DeedProof

Protect a property
← All states

Law library

Squatters and vacant property in New Mexico: what the law says

New Mexico routes an owner through a court, and on paper the route is short: three days’ written notice to leave, a possession case filed in the magistrate court for your county, a hearing set between three and ten days after they are served, and a judgment that orders the sheriff to put them out. A judge signs it — nobody is put out of a New Mexico house on your sworn word alone. Changing the locks yourself is banned, and the act prices it at twice the monthly rent. On the criminal side, how they got in decides a great deal: forcing or tricking their way in is a felony here, while merely refusing to leave is a misdemeanor. 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. New Mexico’s landlord-tenant act only protects someone who signed a rental agreement with you, so none of its protections reach a person who never had one. That does not mean you may put them out yourself — the state still routes you through a court.

›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 · NMSA 1978, § 47-8-3(Q) — "resident" defined, Uniform Owner-Resident Relations Act · secondhand source

“a person entitled under a rental agreement to occupy a dwelling unit in peaceful possession to the exclusion of others and includes the owner of a mobile home renting premises, other than a lot or parcel in a mobile home park, for use as a site for the location of the mobile home”

SECONDARY: read on FindLaw, because the official New Mexico compilation (nmonesource.com) answers every request with a CAPTCHA. A human should confirm it against the official code. The Act defines a "rental agreement" at § 47-8-3(P) as "all agreements between an owner and resident … embodying the terms and conditions concerning the use and occupancy of a dwelling unit or premises."

Read it at the source →

2 · NMSA 1978, § 35-10-2 — limitation of remedy · secondhand source

“The provisions of Sections 35-10-1 through 35-10-6 NMSA 1978 shall not apply to actions by a landlord arising out of a residential tenancy governed by the Uniform Owner-Resident Relations Act.”

SECONDARY: read on FindLaw; the official compilation is behind a CAPTCHA. The compilation prints a bracketed cross-reference — "[47-8-1 to 47-8-52 NMSA 1978]" — after the Act’s name. Bracketed material is inserted by the compiler and is not part of the law, so it is left out of the quotation above.

Read it at the source →

3 · NMSA 1978, § 35-10-1(A)(1) — forcible entry or unlawful detainer; grounds · secondhand source

“A civil action for forcible entry or unlawful detainer of real property is commenced by the filing of a civil complaint alleging that one or more of the following facts exists: (1) the defendant entered and occupied the lands and tenements of another against the will or consent of the owner and refused to vacate the premises after notice by the owner or his agent or attorney;”

SECONDARY: read on FindLaw; the official compilation is behind a CAPTCHA. "Forcible entry or unlawful detainer" is the statute’s name for the possession case — it is what YOU file, not something you are charged with. Read the other four grounds beside it: (2) holding over after a lease ends, (3) failing to pay rent, (4) staying on after a foreclosure sale, (5) a month-to-month or at-will tenant staying after thirty days’ notice. Only the first reaches a person who never had an agreement with you at all.

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. Do not do it. New Mexico bans locking a person out, cutting their utilities, or putting their belongings on the kerb without a court order, and prices it at twice the monthly rent plus damages. No New Mexico court has said whether that ban stops short of a squatter — and untested is not the same as permitted. The person who finds out which it is will find out as a defendant.

›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 · NMSA 1978, § 47-8-36(A) — unlawful removal and diminution of services prohibited · secondhand source

“Except in case of abandonment, surrender or as otherwise permitted in the Uniform Owner-Resident Relations Act, an owner or any person acting on behalf of the owner shall not knowingly exclude the resident, remove, threaten or attempt to remove or dispossess a resident from the dwelling unit without a court order by: (1) fraud; (2) plugging, changing, adding or removing any lock or latching device; (3) blocking any entrance into the dwelling unit; (4) interfering with services or normal and necessary utilities to the unit pursuant to Section 47-8-32 NMSA 1978, including but not limited to electricity, gas, hot or cold water, plumbing, heat or telephone service, provided that this section shall not impose a duty upon the owner to make utility payments or otherwise prevent utility interruptions resulting from nonpayment of utility charges by the resident; (5) removing the resident's personal property from the dwelling unit or its premises; (6) removing or incapacitating appliances or fixtures, except for making necessary and legitimate repairs; or (7) any willful act rendering a dwelling unit or any personal property located in the dwelling unit or on the premises inaccessible or uninhabitable.”

SECONDARY: read on FindLaw, because the official compilation answers every request with a CAPTCHA. Confirm against the official code. AND READ THE SCOPE, WHICH IS THE UNRESOLVED PART: every prohibition in this section runs between an "owner" and a "resident", and § 47-8-3(Q) defines a resident as a person entitled to occupy under a rental agreement. We looked for a New Mexico appellate decision saying whether § 47-8-36 reaches a person who never had one, and found none we could fetch. We therefore quote none, and we do not lean on this section as if it settled the question. THAT IS NOT A LICENCE. An untested boundary is not a permission, and the owner who tests it is the one who pays to find out.

Read it at the source →

2 · NMSA 1978, § 47-8-48(B) — civil penalties · secondhand source

“Any owner who violates a provision of Section 47-8-36 or 47-8-39 NMSA 1978 shall be subject to a civil penalty equal to two times the amount of the monthly rent.”

SECONDARY: read on FindLaw. Note that § 47-8-36(C) puts three more remedies alongside this penalty — the resident may abate one hundred percent of the rent for each day of denied possession, seek restitution of the premises, and be entitled to damages.

Read it at the source →

3 · NMSA 1978, § 35-10-4 — forcible entry or detainer; judgment · secondhand source

“A. If the defendant is found guilty in a civil action for forcible entry or unlawful detainer, judgment shall be entered against him: (1) for damages; and (2) that he be removed from the premises and the plaintiff be put in possession. B. Execution shall include an order that the sheriff or a full-time, salaried deputy sheriff remove the defendant from the premises.”

SECONDARY: read on FindLaw; the official compilation is behind a CAPTCHA. Read what the statute assigns, and to whom. The judgment is the court’s; the removal is the sheriff’s. Nothing in §§ 35-10-1 through 35-10-5, which we read in full on 2026-07-14, gives the owner an act to perform on the premises himself.

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?

Depends on how they got in. Forcing a lock — or talking their way in with a lie — is breaking and entering in New Mexico, and that is a felony. Simply refusing to leave after you tell them to is only a misdemeanor, and that is a very different night for the person standing in your doorway.

›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 · NMSA 1978, § 30-14-8 — breaking and entering · secondhand source

“A. Breaking and entering consists of the unauthorized entry of any vehicle, watercraft, aircraft, dwelling or other structure, movable or immovable, where entry is obtained by fraud or deception, or by the breaking or dismantling of any part of the vehicle, watercraft, aircraft, dwelling or other structure, or by the breaking or dismantling of any device used to secure the vehicle, watercraft, aircraft, dwelling or other structure. B. Whoever commits breaking and entering is guilty of a fourth degree felony.”

SECONDARY: read on FindLaw, because the official compilation answers every request with a CAPTCHA; re-fetched and compared word-for-word on 2026-07-14. Note the two ways in. "By fraud or deception" sits in the same sentence as breaking a lock, and carries the same grade. Note also what the section does NOT require: no forced door is needed if the entry was obtained by deception, and no notice, posting or fence appears anywhere in it.

Read it at the source →

2 · NMSA 1978, § 30-14-1.1(A) — types of trespass; injury to realty · secondhand source

“Any person who enters and remains on the lands of another after having been requested to leave is guilty of a misdemeanor.”

SECONDARY: read on FindLaw. The neighbouring section reaches the same conduct from the other side and grades it the same way. § 30-14-1(B): "Criminal trespass also consists of knowingly entering or remaining upon the unposted lands of another knowing that such consent to enter or remain is denied or withdrawn by the owner or occupant thereof." And § 30-14-1(E), first sentence: "Whoever commits criminal trespass is guilty of a misdemeanor."

Read it at the source →

3 · NMSA 1978, § 30-1-6 — classified crimes defined · secondhand source

“A. A crime is a felony if it is so designated by law or if upon conviction thereof a sentence of death or of imprisonment for a term of one year or more is authorized. B. A crime is a misdemeanor if it is so designated by law or if upon conviction thereof a sentence of imprisonment in excess of six months but less than one year is authorized. C. A crime is a petty misdemeanor if it is so designated by law or if upon conviction thereof a sentence of imprisonment for six months or less is authorized.”

SECONDARY: read on FindLaw. This is the link that killed a previous market elsewhere — an offense graded so low that an officer may only write a citation. New Mexico grades breaking and entering a fourth degree felony and trespass a misdemeanor. Neither is a petty misdemeanor, and the next link is why that distinction matters.

Read it at the source →

4 · NMSA 1978, § 31-1-6(A) — citation in lieu of arrest without a warrant · secondhand source

“A law enforcement officer who arrests a person without a warrant for a petty misdemeanor or any offense under Chapter 17 NMSA 1978 may offer the person arrested the option of accepting a citation to appear in lieu of taking the person to jail.”

THIS IS THE WEAKEST LINK ON THE PAGE AND WE WILL NOT PRETEND OTHERWISE. Read what this section does and does not do: it does not GRANT a power to arrest — it presupposes one, and limits what the officer may do afterwards. A CLAIM ABOUT OUR OWN SEARCH, NOT ABOUT THE LAW: on 2026-07-14 we looked for New Mexico’s general warrantless-arrest authority and did not establish it to the standard the rest of this page is held to. The one warrantless-arrest section we could read in Chapter 31, Article 1 — § 31-1-7 — is confined to a domestic disturbance ("a peace officer may arrest a person and take that person into custody without a warrant when the officer is at the scene of a domestic disturbance and has probable cause to believe that the person has committed an assault or a battery upon a household member") and does not reach trespass. We make no claim about what the rest of Chapter 31 does or does not contain. An earlier draft of this page closed the chain with an annotation printed under § 30-1-6 in the official compilation, glossing Tanberg v. Sholtis, 401 F.3d 1151 (10th Cir. 2005), as an in-the-officer’s-presence rule; that source now returns a CAPTCHA, we could not re-fetch the opinion to quote the court’s own words, and we do not put words in a court’s mouth. THESE ARE THE PROVISIONS, IN ORDER. WE HAVE DRAWN NO CONCLUSION FROM THEM, and a New Mexico lawyer must close this link before anyone relies 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 decides whether police arrest or walk away?

Permission — whether the officer at the door believes the person inside had yours. Both the criminal trespass sections and the magistrate-court removal route hinge on the owner’s consent, and to weigh that the officer also has to know who the owner is. The sections we read — the trespass sections and the removal statute — name nobody whose job it is to check that.

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 · NMSA 1978, § 30-14-1.1(A) — the words the offense hinges on · secondhand source

“Any person who enters and remains on the lands of another after having been requested to leave is guilty of a misdemeanor.”

SECONDARY: read on FindLaw; the official compilation is behind a CAPTCHA. "Requested to leave" — by whom? The section says "the lands of another", and the request has to come from someone with the standing to make it. That is the ownership question, arriving from the side, in the first line of the offense.

Read it at the source →

2 · NMSA 1978, § 35-10-1(A)(1) — the ground that reaches a squatter · secondhand source

“the defendant entered and occupied the lands and tenements of another against the will or consent of the owner and refused to vacate the premises after notice by the owner or his agent or attorney;”

A CLAIM ABOUT OUR OWN SEARCH, NOT ABOUT THE LAW: on 2026-07-14 we read NMSA §§ 30-14-1, 30-14-1.1 and 30-14-8 in full, and §§ 35-10-1 through 35-10-5 in full. We looked, IN THOSE SECTIONS, for any provision telling an officer, a clerk, a magistrate or a sheriff how to establish that the person claiming to be the owner actually owns the building — a deed check, a recorder’s lookup, a registry, anything. We found no such provision in them. We did not read Chapters 31 or 47 in full, and we make no claim about what they contain. Confirm against the official code 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.

What is the lawful way to get them out?

Give them three days’ written notice to leave, then sue them for possession in the magistrate court for your county. The hearing is set within ten days of them being served, and the judgment itself is what sends the sheriff. But if they claim they OWN the place, the magistrate is not allowed to decide that — and you are pushed into a slower, full lawsuit in the district court over who holds title.

›Read the law — 4 provisions

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

1 · NMSA 1978, § 35-10-1(A)(1) — forcible entry or unlawful detainer; grounds · secondhand source

“A civil action for forcible entry or unlawful detainer of real property is commenced by the filing of a civil complaint alleging that one or more of the following facts exists: (1) the defendant entered and occupied the lands and tenements of another against the will or consent of the owner and refused to vacate the premises after notice by the owner or his agent or attorney;”

SECONDARY: read on FindLaw; the official compilation is behind a CAPTCHA. "Forcible entry or unlawful detainer" is the statute’s name for the possession case — it is what YOU file, not something you are charged with. Section 35-10-1(B) gives the district court concurrent original jurisdiction where the rent contracted for, or the reasonable rental value, is fifty dollars a month or more.

Read it at the source →

2 · NMSA 1978, § 35-10-3(A)–(B) — forcible entry or detainer; special provisions · secondhand source

“A. Except as provided in Section 35-10-1 NMSA 1978, three days’ notice in writing to quit must be given to the defendant before a civil action for forcible entry or unlawful detainer may be filed. B. The return day of the summons in an action for forcible entry or unlawful detainer shall be not less than three, nor more than ten, days from the time of service of the civil complaint and summons on the defendant. Except by consent of the parties, no continuance shall be granted for more than ten days.”

SECONDARY: read on FindLaw; the official compilation is behind a CAPTCHA. The "return day" is the day the case first comes before the magistrate.

Read it at the source →

3 · NMSA 1978, § 35-10-4 — forcible entry or detainer; judgment · secondhand source

“A. If the defendant is found guilty in a civil action for forcible entry or unlawful detainer, judgment shall be entered against him: (1) for damages; and (2) that he be removed from the premises and the plaintiff be put in possession. B. Execution shall include an order that the sheriff or a full-time, salaried deputy sheriff remove the defendant from the premises.”

SECONDARY: read on FindLaw; the official compilation is behind a CAPTCHA.

Read it at the source →

4 · NMSA 1978, § 42-4-1 — ejectment, read with § 35-10-3(C) · secondhand source

“The action of ejectment may be maintained in all cases where the plaintiff is legally entitled to the possession of the premises.”

SECONDARY: read on FindLaw; the official compilation is behind a CAPTCHA. "Ejectment" is simply the statute’s name for the full lawsuit over who holds title. The bracketed section heading "[When ejectment maintainable.]" was inserted by the compiler and is not part of the law. THIS IS THE FORK, AND IT IS WHY THE FAST ROUTE IS NOT ALWAYS AVAILABLE: § 35-10-3(C) provides that "The questions of title or boundaries of land shall not be investigated in an action for forcible entry or unlawful detainer, but the action does not prevent a party from testing the right of property in any other manner." An occupant who claims to OWN the place, rather than to rent it, is raising the one question the magistrate is told not to investigate. On judgment in ejectment, § 42-4-12 provides that "a writ of possession shall be issued, and the sheriff shall deliver to the plaintiff the possession of the premises".

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?

Months, once they fight it — and the person in your house will. On paper it is fast: three days’ written notice, then a hearing within ten days of service. What stretches it is a contested case, continuances the statute allows by consent with no outer limit, and an appeal on a bond that holds off the removal itself.

›Read the law — 2 provisions

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

1 · NMSA 1978, § 35-10-3(A)–(B) — the notice and the return day · secondhand source

“A. Except as provided in Section 35-10-1 NMSA 1978, three days’ notice in writing to quit must be given to the defendant before a civil action for forcible entry or unlawful detainer may be filed. B. The return day of the summons in an action for forcible entry or unlawful detainer shall be not less than three, nor more than ten, days from the time of service of the civil complaint and summons on the defendant. Except by consent of the parties, no continuance shall be granted for more than ten days.”

SECONDARY: read on FindLaw; the official compilation is behind a CAPTCHA. Read the last sentence, which is where the time goes: continuances of MORE than ten days ARE available by consent of the parties, and the statute puts no outer limit on them. And read this answer beside "What is the lawful way to get them out?" — an occupant who claims to own the building takes the case out of the magistrate court altogether and into a full district-court suit over title, which these clocks do not govern at all.

Read it at the source →

2 · NMSA 1978, § 35-10-5 — forcible entry or detainer; damages on appeal · secondhand source

“A. If the plaintiff recovers judgment in an action for forcible entry or unlawful detainer upon appeal: (1) to the district court, the damages assessed shall be the actual value of the rent due until entry of judgment by the magistrate court and double the value of all rent accrued thereafter until entry of judgment in the district court; and (2) to the supreme court or court of appeals, further damages at double the value of all rent accrued from the entry of judgment in the district court until delivery of possession to him.”

SECONDARY: read on FindLaw; the official compilation is behind a CAPTCHA. THIS IS THE SENTENCE THAT DECIDES HOW LONG IT REALLY TAKES, and it is in subsection B: the supersedeas bond an appealing defendant must post "operates as a supersedeas to the order of removal as well as to execution for damages and costs." An appeal backed by a bond holds off the removal itself. The bond is the brake on that — the section requires its amount to "be sufficient to cover all such damages," and the damages are doubling. Whether a given occupant can post one is not a question the statute answers. AND ON COST: NO DOLLAR FIGURE APPEARS ON THIS PAGE, and that is deliberate. We read §§ 35-10-1 through 35-10-5 in full on 2026-07-14 and no filing fee, service fee or penalty amount is stated anywhere in them — New Mexico sets those outside the statute, and we did not fetch a published schedule. Every fee figure on this site appears verbatim in a document we fetched, or it does not appear; New Mexico’s does not. Note also what a judgment does not carry: attorney’s fees are not among the things § 35-10-4 orders.

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 — a judge signs first. Nobody is put out of a New Mexico house on your sworn word alone: the sheriff acts on the court’s judgment, not on your affidavit. A 2026 bill would have changed exactly that, and it died on the first day of the session.

›Read the law — 3 provisions

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

1 · NMSA 1978, § 35-10-4 — forcible entry or detainer; judgment · secondhand source

“A. If the defendant is found guilty in a civil action for forcible entry or unlawful detainer, judgment shall be entered against him: (1) for damages; and (2) that he be removed from the premises and the plaintiff be put in possession. B. Execution shall include an order that the sheriff or a full-time, salaried deputy sheriff remove the defendant from the premises.”

SECONDARY: read on FindLaw; the official compilation is behind a CAPTCHA. A CLAIM ABOUT OUR OWN SEARCH: on 2026-07-14 we read §§ 35-10-1 through 35-10-5 and § 42-4-1 in full, and found no provision under which a law enforcement officer removes anyone on an owner’s sworn statement alone, without a judgment. We did not read Chapters 31 or 47 in full and make no claim about them.

Read it at the source →

2 · New Mexico House Bill 144, 57th Legislature, second session (2026), § 4(A) — as introduced

“If a person, the person's agent or the person's attorney presents an affidavit in writing before an officer authorized to administer an oath that sets forth that the person claims in good faith the right of possession to real property and that the real property is in the hands of another person who is allegedly unlawfully squatting in violation of Section 1 of this 2026 act, a law enforcement officer in the county where the real property is located, upon receipt of the affidavit, shall present the affidavit to the person alleged to be unlawfully squatting on the real property at least three days prior to turning that person out of possession, unless the person alleged to be unlawfully squatting tenders to the law enforcement officer a counter affidavit stating that that person claims, in good faith, a legal right to possession of the real property. The law enforcement officer shall turn the alleged unlawful squatter out of possession once three days have elapsed from the day the affidavit was exhibited.”

THIS IS NOT THE LAW. It is the text of a bill that did not pass, quoted from the legislature’s own server, and it is here because it is the thing that would change every answer on this page. Note the shape: it is Georgia’s counter-affidavit hybrid, and it has Georgia’s hole — one signed page from the occupant stops the officer and sends both affidavits to the court. Note also what the bill asks of the affiant: that he "claims in good faith the right of possession". It names nobody whose job it is to check that he does.

Read it at the source →

3 · New Mexico Legislature, HB 144 (2026 Regular Session) — bill status page, read 2026-07-14

“[1] not prntd-HRC API.”

THAT IS THE ENTIRE ACTION HISTORY, and it is cryptic on purpose, so here is the page’s own key beside it. The status page gives the bill’s "Current Location" as "Died (API.)"; the legislature’s key to abbreviations glosses "API" as "Action Postponed Indefinitely" and "not prntd" as "Not Printed". The single action is recorded against Legislative Day 1, Calendar Day 01/22/2026. Its predecessor, HB 332 of the 2025 session ("UNLAWFUL SQUATTING", same lead sponsor), shows the same disposition — Current Location "Died (API.)", action "[4] HCPAC/HJC-HCPAC API." Two sessions, two bills, both dead. Verify against the legislature’s own status pages before relying on this; a third bill is the kind of thing that passes.

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?

Ten years — and New Mexico writes three conditions into one section: continuous possession, a written document that looks like title, and the taxes paid. The section says adverse possession is not established unless the claimant paid all the state, county and municipal taxes assessed on the property for the whole ten years.

›Read the law

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

NMSA 1978, § 37-1-22 — title in fee simple by adverse possession; definition; payment of taxes · secondhand source

“"Adverse possession" is defined to be an actual and visible appropriation of land, commenced and continued under a color of title and claim of right inconsistent with and hostile to the claim of another; provided, however that in the case of severed mineral interests the possession by the party in possession of the surface shall be considered as the constructive possession of such mineral claimant until actual possession shall have been taken by such mineral claimant; and provided further in no case must "adverse possession" be considered established within the meaning of the law, unless the party claiming adverse possession, his predecessors or grantors, have for the period mentioned in this section continuously paid all the taxes, state, county and municipal, which during that period have been assessed against the property.”

SECONDARY: read on FindLaw, because the official New Mexico compilation answers every request with a CAPTCHA; re-fetched and compared word-for-word on 2026-07-14. "Color of title" means a written document that LOOKS like title — a deed that turns out to be bad is still color of title, which is what makes a forged piece of paper dangerous to a building left alone for years. The ten years and the color-of-title requirement are in the first clause of the same section: "In all cases where any person or persons, their children, heirs or assigns, shall have had adverse possession continuously and in good faith under color of title for ten years of any lands, tenements or hereditaments … shall have a good and indefeasible title in fee simple." The section also extends the period for an owner who was, when the cause of action first accrued, "imprisoned, of unsound mind or under the age of majority" — they get one year after the disability ends. READ THE WORDS RATHER THAN THE YEARS: the clock does not run because a building sat empty. It runs on possession of the kind described above, held for the whole period, with the taxes paid.

Read it at the source →

This page is the law. What it costs you in New Mexico — 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)

NMSA 1978, § 47-8-3(Q) — "resident" defined, Uniform Owner-Resident Relations ActNMSA 1978, § 35-10-2 — limitation of remedyNMSA 1978, § 35-10-1(A)(1) — forcible entry or unlawful detainer; groundsNMSA 1978, § 47-8-36(A) — unlawful removal and diminution of services prohibitedNMSA 1978, § 47-8-48(B) — civil penaltiesNMSA 1978, § 35-10-4 — forcible entry or detainer; judgmentNMSA 1978, § 30-14-8 — breaking and enteringNMSA 1978, § 30-14-1.1(A) — the words the offense hinges onNMSA 1978, § 30-1-6 — classified crimes definedNMSA 1978, § 31-1-6(A) — citation in lieu of arrest without a warrantNMSA 1978, § 35-10-3(A)–(B) — the notice and the return dayNMSA 1978, § 42-4-1 — ejectment, read with § 35-10-3(C)NMSA 1978, § 35-10-5 — forcible entry or detainer; damages on appealNew Mexico House Bill 144, 57th Legislature, second session (2026), § 4(A) — as introducedNew Mexico Legislature, HB 144 (2026 Regular Session) — bill status page, read 2026-07-14NMSA 1978, § 37-1-22 — title in fee simple by adverse possession; definition; payment of taxes

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.