Squatters’ Rights in Texas: Removal Under SB 38

This article covers how Texas treats a person who occupies property they do not own or rent, and how the owner gets them out. It is one of the procedures covered in Texas tenant rights under the Property Code. The two questions people usually mean by “squatters’ rights” pull in different directions: adverse possession is the rare path by which long occupation can ripen into ownership, while eviction is the far more common process an owner uses to end an occupation before it ever gets close to that point.

What “squatters’ rights” actually means in Texas

Texas law does not use the phrase “squatters’ rights.” What people mean by it comes from two unrelated bodies of law that happen to involve someone living on property that is not theirs.

The first is adverse possession, governed by Chapter 16 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code. It defines a narrow doctrine under which a person who openly occupies land for a long enough period, meeting strict conditions, can eventually claim legal title. The definition in Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Sec. 16.021 requires “an actual and visible appropriation of real property, commenced and continued under a claim of right that is inconsistent with and is hostile to the claim of another person.” Casual occupation does not qualify.

The second is the removal process. When an owner wants an unauthorized occupant out, the occupant has no ownership claim at all, but the owner still has to use the court eviction process rather than force. The occupant’s only practical “right” here is the right not to be removed except through that process. The two topics are treated together on this page because the same fact pattern raises both questions, but they resolve under entirely different statutes.

Adverse possession and its time limits

Adverse possession is difficult to complete and rarely succeeds against an attentive owner. The occupation must be actual, visible, continuous, hostile to the true owner, and exclusive for the full statutory period. Texas sets several limitation periods depending on the facts, and the clock is the number of years the owner has to sue to recover the property before the occupant’s claim can mature.

The general period is 10 years. Under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Sec. 16.026, an owner must bring suit to recover real property held in peaceable and adverse possession by another “who cultivates, uses, or enjoys the property” within 10 years after the cause of action accrues. Shorter periods apply when the occupant has additional legal footing: a 3-year period under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Sec. 16.024 for possession under title or color of title, and a 5-year period under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Sec. 16.025 for possession under a duly registered deed, where the occupant cultivates or uses the land and pays the taxes.

Squatter, trespasser, or holdover tenant

How an occupant is removed depends on how the occupation started, because that determines which process applies. Texas eviction law in Chapter 24 of the Property Code treats several categories of occupant under the “forcible detainer” framework.

A person commits a forcible detainer, under Tex. Prop. Code Sec. 24.002, when they refuse to surrender possession on demand and they are a tenant holding over after the lease ended, a tenant at will or by sufferance, or an occupant who entered under an owner who was later foreclosed on. A separate offense, forcible entry and detainer under Tex. Prop. Code Sec. 24.001, covers a person who enters property “without legal authority or by force” and then refuses to leave. A true squatter, someone who moved in without any permission, generally falls into these removal categories rather than into any tenant-protection scheme.

The distinction matters because a former tenant who overstays and a stranger who broke in are removed through the same justice-court process, but the notice and proof an owner must show can differ. The occupant’s history with the property, whether there was ever a lease, a foreclosure, or a family arrangement, shapes what the owner files.

How an owner removes an unauthorized occupant

Removal is a court process from start to finish. The owner cannot skip it, and the occupant cannot be lawfully removed without it.

1. Serve a written notice to vacate

   The owner gives the occupant written notice to vacate before filing suit. Under Tex. Prop. Code Sec. 24.005, the default period is at least three days unless a written lease or agreement sets a different period. The notice is delivered in the manner the statute allows, and it starts the clock on the removal.

2. File a forcible-detainer suit in justice court

   After the notice period passes, the owner files an eviction (forcible-detainer) suit in the justice court for the precinct where the property sits. The petition identifies the property, the occupant, and the basis for possession. SB 38 added a sworn-petition and summary-disposition option described below.

3. Attend the hearing

   The court sets a hearing. Both sides can appear and present evidence. In an eviction suit in justice court, Tex. Prop. Code Sec. 24.011 allows the parties to represent themselves or to be represented by an authorized agent who need not be an attorney.

4. Obtain a judgment and, if needed, a writ of possession

   An owner who prevails is entitled to a judgment for possession and a writ of possession under Tex. Prop. Code Sec. 24.0061. A constable or sheriff, not the owner, executes the writ and physically removes the occupant and their belongings.

The occupant can appeal a justice-court judgment to the county court, which is why removal is not always immediate. The appeal, the bond rules, and the requirement to keep paying into the court during an appeal are set out across Chapter 24.

What SB 38 and SB 1333 changed

The 2025 legislative session produced two laws aimed squarely at unauthorized occupants, and both are now in force.

Senate Bill 38, from the 89th Legislature, is titled “Relating to the eviction from real property of certain persons not entitled to enter, occupy, or remain in possession of the premises.” It restructured the eviction subchapter and added a summary-disposition track. Under Tex. Prop. Code Sec. 24.005106, a landlord who files a sworn petition may include a sworn motion for summary disposition; if the motion shows no genuinely disputed facts, the court may enter judgment for the landlord without a trial unless the occupant files a response with supporting facts by the fourth day after being served. This lets clear-cut cases move faster than a traditional hearing.

Senate Bill 1333, effective September 1, 2025, took a different approach. Its enrolled caption describes it as “Relating to the unauthorized entry, occupancy, sale, rental, lease… or conveyance of real property, including the removal of certain unauthorized occupants of a dwelling; creating criminal offenses.” It created criminal offenses for unlawfully occupying a dwelling and for the “squatter scams” in which someone advertises or rents out a property they have no right to. It also gave owners a faster path to involve law enforcement in some situations, alongside the civil eviction process.

What an owner cannot do

Texas prohibits “self-help” removal. Even when the occupant has no lease and no legal claim, the owner cannot lawfully take matters into their own hands.

An owner cannot change the locks, remove doors or windows, cut off utilities, or physically drag an occupant out to force them to leave. Doing so can expose the owner to civil liability and, in the case of a genuine tenant, to the significant penalties Chapter 92 attaches to unlawful lockouts and utility shutoffs. The correct response to even an obvious squatter is the court process, or a report to law enforcement under the new criminal statutes, rather than a confrontation. The Texas Attorney General’s office publishes general guidance on property and tenant issues through its consumer protection resources.

The reason the law insists on process is the same reason adverse possession has such strict requirements: sorting out who is entitled to possess property is a question for the courts, and a fast but wrongful removal can be as costly to undo as a slow but lawful one.