DeedProof

Protect a property
← All states

Law library

Squatters and vacant property in California: what the law says

California's summary remedies are built for landlords, and an owner with a squatter in a vacant house may fit neither of them. 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 — but California never says so in as many words, and that is the problem. Its fast eviction track is written for renters, and a squatter never rented anything, which may leave you with a full civil lawsuit.

›Read the law

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

Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1161(1), (7)

“A tenant of real property, for a term less than life… is guilty of an unlawful detainer: 1. When the tenant continues in possession… 7. As used in this section, 'tenant' includes any person who hires real property…”

And the other summary track may be closed too. § 1160's forcible-detainer remedy runs only for an 'occupant' who was in 'peaceable and undisturbed possession' within FIVE DAYS preceding the entry — and the owner of a vacant flip has been out of possession for months. Read literally, our exact reader is outside both. Confirm with counsel before relying on either.

Read it at the source →

Can I just change the locks?

No. California's force prohibition has no tenancy limit — it reaches “any lands or other possessions of another”, which means it reaches an owner retaking his own building by force.

›Read the law — 2 provisions

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

1 · Cal. Penal Code § 418

“Every person using or procuring, encouraging or assisting another to use, any force or violence in entering upon or detaining any lands or other possessions of another, except in the cases and in the manner allowed by law, is guilty of a misdemeanor.”

Read it at the source →

2 · Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1159(a)(1)

“(a) Every person is guilty of a forcible entry who either: (1) By breaking open doors, windows, or other parts of a house, or by any kind of violence or circumstance of terror enters upon or into any real property.”

Note the asymmetry. The landlord lockout statute (Civ. Code § 789.3) is written about landlords and tenants, so it arguably does not reach a squatter — but § 418 and § 1159(a)(1) have no tenancy limit at all. And the practical trap is worse: whether the occupant IS a tenant is the very fact in dispute, so an owner who guesses wrong has violated § 789.3 as well.

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?

Only if he catches them there. California lets an officer arrest for a crime he sees happening — but for this charge, he has to see it. Arriving afterwards is not the same thing.

›Read the law — 2 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 · Cal. Penal Code § 602 — the grading

“Except as provided in subdivisions (u), (v), and (x), and Section 602.8, a person who willfully commits a trespass by any of the following acts is guilty of a misdemeanor: … (m) Entering and occupying real property or structures of any kind without the consent of the owner, the owner's agent, or the person in lawful possession.”

The infraction carve-outs are for farmland and posted open land, not dwellings. So the offenses that matter here are all misdemeanors — California does not have Ohio's citation-only trap.

Read it at the source →

2 · Cal. Penal Code § 836(a) — Warrantless arrest

“(a) A peace officer… without a warrant, may arrest a person whenever any of the following circumstances occur: (1) The officer has probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a public offense in the officer's presence. (2) The person arrested has committed a felony, although not in the officer's presence.”

There is no trespass-specific exception anywhere in § 602 or § 602.5. For a misdemeanor, the offense must be committed in the officer's presence. § 602.5 says 'enters OR REMAINS' — so whether an occupant still inside is committing it in his view is the question the whole California chain lives or dies on, and it is not answered in the statute.

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?

Consent — whether the owner gave it. And California already lets an owner file a notarized standing request with police for a vacant property, which is closer to a solution than any other state has come.

DeedProof solves this

We verify you own the property and file your notarized statement — that no lease exists and nobody may enter — where police can check it. How it works →

›Read the law — 2 provisions

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

1 · Cal. Penal Code § 602.5(a) — Unauthorized entry of a dwelling

“(a) Every person other than a public officer or employee acting within the course and scope of his or her employment… who enters or remains in any noncommercial dwelling house, apartment, or other residential place without consent of the owner, his or her agent, or the person in lawful possession thereof, is guilty of a misdemeanor.”

Read it at the source →

2 · Cal. Penal Code § 602(o)(1)

“…a single request for a peace officer's assistance, made in a notarized writing on a form provided by the law enforcement agency, may be made to cover a limited period of time not to exceed a time period determined by local ordinance or 12 months, whichever is shorter, and identified by specific dates, during which there is a fire hazard or the owner, owner's agent, or person in lawful possession is absent from the premises or property.”

Read that carefully. A notarized owner's statement, on a police form, valid up to twelve months, keyed to the owner being ABSENT from the property — and it must be withdrawn in writing when no longer wanted. California has written a version of this product into its own Penal Code. What it does not do is tell the officer how to confirm that the person who signed it owns the building.

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?

Possibly ejectment, in the superior court — a full civil lawsuit. California's two fast tracks are built for landlords, and an owner with a squatter in a vacant house may fit neither.

›Read the law

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

Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1160

“(b) The occupant of real property, within the meaning of this section is one who, within five days preceding such unlawful entry, was in the peaceable and undisturbed possession of such lands.”

This is the California trap and it is the most important thing on this page. A vacant property means the owner was not in possession five days before the entry — so the summary remedy may not reach them, and neither does unlawful detainer. That leaves ejectment: a full civil action in the superior court. Counsel must confirm this before you rely on it, and if it holds, California is harder than Pennsylvania.

Read it at the source →

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

Months, and there is no shortcut. California has no affidavit route, and the bill that would have created one died in February 2026.

›Read the law

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

Cal. SB 448 (2025-26) — 'Inactive Bill – Died', 2026-02-02

“Inactive Bill - Died. Returned to Secretary of Senate pursuant to Joint Rule 56.”

Court fees vary by county; confirm with the superior court where the property sits. We do not print a figure we have not read from that county's own schedule.

Read it at the source →

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

No. The bill that would have created one, SB 448, died on 2 February 2026 — and it would have ordered police to “verify” the owner's affidavit without saying how.

›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 California statute letting a sheriff or police officer remove an occupant on the owner's sworn affidavit, without a court

Cal. SB 448 (2025-26 Reg. Sess.) — checked 2026-07-14

“Inactive Bill - Died. Returned to Secretary of Senate pursuant to Joint Rule 56.”

It is dead, not buried — a two-year session flip is a plausible resurrection window and the sponsor is still in the Senate. And note what it would have done: required law enforcement to VERIFY the owner's affidavit, with no mechanism to do it. The same gap, in another state, in another bill.

Read it at the source →

How long before they can claim they own it?

Five years — the shortest in the country. But they must have paid every tax bill for all five, proved by the county tax collector's own records, and almost nobody does.

›Read the law

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

Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 325(b)

“(b) In no case shall adverse possession be considered established… unless it shall be shown that the land has been occupied and claimed for the period of five years continuously, and the party or persons… have timely paid all state, county, or municipal taxes that have been levied and assessed upon the land for the period of five years during which the land has been occupied and claimed. Payment of those taxes… shall be established by certified records of the county tax collector.”

The tax condition defeats nearly every real claim. This is the one reassuring number on the page and it should not be used to frighten anyone — the squatter's weapon is a claimed tenancy tonight, not a five-year title claim.

Read it at the source →

This page is the law. What it costs you in California — 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 (9)

Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1161(1), (7)Cal. Penal Code § 418Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1159(a)(1)Cal. Penal Code § 602(o)(1)Cal. Penal Code § 836(a) — Warrantless arrestCal. Penal Code § 602.5(a) — Unauthorized entry of a dwellingCal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1160Cal. SB 448 (2025-26 Reg. Sess.) — checked 2026-07-14Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 325(b)

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.