Can renters take advantage of adverse possession under certain situations?
<p>It's my understanding, depending on the state, a renter could take steps to procure the property through being clever* and living there a long time, while taking additional steps to gain a legal claim. Either they have to pay certain bills, improve the property, or get involved in the home owners association. Are there any situations where they can claim the property outside of convincing the landlord to let them pay the property taxes? What about states that allow withholding of rent until the landlord repairs the unity?</p>
<p>I'm specifically looking for edge cases where a dispute could arise between a landlord and tenant that gets dragged out for years. It would be clearly be much easier to just find property no one owns as a result of something like the 2008 financial crisis, where the home owner goes bankrupt and the mortgage company.</p>
<p>*such as, the landlord violating some clause in the lease, and him starting legal proceedings over that.</p>

<h2>No</h2>
<p>The criteria for adverse possession is that you have to be in possession <strong>without permission</strong>. A tenant, even one that pays no rent (or stops paying rent), has permission.</p>

<p><a href="/questions/tagged/canada" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;canada&#39;" aria-label="show questions tagged &#39;canada&#39;" rel="tag" aria-labelledby="tag-canada-tooltip-container">canada</a></p>
<p>Several provinces have abolished adverse possession law (see e.g. British Columbia's <em>Limitations Act</em>, s. 28; Alberta's <em>Property Rights Statutes Amendment Act, 2022</em>; and New Brunswick's <em>Land Title Act</em>, s. 17).</p>
<p>In provinces where adverse possession is still a viable claim, its requirements depend on the English law that was imported into the province and any statutory or common law developments since (see <em>Nelson (City) v. Nelson</em>, 2017 SCC 8, para. 17). A similar concept, <em>acquisitive prescription</em>, applies in Québec under the Civil Code (see arts. 992, 2910; <em>Ostiguy v. Allie</em>, 2017 SCC 22).</p>
<p>Generally, the elements of adverse possession (which, when present, start the clock on the limitation period against the true owner) are that the possession must be:</p>
<ul>
<li>open;</li>
<li>notorious;</li>
<li><strong>adverse</strong>;</li>
<li>exclusive;</li>
<li>peaceful (not by force);</li>
<li>actual; and</li>
<li>continuous.</li>
</ul>
<p>Some provinces also have the requirement that the use be &quot;inconsistent&quot; with the true owner's intended use (e.g. Ontario, Nova Scotia).</p>
<p>In any case, the possession must be <em>adverse</em>. This means that there is no claim to adverse possession where the claimant has the consent or permission of the true owner (<em>Re Koziey Estate</em>, 2019 ABCA 43, para. 44).</p>

landlord adverse-possession