lease/right of possession.
• No self-help (locks/utilities/dooring).
• Serve notice + file UD promptly upon “tenant” claim.
• Vacancy protocol: alarms, cameras, inspections, signage.
• Neighbor/agent coordination for monitoring.
• Evidence preservation: photos, videos, logs.
• Counsel engaged to challenge fake documents.