Squatting or trespassing

[Evil Tim]

So my job is planning on constructing a new building for us sometime next year (hopefully).  They've already bought property across the road from our current position, and on this property is a vacant house that a homeless woman has apparently taken up residence in.  And today my manager was ranting about her and how she was going to call the police and have her removed and arrested for trespassing. 

So this kind of sent me down a rabbit hole of researching my state's standing on squatter's rights and they are, to say the least, written in a really confusing manner.  The main difference between a squatter and a trespasser seems to mainly be 'intent to claim.'  But at the end of the day my state defines a squatter as "a person that occupies a property, whether it’s a building or some land, without paying rent for it or having legal ownership of it."

And I know that if a person is considered a squatter than removing them isn't as simple as calling the police and having them removed.  So when does a person officially cross that line from trespasser into squatter?  I can't really seem to find a solid answer for that.

[Oniya]

I did a little delving on Quora, and part of the distinction (you can consider 'squatters' to be a subset of 'trespassers') is whether the owner knows about the individual being on the property and has allowed them to stay, even tacitly.  This varies from state to state, and there may be a time limit involved, so the owner of the property should initiate action rather than rant about initiating action. 

[Inkidu]

There is this general concept in the American legal system about establishing things over time. There's a specific term for it but I cannot recall what it is. Say for instance you allow someone to leave a car that could run on your property and years go by and you decide to have it removed. You'd actually be in trouble because of the precedent established by leaving it there so long. It all varies by state, city, county, etc. though

Another example say there's a small piece of yard between your neighbor and you. It's technically his but you've cared for it and maintained it for a number of years. You could actually petition to have that small chunk of land be part of your property.

[RedRose]

That's... fascinating. My country is much too by the book. Owned is owned.

[Oniya]

That's... fascinating. My country is much too by the book. Owned is owned.

It probably has something to do with the pioneer/homesteading situation back in the days of the Western Expansion.  If you could scrape a living from a patch of ground for a certain amount of time, you could keep it.

[Gamora]

I work in property management in Canada, so it's a bit different. Here, they would be considered to be trespassing/loitering and are only considered squatters if they reside in a rental unit without a lease or without paying rent. Given the building is yet to be built, there is no tenancy board or tenancy laws they have to go through, so the police should be able to just remove them.

To make for a less negative interaction with the person on the property, giving them resources for places that can help them in the area once they are asked to leave may help!

[Oniya]

I work in property management in Canada, so it's a bit different. Here, they would be considered to be trespassing/loitering and are only considered squatters if they reside in a rental unit without a lease or without paying rent. Given the building is yet to be built, there is no tenancy board or tenancy laws they have to go through, so the police should be able to just remove them.

To make for a less negative interaction with the person on the property, giving them resources for places that can help them in the area once they are asked to leave may help!

Tim did mention that the woman is living in a 'vacant house' on the property.  I suppose that the company is planning on demolishing that to build the new facility.

[Gamora]

Tim did mention that the woman is living in a 'vacant house' on the property.  I suppose that the company is planning on demolishing that to build the new facility.

Thank you, I missed that!

If the house has been vacant for awhile, they wouldn't be considered "squatters" where I live, and police could just be contacted for removal. However, that may be different in other places!

[Oniya]

Thank you, I missed that!

If the house has been vacant for awhile, they wouldn't be considered "squatters" where I live, and police could just be contacted for removal. However, that may be different in other places!

I had to go back and look as well!  I had been left with a vague impression that there was some form of shelter before I started my dive.  I wasn't sure if it was abandoned construction or an informal construct of found materials.

[Evil Tim]

The house is indeed vacant and scheduled for demolition, soon as the corporate overseers and the state DOT come to agreements on how much land we are actually supposed to get.  It's a really muddy situation that is gving everyone in the town all sorts of headaches.

The house was occupied up until my job purchased the land and the original residents were moved.  To say the house is liveable though is a completely different situation.  One wall has completely collapsed and the only thing protecting the interior is a blue tarp, and it seems like at least one section of the roof has caved in.  We don't know how long the homeless woman had been staying there.  We were only aware of her presence there when another employee actually drove by and saw her entering the house.  So while the need to remove her is due to her trespassing, it's also a safety matter.  I am by no means a law expert, but it was implied to us that if the house did indeed cave in and injure her, there was a small chance the business would be held liable for her injuries as we owned the building.