DeedProof

Protect a property
← All states

Law library

Squatters and vacant property in Colorado: what the law says

Colorado gives an owner a named ground for evicting someone who moved into an empty building — but it is still an eviction case, filed in court, decided by a judge. Nobody is put out of a Colorado house on your sworn word alone. Being inside a home you have no right to be in is a crime here, and a Colorado officer may arrest on probable cause without waiting to see it happen. You will read online that Colorado police must remove a squatter within twenty-four hours once you show them your title. That was a bill, and it died in its first committee. Every answer below is quoted from the statute or the bill 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?

Colorado never says it either way — but it gives you a ground for eviction written for exactly this: someone who entered your vacant building with no right or title at all. It sits apart from the grounds written about a tenant or a lessee, and none of the notice periods a landlord owes a tenant appear in it. What Colorado does not do is let you skip the case.

›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 · C.R.S. § 13-40-104(1)(a) — unlawful detention defined (CRS 2025, Title 13)

“A person has committed an unlawful detention of real property in the following cases: (a) When entry is made, without right or title, into any vacant or unoccupied lands or tenements;”

Read where this sits. It is paragraph (a) of a list of grounds for an eviction action, and it is the only one addressed to a person who entered a vacant building with no right or title at all. It is not, however, the only ground that is not about a tenancy: (1)(b) is a wrongful entry onto public lands, tenements or mining claims, and (1)(f) to (1)(i) are about a purchaser after a sale under a power of sale, a purchaser after a judicial sale, an heir or devisee holding over, and a defaulting buyer under an agreement to purchase. Note what paragraph (a) does not contain: none of the ten-day, five-day or three-day written notices that paragraphs (d), (e) and (j) require of a landlord appear in it.

Read it at the source →

2 · C.R.S. § 13-40-104(1)(c) — the tenant ground, for contrast (CRS 2025, Title 13)

“When any lessee or tenant at will, or at sufferance, or for any period of time, of any nonresidential real property or residential premises described in section 38-12-1302 (1)(a), (1)(b), (1)(d), (1)(e), or (1)(f), including a specific or undivided portion of a building, holds over and continues in possession of the nonresidential real property or residential premises described in section 38-12-1302 (1)(a), (1)(b), (1)(d), (1)(e), or (1)(f), or any portion thereof, after the expiration of the term for which the nonresidential real property or residential premises described in section 38-12-1302 (1)(a), (1)(b), (1)(d), (1)(e), or (1)(f) was leased or after the tenancy has been terminated by either party;”

A CLAIM ABOUT OUR OWN SEARCH, NOT ABOUT THE LAW: on 2026-07-14 we read C.R.S. §§ 13-40-101 through 13-40-123 in full in the Office of Legislative Legal Services' 2025 printout. We looked for a Colorado provision saying in as many words that a trespasser is not a tenant, or that the tenant-protection statutes do not reach one — the kind of sentence Missouri and Georgia wrote into their 2024 laws. We did not find one. What Colorado has is the structural separation above. Whether a person who was never anyone's tenant can nonetheless claim a tenant's protections is a question a Colorado court would answer, and it is not ours to answer. Confirm against the official code before relying on it.

Read it at the source →

3 · C.R.S. § 13-40-109 — jurisdiction of courts (CRS 2025, Title 13)

“The district courts in their respective districts and county courts in their respective counties have jurisdiction of all cases of forcible entry, forcible detainer, or unlawful detainer arising pursuant to this article 40, and the person entitled to the possession of any premises may recover possession thereof by action brought in any of said courts in the manner provided in this article 40.”

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. In Colorado every removal goes through a court, and then through an officer carrying the court's order out — the statute against forcing your way into a property is addressed to "no person", and it does not carve out the owner. Colorado's lockout penalty is written about landlords and tenants, and we found no Colorado case saying whether it reaches someone who was never your tenant. Do not be the person who finds out: it runs to three times the monthly rent or five thousand dollars, plus their lawyer.

›Read the law — 3 provisions

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

1 · C.R.S. § 13-40-102 — forcible entry prohibited (CRS 2025, Title 13)

“No person shall enter into or upon any real property, except in cases where entry is allowed by law, and in such cases not with strong hand or with a multitude of people, but only in a peaceable manner.”

Note the words "no person" and "except in cases where entry is allowed by law". Colorado's companion section, § 13-40-103, is written the other way round — "No person, having peaceably entered into or upon any real property without right to the possession thereof, shall forcibly hold or detain the same as against the person who has a lawful right to such possession." The article speaks to both sides.

Read it at the source →

2 · C.R.S. § 13-40-122(1)(a), (1)(b) — writ of restitution after judgment (CRS 2025, Title 13)

“a court shall not issue a writ of restitution upon any judgment entered in any action pursuant to this article 40 until forty-eight hours after the time of the entry of the judgment. … A writ of restitution must be executed by the officer having the same only in the daytime and between sunrise and sunset”

The ellipsis skips subsection (1)(a)'s provisions about residential tenants who receive social security disability, supplemental security income, or Colorado works cash assistance, and about landlords with five or fewer rental units, which are not about a squatter. Read what the section assigns and to whom: the writ comes from the court, and the officer executes it.

Read it at the source →

3 · C.R.S. § 38-12-510(1), (2) — unlawful removal or exclusion (CRS 2025, Title 38)

“It is unlawful for a landlord to remove or exclude a tenant from a dwelling unit without resorting to court process … Unlawful removal or exclusion includes the willful termination of utilities or the willful removal of doors, windows, or locks to the premises other than as required for repair or maintenance. … In the case of a violation, the tenant must be awarded statutory damages equal to the tenant's actual damages and the higher amount of either three times the monthly rent or five thousand dollars, as well as any other damages, attorney fees, and costs that may be owed.”

A CLAIM ABOUT OUR OWN SEARCH, NOT ABOUT THE LAW: the first ellipsis skips the section's exceptions (an illegal-drug-laboratory cleanup, mutual consent, and abandonment); the second skips the opening of subsection (2). Note the scope — this section says "landlord" and "tenant". We looked on 2026-07-14 for a Colorado appellate decision resolving whether it reaches a person who was never a tenant, and did not find one we could fetch. DeedProof does not advise on this and never will: changing the locks, cutting the utilities, taking the doors off or moving anyone's belongings is not something we will help with, in any state, and least of all in one where we cannot tell you what it costs.

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 — the power is there on the face of the statutes. Being inside a house you have no right to be in is criminal trespass; how serious a charge it is depends on whether a court would call your empty house a "dwelling", and Colorado has not settled that. Either way, Colorado lets an officer arrest on probable cause that any offence was committed — it does not make him watch it happen first. He may also choose to write a summons instead and leave. What is left for him to decide is whether the person inside is trespassing at all — and that is the next question.

›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 · C.R.S. § 18-4-502(1), (2) — first degree criminal trespass (CRS 2025, Title 18)

“A person commits the crime of first degree criminal trespass if such person: (a) Knowingly and unlawfully enters or remains in a dwelling of another; or (b) Enters any motor vehicle with intent to commit a crime therein. (2) (a) First degree criminal trespass committed pursuant to subsection (1)(a) of this section is a class 1 misdemeanor, but it is a class 6 felony if the dwelling is inhabited or occupied.”

Two words in this section decide the grade, and neither is defined in it. "Dwelling" is defined elsewhere in the criminal code, at § 18-1-901(3)(g): "'Dwelling' means a building which is used, intended to be used, or usually used by a person for habitation." Whether an empty house mid-renovation is one is a question for a Colorado court, and it is not ours to answer. "Inhabited or occupied" — the words that raise this to a felony — are not defined in the section either.

Read it at the source →

2 · C.R.S. § 18-4-503(1)(a), (2)(a) and § 18-4-504(1), (2) — second and third degree criminal trespass (CRS 2025, Title 18)

“A person commits the crime of second degree criminal trespass if such person: (a) Unlawfully enters or remains in or upon the premises of another which are enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders or are fenced … (2) (a) Second degree criminal trespass in violation of subsection (1)(a) or (1)(b) of this section is a petty offense … A person commits the crime of third degree criminal trespass if such person unlawfully enters or remains in or upon premises of another. (2) Third degree criminal trespass is a petty offense”

THIS IS THE LINK THAT KILLED A PREVIOUS MARKET, AND IT IS WHY IT MATTERS THAT COLORADO'S ARREST STATUTE IS WRITTEN THE WAY IT IS. In Ohio, an offence graded this low took the arrest off the table and left the officer with a citation, and a citation removes nobody from a house. Read the next link before drawing any conclusion from this one. The ellipses skip the paragraphs about hotel and apartment common areas, motor vehicles, and agricultural land, which are not this case.

Read it at the source →

3 · C.R.S. § 16-3-102(1) — arrest by peace officer (CRS 2025, Title 16)

“A peace officer may arrest a person when: (a) He has a warrant commanding that such person be arrested; or (b) Any crime has been or is being committed by such person in his presence; or (c) He has probable cause to believe that an offense was committed and has probable cause to believe that the offense was committed by the person to be arrested.”

Read paragraph (c) against paragraph (b). Georgia gives its officers a general power to arrest without a warrant only where the offence happens in front of them; Colorado's paragraph (c) does not require that, and it does not set a minimum grade. It says "an offense". These are the provisions, in order. We have not drawn a conclusion from them.

Read it at the source →

4 · C.R.S. § 16-2-104 — issuance of summons and complaint (CRS 2025, Title 16)

“A summons and complaint may be issued by any peace officer for an offense constituting a misdemeanor or a petty offense committed in the peace officer's presence or, if not committed in the peace officer's presence, that the peace officer has probable cause to believe was committed and probable cause to believe was committed by the person charged.”

A summons leaves the person in the house. Colorado also lets an arresting officer release someone he has arrested for a misdemeanour or petty offence on a summons, at the scene — § 16-3-105(1)(b). Every one of these is a "may". The statutes give the officer the power and leave him the choice, and the thing he will weigh it against is whether he believes the paper in the intruder's hand.

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 at the door believes the person inside had it. The crime turns on a single word, "unlawfully", which Colorado defines as being there without a licence, an invitation or a privilege. To weigh that, he has to know who could have granted one, which means knowing who owns the building. Colorado asks you to name the property and the person in it. It does not ask you to prove the house is yours, and it names nobody whose job it is to check.

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 — 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 · C.R.S. § 18-4-201(3) — "enters unlawfully" defined (CRS 2025, Title 18)

“A person "enters unlawfully" or "remains unlawfully" in or upon premises when the person is not licensed, invited, or otherwise privileged to do so.”

A licence or an invitation is a thing an owner gives. So the officer in the doorway cannot answer the question in front of him without knowing who the owner is — and a forged lease is an assertion that the owner gave exactly that.

Read it at the source →

2 · C.R.S. § 13-40-110(1)(a) — action, how commenced (CRS 2025, Title 13)

“An action pursuant to this article 40 is commenced by filing with the court a complaint in writing using the standard form of eviction complaint and affidavit for a residential tenancy that is available online through the judicial department's website to describe the property with reasonable certainty; the street address and the zip code, listed separately; the grounds for recovery; the name of the person in possession or occupancy; a prayer for recovery of possession; and a signed affidavit that states:”

A CLAIM ABOUT OUR OWN SEARCH, NOT ABOUT THE LAW: on 2026-07-14 we read C.R.S. §§ 13-40-101 through 13-40-123 in full, and §§ 18-4-201, 18-4-502, 18-4-503, 18-4-504, 16-2-104, 16-3-102 and 16-3-105 in full, in the Office of Legislative Legal Services' 2025 printout of the Colorado Revised Statutes. We looked for any provision telling a judge, a clerk, a sheriff or a police officer how to establish that the person claiming the building actually owns it — a deed check, a recorder's lookup, a registry, anything. We found no such provision. The sworn affidavit this paragraph goes on to require is about mandatory mediation with a residential tenant, not about title. Confirm against the official code before relying on 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.

What is the lawful way to get them out?

An eviction case, filed in the county court, on the ground Colorado wrote for someone who moved into a vacant building. You file; the court gives them a date to show up, seven to fourteen days out; if the judge agrees they have no right to be there, he orders them out and hands the order to an officer. The officer can act on it no sooner than forty-eight hours after the judge signs, and only in daylight.

›Read the law — 3 provisions

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

1 · C.R.S. § 13-40-104(1)(a) — unlawful detention (CRS 2025, Title 13)

“A person has committed an unlawful detention of real property in the following cases: (a) When entry is made, without right or title, into any vacant or unoccupied lands or tenements;”

Where a written demand is required before filing, § 13-40-106 says what it must say: it "shall be made in writing, specifying the grounds of the demandant's right to the possession of the premises, including a specific description of the alleged violation or no-fault eviction grounds, describing the premises, and indicating the date and time when the premises shall be delivered up, and shall be signed by the person claiming such possession, the person's agent, or the person's attorney."

Read it at the source →

2 · C.R.S. § 13-40-111(1) — issuance and return of summons (CRS 2025, Title 13)

“Upon filing the complaint as required in section 13-40-110, the clerk of the court or the attorney for the plaintiff shall issue a summons. The summons must command the defendant to appear before the court at a place named in the summons and at a time and on a day not less than seven days but not more than fourteen days after the day of issuing the same to answer the complaint of plaintiff. A court shall not enter a default judgment for possession before the close of business on the date upon which an appearance is due.”

Read it at the source →

3 · C.R.S. § 13-40-115(2) — judgment and writ of restitution (CRS 2025, Title 13)

“Upon a trial or further hearing pursuant to this article 40 after personal service has been made upon the defendant in accordance with section 13-40-112 (1), if the court or jury has not already tried the issue of unlawful detainer, it may do so. If the court finds that the defendant has committed an unlawful detainer, the court shall enter judgment for the plaintiff to have restitution of the premises and shall issue a writ of restitution.”

The same subsection lets the court add the rent due, the damages from the detention and the damages to the property, "together with any reasonable attorney fees and costs as in other civil actions" — subject to the county court's jurisdictional ceiling, which § 13-40-109 sets at twenty-five thousand dollars for rent or damages. A writ, once issued, expires: § 13-40-115(3) — "A writ of restitution that is issued by the court pursuant to subsection (1) or (2) of this section shall remain in effect for forty-nine days after issuance and shall automatically expire thereafter."

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?

Weeks if it is fought in the county court, and months if they appeal — because an appeal stops everything, and the deposit Colorado requires to bring one is written for tenants who owe rent, not for someone who was never a tenant. The statute's own clocks are the short part: a date to show up seven to fourteen days out, a trial, and no removal until forty-eight hours after the judge signs. On the money, we do not print a dollar figure for Colorado — the filing and service fees are not in the statute and we have not read a published schedule. Assume a lawyer, and assume you pay for him: whether you can get that back from someone who was never your tenant is not a question Colorado's statute answers.

›Read the law — 4 provisions

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

1 · C.R.S. § 13-40-111(1) — the return date (CRS 2025, Title 13)

“The summons must command the defendant to appear before the court at a place named in the summons and at a time and on a day not less than seven days but not more than fourteen days after the day of issuing the same to answer the complaint of plaintiff.”

That is the appearance date, not the trial date. § 13-40-114 contemplates the case being pushed: "If either party requests a delay in trial longer than five days, the court in its discretion may, upon good cause shown, require either of the parties to give bond or other security approved and fixed by the court in an amount for the payment to the opposite party of such sum as he may be damaged due to the delay." Nothing in article 40 sets an outer limit on that delay.

Read it at the source →

2 · C.R.S. § 13-40-122(1)(a), (1)(b) — writ of restitution after judgment (CRS 2025, Title 13)

“a court shall not issue a writ of restitution upon any judgment entered in any action pursuant to this article 40 until forty-eight hours after the time of the entry of the judgment. … A writ of restitution must be executed by the officer having the same only in the daytime and between sunrise and sunset, and the officer shall not execute a writ of restitution concerning a residential tenancy until at least ten days after entry of the judgment”

The ellipsis skips the provisions of subsection (1)(a) about residential tenants receiving social security disability, supplemental security income or Colorado works cash assistance, and about landlords with five or fewer rental units. Note that the ten-day hold in (1)(b) is expressed for a writ "concerning a residential tenancy" — we did not establish how a Colorado court treats that phrase where there was never a tenancy, and we do not guess.

Read it at the source →

3 · C.R.S. § 13-40-117(1), (2) and § 13-40-118 — appeals, deposit of rent (CRS 2025, Title 13)

“If either party feels aggrieved by the judgment rendered in such action before the county court, he may appeal to the district court, as in other cases tried before the county court, with the additional requirements provided in this article. (2) Upon the court's taking such appeal, all further proceedings in the case shall be stayed … In all appeals from the judgment of a county court, in an action founded upon section 13-40-104 (1)(d), the defendant, at the time of the filing thereof, shall deposit with the court the amount of rent found due and specified in such judgment. Unless such deposit is made, the appeal is not perfected”

READ WHICH GROUND § 13-40-118 NAMES. It requires the rent deposit "in an action founded upon section 13-40-104 (1)(d)" — the ground for a tenant who did not pay. A squatter case is brought on paragraph (1)(a), and paragraph (1)(d) is not it. A CLAIM ABOUT OUR OWN SEARCH: we did not establish what security, if any, a Colorado county court requires to perfect an appeal from a (1)(a) judgment — § 13-40-117(1) says only "as in other cases tried before the county court", and that answer lives in the rules of procedure, which we did not read. NO DOLLAR FIGURE APPEARS ON THIS PAGE, and that is deliberate: Colorado sets its county court filing fees and sheriff service fees outside this article, and every fee figure on this site appears verbatim in a document we fetched or it does not appear.

Read it at the source →

4 · C.R.S. § 13-40-123 — damages (CRS 2025, Title 13)

“The prevailing party in any action brought under the provisions of this article is entitled to recover damages, reasonable attorney fees, and costs of suit; except that a residential landlord or tenant who is a prevailing party shall not be entitled to recover reasonable attorney fees unless the residential rental agreement between the parties contains a provision for either party to obtain attorney fees.”

Note the carve-out and note whom it names — "a residential landlord or tenant", and it turns on "the residential rental agreement between the parties". Whether an owner suing someone who was never his tenant, under a ground that requires no lease, falls inside it is not a question the section answers, and it is not ours to answer.

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 — Colorado has no affidavit shortcut at all. A judge signs the order and an officer carries it out. If you have read that Colorado police must remove a squatter within twenty-four hours once you show them your title, you read a bill: it was introduced in January 2025, and its own committee killed it four weeks later without ever sending it to a floor vote.

›Read the law — 4 provisions

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

1 · C.R.S. § 13-40-109 — jurisdiction of courts (CRS 2025, Title 13)

“The district courts in their respective districts and county courts in their respective counties have jurisdiction of all cases of forcible entry, forcible detainer, or unlawful detainer arising pursuant to this article 40, and the person entitled to the possession of any premises may recover possession thereof by action brought in any of said courts in the manner provided in this article 40.”

A CLAIM ABOUT OUR OWN SEARCH, NOT ABOUT THE LAW: on 2026-07-14 we read C.R.S. §§ 13-40-101 through 13-40-123 in full in the Office of Legislative Legal Services' 2025 printout, and searched Titles 13, 16, 18 and 38 for any provision letting a sheriff or a police officer put a person out of a building on an owner's sworn statement, with no court order. We found none. The officer's role in article 40 begins when he is handed a writ the court has already issued.

Read it at the source →

2 · C.R.S. § 13-40-115(2) — judgment and writ (CRS 2025, Title 13)

“If the court finds that the defendant has committed an unlawful detainer, the court shall enter judgment for the plaintiff to have restitution of the premises and shall issue a writ of restitution.”

Read it at the source →

3 · HB25-1104 (Squatting Prohibited), as introduced 2025-01-27 — proposed C.R.S. § 18-4-504.7(5)(b). NOT LAW: postponed indefinitely in committee

“BEFORE A CONVICTION, IF A LANDOWNER NOTIFIES LAW ENFORCEMENT OF A PERSON'S UNLAWFUL PRESENCE, LAW ENFORCEMENT SHALL REMOVE THE PERSON WITHIN TWENTY-FOUR HOURS AFTER THE LANDOWNER PRESENTS PROOF OF LEGAL OWNERSHIP TO THE PREMISES TO LAW ENFORCEMENT. IF PROOF OF LEGAL OWNERSHIP TO THE PREMISES IS PRESENTED, LAW ENFORCEMENT SHALL REMOVE THE PERSON UNLAWFULLY ON THE PREMISES WITHOUT THE NEED FOR A COURT ORDER.”

THIS IS A DEAD BILL AND WE QUOTE IT ONLY BECAUSE HALF THE INTERNET QUOTES IT AS LAW. The capital letters are the drafter's: in a Colorado bill, capitals mark new material being added to existing law. Read it for what it is worth to us and to you — even this bill, which was written to hand the owner everything, asks only that he "present proof of legal ownership", and tells the officer nothing about how to test it. That is the gap, restated inside the statute that was supposed to close it. Note also what the same bill's proposed § 18-4-504.7(1)(b) said: "THE CRIME OF SQUATTING IS A STRICT LIABILITY CRIME."

Read it at the source →

4 · Colorado General Assembly, HB25-1104 bill page — status and bill history, read 2026-07-14

“Postpone House Bill 25-1104 indefinitely using a reversal of the previous roll call. There was no objection to the use of the reverse roll call, therefore, the bill was postponed indefinitely. The motion passed on a vote of 7-4.”

The page's own status field reads "Lost", and its Bill History has exactly two entries: "01/27/2025 House Introduced In House - Assigned to Judiciary" and "02/04/2025 House House Committee on Judiciary Postpone Indefinitely". The motion to refer it out of committee failed 4-7 first. It never reached the floor of either chamber. A CLAIM ABOUT OUR OWN SEARCH: on 2026-07-14 we looked for a successor bill in the 2026 regular session, which adjourned sine die on 2026-05-13, and did not find one. Verify against the legislature's own status pages before relying on this.

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 before they can claim they own it?

Eighteen years — or seven, if they hold a piece of paper that looks like title and pay the taxes on it. Since 2008 the ordinary claim is much harder to win: they have to prove every element to a high standard, and prove they genuinely and reasonably believed the property was theirs. The seven-year route is the one to watch on an empty building, because Colorado has a version of it written for land that is vacant and unoccupied.

›Read the law — 4 provisions

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

1 · C.R.S. § 38-41-101(1) — limitation of eighteen years (CRS 2025, Title 38)

“No person shall commence or maintain an action for the recovery of the title or possession or to enforce or establish any right or interest of or to real property or make an entry thereon unless commenced within eighteen years after the right to bring such action or make such entry has first accrued or within eighteen years after he or those from, by, or under whom he claims have been seized or possessed of the premises. Eighteen years' adverse possession of any land shall be conclusive evidence of absolute ownership.”

Like Missouri's, this is written as a deadline on the OWNER'S lawsuit rather than as a grant to the possessor. Subsection (2) puts government-owned land outside it entirely: "No possession by any person, firm, or corporation, no matter how long continued, of any land … dedicated to or owned by the state of Colorado, or any county, city and county, city, irrigation district, public, municipal, or quasi-municipal corporation … shall ever ripen into any title, interest, or right against the state of Colorado".

Read it at the source →

2 · C.R.S. § 38-41-101(3)(a), (3)(b) — clear and convincing evidence; good-faith belief (CRS 2025, Title 38)

“In order to prevail on a claim asserting fee simple title to real property by adverse possession in any civil action filed on or after July 1, 2008, the person asserting the claim shall prove each element of the claim by clear and convincing evidence. (b) In addition to any other requirements specified in this part 1, in any action for a claim for fee simple title to real property by adverse possession for which fee simple title vests on or after July 1, 2008 … a person may acquire fee simple title to real property by adverse possession only upon satisfaction of each of the following conditions: (I) The person presents evidence to satisfy all of the elements of a claim for adverse possession required under common law in Colorado; and (II) Either the person claiming by adverse possession or a predecessor in interest of such person had a good faith belief that the person in possession of the property of the owner of record was the actual owner of the property and the belief was reasonable under the particular circumstances.”

The ellipsis skips the words "in favor of the adverse possessor and against the owner of record of the real property under subsection (1) of this section". Note what condition (II) asks of a person who knew perfectly well the building was not his. Note also what subsection (3) does NOT reach: subsection (4) limits it to claims for fee simple title, and expressly not to easements by prescription. The common-law elements condition (I) points at are judicial, and we do not quote them — we did not read the Colorado cases and we do not put words in a court's mouth.

Read it at the source →

3 · C.R.S. § 38-41-108 — rights in possession seven years, colour of title and payment of taxes (CRS 2025, Title 38)

“Every person in the actual possession of lands or tenements, under claim and color of title, made in good faith, who for seven successive years continues in such possession and also during said time pays all taxes legally assessed on such lands or tenements shall be held and adjudged to be the legal owner of said lands or tenements to the extent and according to the purport of his paper title.”

"Color of title" is written evidence of title that need not be good — which is what makes a bad piece of paper dangerous to a building nobody visits. The tax requirement is the practical brake: it means seven years of a stranger paying your property tax bill, which is a thing you can watch for.

Read it at the source →

4 · C.R.S. § 38-41-109 — when in possession under colour of title, unoccupied lands (CRS 2025, Title 38)

“Whenever a person having color of title, made in good faith, to vacant and unoccupied land pays all taxes legally assessed thereon for seven successive years, he shall be deemed and adjudged to be the legal owner of said vacant and unoccupied land to the extent and according to the purport of his paper title.”

READ WHAT THIS SECTION DOES NOT REQUIRE. There is no possession in it — no living there, no fence, no open and notorious anything. Colour of title, made in good faith, and seven years of paying the taxes on land that is vacant and unoccupied. This is the section an owner of an empty building should know exists. Whether "vacant and unoccupied land" reaches a vacant house is a question for a Colorado court, and it is not ours to answer.

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 Colorado — 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 (6)

C.R.S. § 13-40-115(2) — judgment and writ (CRS 2025, Title 13)C.R.S. § 38-41-109 — when in possession under colour of title, unoccupied lands (CRS 2025, Title 38)C.R.S. § 18-4-201(3) — "enters unlawfully" defined (CRS 2025, Title 18)C.R.S. § 16-2-104 — issuance of summons and complaint (CRS 2025, Title 16)HB25-1104 (Squatting Prohibited), as introduced 2025-01-27 — proposed C.R.S. § 18-4-504.7(5)(b). NOT LAW: postponed indefinitely in committeeColorado General Assembly, HB25-1104 bill page — status and bill history, read 2026-07-14

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.