DeedProof

Protect a property
← All states

Law library

Squatters and vacant property in Arizona: what the law says

In Arizona a person living in your house without permission is not a tenant, and the trespass statute treats being inside a home without permission as a felony — it counts an empty house as a house. A law signed in May 2026 speeds up removal, but it is still a court case: a judge signs the judgment, and only then does the order to remove them issue. A 2024 bill that would have let police remove someone on the owner's sworn affidavit alone was vetoed. Every answer below is quoted from the statute it came from.

Every answer on this page is quoted from the statute it came from and linked to the source, so you can read the law yourself. Last checked against the statutes on 2026-07-14.

What to do now — this part is ours, not the law

There is no 30-day rule. Nobody becomes a tenant by standing in your house long enough — not in thirty days, not in ninety. They are not a tenant on day one and they are not a tenant on day ninety. What time does change is how hard they are to remove, and how much of your money it takes. That is a reason to move today, not a deadline you have already missed.

If someone is in the property right now

  1. Do not go in, and do not change the locks. It is the first thing everyone wants to do and it is how the owner becomes the defendant. Read that question above before you touch anything.
  2. Call the police non-emergency line. Ask them to look at it as a criminal trespass rather than a landlord–tenant dispute. Those are different outcomes and the words matter.
  3. Have your proof of ownership in your hand when they arrive — the deed, a recent tax bill, your ID. The officer's whole decision turns on whether he believes you own it.
  4. Photograph everything, and write down every date. When you last saw it empty. When you found them. What was said. Who you called, and when.
  5. Call a lawyer the same day. Not next week. The clock on every route above has already started.
The full checklist — what to record and what to ask →

If it has not happened yet

Everything on this page gets easier the earlier you do it. Photograph the property empty, keep the utility bills, and write down who is allowed inside — before you lock up and walk away. None of that is expensive. All of it is worth more than it looks at 2am.

The checklist for leaving a property vacant →

Is a squatter a tenant — and what rights do they have?

No. A tenant in Arizona is someone with a rental agreement, and the new 2026 squatter law is written specifically around people who are not tenants, never had an agreement to live with you, and are not family. That does not put them outside the courts — you still have to bring a possession case and win it.

›Read the law — 3 provisions

If a trespasser counts as a tenant, the owner is routed into housing court and every fast option closes.

1 · A.R.S. § 33-1310(17) — Arizona Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, definitions

“"Tenant" means a person entitled under a rental agreement to occupy a dwelling unit to the exclusion of others.”

Read it at the source →

2 · A.R.S. § 12-1173(A)(3)(b)(vi)–(ix), (c), as amended by SB 1426 (2026), Ch. 69

“(vi) The unauthorized person is not a current or former tenant at that property. (vii) The unauthorized person did not have a prior verbal or written agreement to cohabitate with the property owner in that residential dwelling. (viii) The unauthorized person is not an immediate family member of the property owner. (ix) There is no litigation pending between the property owner and the unauthorized person. (c) this section does not apply to or modify the rights and remedies available to landlords and tenants pursuant to title 33, chapter 10.”

Quoted from the enrolled chapter law on the Legislature's own server, with the bill's strike-throughs removed and its inserted text applied — i.e. the section as amended. Read subdivision (c) to the end: the fast route is bolted onto Arizona's ordinary possession statute and expressly leaves landlord-tenant rights untouched. It removes a person from the tenant side of the ledger; it does not remove them from court.

Read it at the source →

3 · A.R.S. § 13-1501(11) — definitions, criminal trespass and burglary

“"Residential structure" means any structure, movable or immovable, permanent or temporary, that is adapted for both human residence and lodging whether occupied or not.”

These four words — "whether occupied or not" — are why a vacant house is still a residential structure for the trespass statute. See the arrest question below.

Read it at the source →

These are the provisions, in order. We have not drawn a conclusion from them — that is not ours to draw.

Can I just change the locks?

No. Arizona's possession law is aimed at anyone who enters without the consent of whoever is actually in the property, and it does not carve out the person who owns it. And when a court decides who gets possession, it looks only at who is in possession — it does not look at your deed. Change the locks and you can end up on the wrong end of the case.

›Read the law — 4 provisions

Lawful in a handful of states, a crime in most. Getting this wrong turns the victim into the defendant.

1 · A.R.S. § 12-1171, as amended by SB 1426 (2026), Ch. 69 — acts which constitute forcible entry or detainer

“A person is guilty of forcible entry and detainer, or of forcible detainer, as the case may be, if the person: 1. Makes an entry into any lands, tenements or other real property, except in cases where entry is given by law. 2. Makes such an entry by force.”

Quoted from the enrolled chapter law with strike-throughs removed and insertions applied. Note what the section does NOT say: it does not say "a person other than the owner".

Read it at the source →

2 · A.R.S. § 12-1172 — definition of forcible entry

“A "forcible entry," or an entry where entry is not given by law within the meaning of this article, is: 1. An entry without the consent of the person having the actual possession. 2. As to a landlord, an entry upon the possession of his tenant at will or by sufferance, whether with or without the tenant's consent.”

Read it at the source →

3 · A.R.S. § 12-1177(A) — trial and issue

“On the trial of an action of forcible entry or forcible detainer, the only issue shall be the right of actual possession and the merits of title shall not be inquired into.”

Read this one twice. It is the provision that makes the owner's deed beside the point in the very case the owner would be defending. We draw no conclusion from it — we simply publish it, because it is the fact an owner considering a lockout does not know.

Read it at the source →

4 · A.R.S. § 33-1367 — tenant's remedies for landlord's unlawful ouster

“If the landlord unlawfully removes or excludes the tenant from the premises or wilfully diminishes services to the tenant by interrupting or causing the interruption of electric, gas, water or other essential service to the tenant, the tenant may recover possession or terminate the rental agreement and, in either case, recover an amount not more than two months' periodic rent or twice the actual damages sustained by him, whichever is greater.”

This section is TENANT-scoped, and we say so rather than lean on it. The provisions above are not: they are written about entry and possession, not about landlords. CLAUDE.md #4 — DeedProof never suggests, templates or hints at self-help removal, whatever a statute does or does not say. The refusal is ours and we own it.

Read it at the source →

These are the provisions, in order. We have not drawn a conclusion from them — that is not ours to draw.

If police do act, what is the charge — and can they arrest for it?

Yes. Someone inside a house they have no permission to be in commits criminal trespass in the first degree, which Arizona grades as a felony — and the law counts an empty house as a house. For a felony an officer may arrest on the spot, without a warrant and without having watched it happen. What the officer still has to decide is whether the person had permission.

›Read the law — 4 provisions

A charge that only supports a citation does not remove anyone from a house. This is the link that killed the previous market.

1 · A.R.S. § 13-1504(A)(1), (B) — criminal trespass in the first degree; classification

“A. A person commits criminal trespass in the first degree by knowingly: 1. Entering or remaining unlawfully in or on a residential structure. … B. Criminal trespass in the first degree under subsection A, paragraph 6 of this section is a class 5 felony. Criminal trespass in the first degree under subsection A, paragraph 1 or 5 of this section is a class 6 felony. Criminal trespass in the first degree under subsection A, paragraph 2, 3 or 4 of this section is a class 1 misdemeanor.”

The ellipsis joins subsection A, paragraph 1 to the classification subsection; paragraphs 2 through 6 (fenced yards, looking in a window, mineral claims, religious property, critical public service facilities) are omitted because they are not this fact pattern. Paragraph 1 is the one that reaches a person living in a house.

Read it at the source →

2 · A.R.S. § 13-1501(2), (11) — definitions

“2. "Enter or remain unlawfully" means an act of a person who enters or remains on premises when the person's intent for so entering or remaining is not licensed, authorized or otherwise privileged … 11. "Residential structure" means any structure, movable or immovable, permanent or temporary, that is adapted for both human residence and lodging whether occupied or not.”

The ellipsis omits a shoplifting carve-out in paragraph 2 that has nothing to do with this. "Whether occupied or not" is the phrase that keeps a vacant house inside the felony grade.

Read it at the source →

3 · A.R.S. § 13-1502(A)(1), (C) — criminal trespass in the third degree; and § 13-1503 — second degree

“A. A person commits criminal trespass in the third degree by: 1. Knowingly entering or remaining unlawfully on any real property after a reasonable request to leave by a law enforcement officer, the owner or any other person having lawful control over such property, or reasonable notice prohibiting entry. … C. Criminal trespass in the third degree is a class 3 misdemeanor.”

§ 13-1503 (a separate section, read on 2026-07-14 at azleg.gov/ars/13/01503.htm) covers a NONRESIDENTIAL structure or a fenced commercial yard and makes that a class 2 misdemeanor. Neither of these is the house grade. Which charge an officer writes is not decided by the statute.

Read it at the source →

4 · A.R.S. § 13-3883(A) — arrest by officer without warrant

“A. A peace officer, without a warrant, may arrest a person if the officer has probable cause to believe: 1. A felony has been committed and probable cause to believe the person to be arrested has committed the felony. 2. A misdemeanor has been committed in the officer's presence and probable cause to believe the person to be arrested has committed the offense. … 4. A misdemeanor or a petty offense has been committed and probable cause to believe the person to be arrested has committed the offense. A person arrested under this paragraph is eligible for release under section 13-3903.”

The ellipsis omits paragraph 3 (traffic accidents) and paragraph 5 (removability from the United States). On the in-presence question: paragraph 2 carries a presence requirement, and paragraph 4 supplies a separate route that does not — but a person arrested under paragraph 4 is eligible for release on a citation under § 13-3903. These are the provisions, in order. We have drawn no conclusion from them.

Read it at the source →

These are the provisions, in order. We have not drawn a conclusion from them — that is not ours to draw.

What decides whether police arrest or walk away?

Permission — whether the officer believes the person inside had it, and whether anyone at the door can tell that you are the owner. The trespass statute turns on that single word, and Arizona's new removal route turns on it too, but neither one gives anybody a way to check it in a doorway at 2am.

DeedProof solves this

We verify you own the property and file your notarized statement where police can check it. How it works →

›Read the law — 3 provisions

Every other question here is downstream of this one. The whole encounter, in one decision, made in a doorway in the dark.

1 · A.R.S. § 13-1501(2) — "enter or remain unlawfully"

“"Enter or remain unlawfully" means an act of a person who enters or remains on premises when the person's intent for so entering or remaining is not licensed, authorized or otherwise privileged except when the entry is to commit theft of merchandise displayed for sale during normal business hours, when the premises are open to the public and when the person does not enter any unauthorized areas of the premises.”

A lease handed over at the door is an attempt to establish that the person is licensed or authorized. The statute does not say who tests it, or how.

Read it at the source →

2 · A.R.S. § 12-1173(A)(3)(b)(i)–(v), as amended by SB 1426 (2026), Ch. 69

“(i) The requesting person is the property owner or the property owner's authorized agent. (ii) The property includes a residential dwelling or is being used for residential purposes. (iii) An unauthorized person is unlawfully occupying the property. (iv) The property owner has directed the unauthorized person to leave. (v) The property was not open to the public at the time the unauthorized person entered the property.”

A CLAIM ABOUT OUR OWN SEARCH, NOT ABOUT THE LAW: on 2026-07-14 we read A.R.S. §§ 12-1171, 12-1172, 12-1173 as amended by the enrolled text of SB 1426, §§ 12-1175 to 12-1179, and §§ 13-1501 to 13-1504 and § 13-3883, in full, on the Arizona Legislature's own servers. We looked for any provision telling an officer or a court how to establish that the person claiming to be the owner actually is — a deed check, a registry, a records lookup, anything. We found no such provision. Confirm it against the official code before relying on it.

Read it at the source →

3 · A.R.S. § 12-1177(A) — trial and issue

“On the trial of an action of forcible entry or forcible detainer, the only issue shall be the right of actual possession and the merits of title shall not be inquired into.”

Read it at the source →

These are the provisions, in order. We have not drawn a conclusion from them — that is not ours to draw.

What is the lawful way to get them out?

A possession case in court — and since May 2026 a much faster one. You ask them to leave, you file, a judge decides, and the new law has the order to remove them issued the moment the judgment is signed instead of five days later. It is a court process from beginning to end: nobody is removed on your say-so.

›Read the law — 3 provisions

The route sets the real cost. A summary track is weeks; a full civil suit is months.

1 · A.R.S. § 12-1173(A)(3), as amended by SB 1426 (2026), Ch. 69

“3. A person who has made a forcible entry on the possession of one who acquired such possession by forcible entry: (a) Refuses for five days after written demand to give possession to the person on whose possession the first forcible entry was made. (b) Refuses after a reasonable request to leave and to give possession to the person on whose possession the first forcible entry was made if all of the following apply: (i) The requesting person is the property owner or the property owner's authorized agent. (ii) The property includes a residential dwelling or is being used for residential purposes. (iii) An unauthorized person is unlawfully occupying the property. (iv) The property owner has directed the unauthorized person to leave. (v) The property was not open to the public at the time the unauthorized person entered the property. (vi) The unauthorized person is not a current or former tenant at that property. (vii) The unauthorized person did not have a prior verbal or written agreement to cohabitate with the property owner in that residential dwelling. (viii) The unauthorized person is not an immediate family member of the property owner. (ix) There is no litigation pending between the property owner and the unauthorized person.”

Quoted from the enrolled chapter law on the Legislature's own server, with strike-throughs removed and insertions applied. We print paragraph 3 in full, including the words it hangs off, rather than only subdivision (b), because the two read differently and it is not ours to say which reading a court will take.

Read it at the source →

2 · A.R.S. § 12-1175(A)–(C) — complaint and answer; service and return

“A. When a party aggrieved files a complaint of forcible entry or forcible detainer, in writing and under oath, with the clerk of the superior court or a justice of the peace, summons shall issue no later than the next judicial day. … C. The summons shall be served at least two days before the return day, and return made thereof on the day assigned for trial.”

The ellipsis omits subsection B (what the complaint must describe).

Read it at the source →

3 · A.R.S. § 12-1178(A) — judgment; writ of restitution

“If the defendant is found guilty of forcible entry and detainer or forcible detainer, the court shall give judgment for the plaintiff for restitution of the premises, for all charges stated in the rental agreement and for damages, attorney fees, court and other costs and, at the plaintiff's option, all rent found to be due and unpaid through the periodic rental period, as described in section 33-1314, subsection C, as provided for in the rental agreement, and shall grant a writ of restitution.”

Note that the money half of this sentence is written around a rental agreement, which a squatter does not have. What is not conditional is the first thing it says: judgment for restitution of the premises, and a writ.

Read it at the source →

These are the provisions, in order. We have not drawn a conclusion from them — that is not ours to draw.

How long does it take, and what does it cost?

Days, on paper. The 2026 law has the order to remove them issued the moment the judge signs the judgment, instead of five days later — but you still have to file, serve, and win first, and either side gets five days to appeal and can post a bond to hold the removal up. Filing a possession case in a justice court is

›Read the law — 3 provisions

The two numbers every owner wants, and the one nobody warns them about: you do not get it back.

1 · A.R.S. § 12-1173(B), added by SB 1426 (2026), Ch. 69 — approved by the Governor 2026-05-29

“The supreme court shall adopt rules to allow for the EXPEDITIOUS resolution of claims consistent with this section. For a forcible detainer action brought pursuant subsection A, paragraph 3, SUBDIVISION ( b ) of this section against an UNAUTHORIZED person, A writ of restitution shall be issued immediately after the court signs any JUDGMENT against the unauthorized person.”

Quoted exactly as the enrolled chapter law prints it — the capitals are the bill's own marking of newly inserted text, and the missing word in "pursuant subsection" is in the enacted text. This is what SB 1426 actually does: it removes a five-day wait AFTER a judgment. A judge still signs. It is not a bypass of the court.

Read it at the source →

2 · A.R.S. § 12-1178(C) — limitation on issuance of the writ

“No writ of restitution shall issue until the expiration of five calendar days after the rendition of judgment. The writ of restitution shall be enforced as promptly and expeditiously as possible. The issuance or enforcement of a writ of restitution shall not be suspended, delayed or otherwise affected by the filing of a motion to set aside or vacate the judgment or similar motion unless a judge finds good cause.”

Read it at the source →

3 · A.R.S. § 12-1179(A), (C) — appeal to superior court; notice; bond

“A. Either party may appeal from a justice court to the superior court in the county in which the judgment is given by giving notice as in other civil actions within five calendar days after rendition of the judgment pursuant to this section. … C. A party seeking to appeal a judgment may stay the execution of either the judgment for possession or any judgment for money damages by filing a supersedeas bond. The justice court shall hold a hearing on the motion within five court days after the parties advise the justice court of their failure to stipulate on the amount of the bond. The stay is effective when the supersedeas bond or bonds are filed.”

The ellipsis omits subsection B (the cost bond). This is the part that turns "days" into something longer, and it is the reason we do not print a single confident number. Arizona's courts publish no data on how long a contested possession case actually takes, and we will not invent one.

Read it at the source →

These are the provisions, in order. We have not drawn a conclusion from them — that is not ours to draw.

Can a sheriff remove them on the owner's affidavit alone, with no court?

No. Arizona came close: a 2024 bill would have let an owner hand police a sworn affidavit and have someone removed the same day, and the Governor vetoed it. What passed instead, in 2026, goes through a court — a judge signs the judgment, and only then does the order to remove issue.

›Read the law

Where a state has passed this, it hands the owner the whole mechanism for free. This field tracks the existential risk.

What we looked for: any Arizona statute of the Florida § 82.035 type — an owner's sworn affidavit handed to law enforcement, followed by removal of the occupant with no court hearing and no judicial officer signing anything

SB 1129 (2024, 56th Leg., 2nd Reg. Sess.) — proposed A.R.S. § 12-1173.02, "Limited alternative remedy for removal of unlawful occupant; affidavit". Vetoed.

“A. A PROPERTY OWNER OR THE PROPERTY OWNER'S AUTHORIZED AGENT MAY REQUEST FROM LAW ENFORCEMENT THE IMMEDIATE REMOVAL OF A PERSON WHO IS UNLAWFULLY OCCUPYING A RESIDENTIAL DWELLING AS PRESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION B OF THIS SECTION. … B. TO REQUEST THE IMMEDIATE REMOVAL OF A PERSON WHO UNLAWFULLY OCCUPIES A RESIDENTIAL DWELLING AS PRESCRIBED BY THIS SECTION, THE PROPERTY OWNER OR THE PROPERTY OWNER'S AUTHORIZED AGENT MUST SUBMIT TO LAW ENFORCEMENT A SWORN AFFIDAVIT IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE FOLLOWING FORM…”

WHAT WE READ AND WHAT WE FOUND, on 2026-07-14: we opened the House-engrossed text of SB 1129 on the Legislature's own server, and we then checked the Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 12, Chapter 8, Article 4 — it runs 12-1171, 12-1172, 12-1173, 12-1173.01, 12-1174 through 12-1179. There is no § 12-1173.02. The Legislature's own bill-status record for SB 1129 shows a Governor's action of "Vetoed", dated 2024-04-23. WE COULD NOT FETCH THE VETO LETTER ITSELF, so we do not quote it and we do not characterize the Governor's reasons. Do not confuse SB 1129 with SB 1426 of 2026 (Chapter 69): SB 1426 is a different animal — it shortens the wait for a writ AFTER a judge signs a judgment. Nothing in it lets an officer remove anyone on an affidavit.

Read it at the source →

How long before they can claim they own it?

Ten years — or five, if they hold a recorded deed and have been paying the property taxes, or three if they hold a paper that looks like a chain of title. None of those clocks run just because a house sat empty: every one of them requires someone actually and visibly living on it as their own, without a break, for the entire period.

›Read the law — 3 provisions

The thing an owner of an empty building actually fears. Pure state statute.

1 · A.R.S. § 12-526(A) — ten year limitation

“A person who has a cause of action for recovery of any lands, tenements or hereditaments from a person having peaceable and adverse possession thereof, cultivating, using and enjoying such property, shall commence an action therefor within ten years after the cause of action accrues, and not afterward.”

Read it at the source →

2 · A.R.S. § 12-525 — five year limitation; exception

“A. An action to recover real property from a person in peaceable and adverse possession, and cultivating, using or enjoying the property, and paying taxes thereon, and claiming under a deed or deeds duly recorded, shall be commenced within five years after the cause of action accrues, and not afterward. B. This section shall not apply to anyone in possession of land, who in the absence of this section would claim title through a forged deed, and no one claiming under a forged deed or a deed executed under a forged power of attorney shall be allowed the benefits of this section.”

Subsection B is the one worth reading twice: a forged deed buys no benefit under the five-year rule. A.R.S. § 12-523 sets a separate three-year clock for possession under "title or color of title", which it defines as a chain of transfer with a defect "as does not extend to or include the want of intrinsic fairness and honesty".

Read it at the source →

3 · A.R.S. § 12-521 — definitions

“1. "Adverse possession" means an actual and visible appropriation of the land, commenced and continued under a claim of right inconsistent with and hostile to the claim of another. 2. "Peaceable possession" means possession which is continuous, and not interrupted by an adverse action to recover the estate.”

Read the words rather than the years. An empty house is not an appropriated one, and a clock that is interrupted by an action to recover the property is not running. Note also A.R.S. § 12-522, which sets a two-year limitation on actions to recover possession from "a party in possession [who] claims real property by right of possession only", and adds that in such an action the defendant need not show title "as against the plaintiff who shows no better right". We quote it because it exists and it is short; how it interacts with a record owner who does hold a deed is a question for counsel, and it is not one we will answer here.

Read it at the source →

These are the provisions, in order. We have not drawn a conclusion from them — that is not ours to draw.

This page is the law. What it costs you in Arizona — the filing fee, the sheriff’s bill, the months, and whether you ever see the money again.

Your deed proves you own it. It does not prove you never rented it.

That is the officer’s real question, and the lease in their hand does not contradict your deed. You can swear it is a forgery — but a statement you write the morning after, against a lease dated last year, is worth very little. The version that counts has to already exist.

How DeedProof verifies owners and files the affidavit in advance →

› Every source on this page (16)

A.R.S. § 33-1310(17) — Arizona Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, definitionsA.R.S. § 12-1173(B), added by SB 1426 (2026), Ch. 69 — approved by the Governor 2026-05-29A.R.S. § 13-1501(2) — "enter or remain unlawfully"A.R.S. § 12-1172 — definition of forcible entryA.R.S. § 12-1177(A) — trial and issueA.R.S. § 33-1367 — tenant's remedies for landlord's unlawful ousterA.R.S. § 13-1504(A)(1), (B) — criminal trespass in the first degree; classificationA.R.S. § 13-1502(A)(1), (C) — criminal trespass in the third degree; and § 13-1503 — second degreeA.R.S. § 13-3883(A) — arrest by officer without warrantA.R.S. § 12-1175(A)–(C) — complaint and answer; service and returnA.R.S. § 12-1178(C) — limitation on issuance of the writA.R.S. § 12-1179(A), (C) — appeal to superior court; notice; bondSB 1129 (2024, 56th Leg., 2nd Reg. Sess.) — proposed A.R.S. § 12-1173.02, "Limited alternative remedy for removal of unlawful occupant; affidavit". Vetoed.A.R.S. § 12-526(A) — ten year limitationA.R.S. § 12-525 — five year limitation; exceptionA.R.S. § 12-521 — definitions

DeedProof is not a law firm and this page is not legal advice. We cite primary sources; we do not interpret them for your situation. Laws change — confirm current requirements with the relevant government office or a licensed attorney.