Adverse possession is the mechanism by which a person who is not the legal owner of land can acquire title to it through long occupation. It is commonly associated with the colourful label of ‘squatters’ rights’, but the reality is rather more ordinary. According to B P Collins’ property disputes team, the most common adverse possession scenario in practice is not a stranger occupying abandoned land: it is a fence or hedge erected in slightly the wrong position by a predecessor in title, enclosing a strip of the neighbouring registered title, with both sets of owners unaware of the error for years or decades. By the time the mistake is discovered (typically on a sale or during the course of development) the occupier of the strip may have accumulated enough time to make a legal claim to ownership.
Whilst one of the most longstanding doctrines in English property law, the legislation governing adverse possession has seen significant development in the last several years:
- The Supreme Court’s judgment in Brown v Ridley [2025], resolved a long-running dispute about the timing requirements for adverse possession of registered land; and
- The Court of Appeal’s judgment in Clapham and Wright v Narga [2024], demonstrated the continuing importance of the old pre-2003 adverse possession scheme for land that was unregistered at the material time.
Together they confirm that adverse possession remains a live and practically significant area of law.
The two adverse possession schemes
The applicable regime depends on whether the land in question is registered, and when the relevant period of possession began.
- Unregistered land – the Limitation Act 1980 scheme: For unregistered land, title by adverse possession is governed by the Limitation Act 1980. A person who has been in adverse possession of unregistered land for 12 years acquires the title automatically by extinguishing the paper owner’s right to bring an action for recovery. There is no requirement to give notice to the paper owner, no application to any tribunal or registry, and no opportunity for the paper owner to object. Title is acquired as a matter of law at the end of the twelve-year period. Approximately 11% of land in England and Wales remains unregistered, and the old scheme applies. It also applies to possession of registered land that pre-dated the coming into force of the Land Registration Act 2002 in October 2003, where the full 12 years had been completed before that date.
- Registered land – the Land Registration Act 2002 scheme: For registered land, the regime under the LRA 2002 is designed to give the registered owner a meaningful opportunity to protect their title. After ten years of adverse possession, the squatter may apply to HM Land Registry to be registered as proprietor. The registry must notify the registered owner (and any other person with a registered interest). If the owner opposes the application, the application will be rejected unless the applicant can establish one of three conditions set out in paragraph 5 of Schedule 6 to the LRA 2002: that it would be unconscionable for the owner to dispossess them; that the applicant is entitled to be registered for some other reason; or that the boundary condition in paragraph 5(4) is satisfied. If no opposition is received, the applicant is registered as proprietor.
The boundary condition in paragraph 5(4) is by far the most commonly relied upon in practice and the most directly relevant to the typical boundary strip dispute. To satisfy it, the applicant must show that: a) the disputed land is adjacent to land belonging to them; b) the exact line of the boundary between the two has not been determined under section 60 of the LRA 2002; c) they (or a predecessor in title) reasonably believed that the disputed land belonged to them for at least ten years of the period of adverse possession; and d) the estate to which the application relates was registered for more than one year before the date of the application. It was the interpretation of the ten year reasonable belief requirement in paragraph 5(4)(c) that came before the Supreme Court in Brown v Ridley.
Brown v Ridley [2025]: the Supreme Court resolves the timing question
The Supreme Court’s unanimous judgment in Brown v Ridley is the most significant adverse possession decision in recent times. It resolves a question that had divided practitioners and produced conflicting previous decisions: does the ten year period of reasonable belief required by paragraph 5(4)(c) have to be the ten years immediately preceding the date of the application, or can it be any 10-year period within the potentially longer period of adverse possession?
The facts were straightforward and highly representative of the kind of dispute the boundary condition was designed to address. Mr Brown purchased land in County Durham in September 2002. Mr and Mrs Ridley purchased the adjacent plot, Valley View, in July 2004. A previous owner of Valley View had erected a fence and planted a hedge along what he understood to be the boundary between the two plots, but which in fact enclosed a strip of Mr Brown’s registered title. The Ridleys used the strip first as garden and later as part of the site for a new house, obtaining planning permission in early 2018. It was during the planning process, in February 2018, that the Ridleys discovered for the first time that the strip fell within Mr Brown’s registered title rather than their own. They applied to HM Land Registry to be registered as proprietors of the strip in December 2019, approximately twenty-one months after their reasonable belief in ownership had come to an end.
Mr Brown objected. The First-tier Tribunal found for the Ridleys. The Upper Tribunal, feeling bound by the Court of Appeal’s earlier decision in Zarb v Parry [2011], found for Mr Brown (although the judge expressed the clear view that Zarb v Parry had been wrongly decided). The Upper Tribunal granted leapfrog permission to appeal directly to the Supreme Court.
The question turned on the words of paragraph 5(4)(c): “for at least ten years of the period of adverse possession ending on the date of the application, the applicant (or any predecessor in title) reasonably believed that the land to which the application relates belonged to him”. The Court of Appeal in Zarb v Parry had assumed that the ten years of reasonable belief had to be the ten years immediately before the application. On that reading, any applicant whose reasonable belief had come to an end before they made their application would be disqualified, regardless of how long they had previously believed the land was theirs and regardless of why their application was delayed.
The Supreme Court held that this interpretation was wrong. On the ordinary meaning of the words, “at least ten years of the period of adverse possession ending on the date of the application” referred to the period of adverse possession as a whole, not to the ten year period immediately preceding the application. Any ten years of reasonable belief within the longer period of adverse possession was sufficient. The belief did not have to run right up to the date of the application.
The Supreme Court rejected Mr Brown’s argument that a de minimis grace period of one or two months could be implied to save the stricter reading. One to two months, the court observed, is by no stretch of the imagination a trivial or trifling period of time when the task in hand is preparing an application to the Land Registry. The process requires legal advice, the gathering of evidence and the exercise of judgment, and cannot be accomplished in any period that could properly be described as de minimis.
The practical consequences of the decision are significant for both applicants and registered owners:
- For applicants, the decision restores a degree of practical utility to the boundary condition: a person who has occupied a neighbouring strip for many years, reasonably believing it to be theirs, is not automatically disqualified from making an application simply because a dispute was raised before they had assembled their evidence and instructed solicitors. The decision acknowledges the reality that the motion to make an application usually comes from the registered owner disputing the applicant’s claim, which by definition brings the reasonable belief to an end. Requiring an immediate application in that situation would be both unrealistic and contrary to the policy of encouraging ADR before litigation.
- For registered owners, the decision is a reminder that the LRA 2002 does not eliminate the risk of adverse possession. A landowner who discovers that a neighbour has been treating a strip of their registered land as their own for a decade or more should not assume that the time available to respond is unlimited, or that the neighbour’s failure to apply immediately upon the discovery of the error means the claim is lost.
Clapham and Wright v Narga [2024] EWCA Civ 1388: adverse possession before first registration
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Clapham and Wright v Narga is important for a different reason: it demonstrates that the old Limitation Act 1980 scheme remains highly relevant where the relevant period of adverse possession pre-dated the first registration of the land in question, and it contains a significant warning about the dangers of relying on the Land Registry title plan without investigating the physical position on the ground.
The dispute arose over a narrow strip of land (between 2m and 5m in depth) running along the northern bank of a brook at the bottom of the gardens of properties in Thrussington, Leicestershire. The Claphams and Wrights had occupied and maintained the strip as part of their gardens for many decades. A property to the north, Brook Barn, was first registered at the Land Registry in March 2003. Its filed plan appeared to show the boundary of Brook Barn extending southward across the brook to include the disputed strip. Ms Narga purchased Brook Barn in 2020, relying on the title plan, and shortly afterwards began asserting rights over the strip and clearing vegetation on the bank.
The county court and the High Court on a first appeal both held that, although the Claphams and Wrights had acquired adverse possession title to the strip before 2003, their interest had been defeated by Ms Narga’s registered title. The reason given was that their occupation was not ‘reasonably apparent on a visual inspection’ and therefore did not qualify as an overriding interest capable of binding a purchaser of registered land.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and held that the county court and the High Court had fundamentally misunderstood the effect of the general boundaries rule under the Land Registration Act 2002 and its predecessor. The title plan of Brook Barn was not a precise statement of the boundary of the property: it was indicative only. The general boundaries rule meant that the question of where the boundary of Brook Barn actually ran had to be determined by looking at the pre-registration deeds and the physical position on the ground – by looking, as the court put it, “underneath” the register. On that analysis, the Claphams and Wrights had acquired title to the strip by adverse possession before Brook Barn was first registered, and the strip therefore formed no part of what was conveyed to Ms Narga in 2020.
The Court of Appeal observed that the combined legal costs of the trial and two appeals exceeded £300,000, and noted that the entire dispute might never have arisen had Ms Narga consulted the neighbouring landowners about the boundaries before completing her purchase. The lesson is simple but easily overlooked: a buyer relying on a title plan that appears to show the boundary of the property they are buying including land that is physically in the possession of a neighbouring owner is acquiring a significant risk. The physical reality on the ground must be investigated before exchange, not after a dispute has developed.
The case also provides a helpful reminder that adverse possession title acquired under the old Limitation Act regime is not automatically defeated by the subsequent first registration of the land.
Practical steps for landowners and developers
- Investigate physical occupation before acquiring land: Both Clapham v Narga and Brown v Ridley illustrate the risks of acquiring land without investigating what is actually happening on the ground and at the boundaries. Before exchange, commission a boundary survey and physically inspect the extent of the land. Where there is any discrepancy between the title plan and the physical features, (for example, a fence in an unexpected position, a strip enclosed within a neighbouring boundary, a feature that does not match the deeds) investigate before completion. Make enquiries of the seller about any neighbouring occupation that might support an adverse possession claim. Consult neighbouring owners. The cost of pre-acquisition investigation is negligible compared with the cost of a dispute that has already become entrenched.
- If you are a registered owner, act promptly on discovering an encroachment:Brown v Ridley confirms that an adverse possession applicant is not required to make their application immediately upon discovering that their reasonable belief has come to an end. That flexibility accrues to the applicant, not the registered owner. For the owner, the converse applies: discovering that a neighbour has been treating a strip of your registered land as their own does not mean you have unlimited time to respond. The neighbour may already have 10 or more years of possession and reasonable belief behind them. Take legal advice as soon as possible, consider whether to serve a notice making clear that any occupation is permissive rather than adverse, and if necessary take possession proceedings or challenge a Land Registry application. Delay in this context consistently favours the adverse possessor.
- Monitor the boundaries of large landholdings regularly: For portfolio landowners, developers and rural estates, the risk of adverse possession arises most acutely at the margins of landholdings – distant corners of fields, strips between development plots, land abutting roads and watercourses. A systematic programme of boundary inspection, combined with an up-to-date record of all registered titles and the physical features on the ground, is the most effective form of protection. Where land is being left unoccupied pending development, consider whether formal licensing arrangements are needed to prevent occupation from crystallising into an adverse possession claim.
- Take care with boundary features: The most common adverse possession fact pattern is a fence or hedge erected in the wrong position, enclosing a strip of the neighbouring title. If you are carrying out works near a boundary, ensure that new fences, walls or hedges are positioned accurately by reference to the title deeds and, where necessary, by reference to a surveyor’s measurement. The error in Brown v Ridley was made by a predecessor in title, not by the Ridleys themselves, but it was the Ridleys who faced the adverse possession claim because they had treated the strip as theirs throughout their period of ownership. The practical lesson is to check boundary features on acquisition and to investigate any feature that does not correspond to what the title plan shows.
- Consider an application for a determined boundary: Where there is ongoing uncertainty about the precise position of a boundary, an application for a determined boundary under section 60 of the LRA 2002 can provide permanent resolution. Unlike the general boundaries shown on the filed plan, a determined boundary is conclusive as to the precise legal line and cannot be challenged by a subsequent adverse possession claim based on the general boundaries rule. The process requires a detailed plan prepared by a qualified surveyor and the consent or notification of neighbouring owners, but it provides a degree of certainty that the general boundaries regime does not.
- Explore ADR before committing to litigation: Adverse possession disputes (like boundary disputes more generally) are frequently disproportionately expensive relative to the value of the land in issue. The courts have repeatedly noted the costs generated by small boundary strip disputes, and following Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil Borough Council [2023] the court has power to compel a stay for mediation even against a party’s wishes. Mediation offers a faster, cheaper and less relationship-destructive route to resolution in a significant proportion of cases and should be considered before proceedings are issued.
Adverse possession law is technically demanding and highly fact-specific. The applicable regime requires careful legal analysis before any position is advanced or resisted. B P Collins’ specialist property disputes team acts for both applicants and registered owners in adverse possession claims, from initial advice on the strength of a position through to contested applications before the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and proceedings in the civil courts.
The property disputes team wants to get to the heart of the issue, understanding the objective and managing the process to analyse the risks and achieve a resolution as swiftly, efficiently and as cost effectively as possible. The team’s ethos is simple: solve the problem. For more information, get in touch with Elliott Brookes or email enquiries@bpcollins.co.uk or call 01753 889995.
