Squatting & Property Occupation Lawyers

Squatting: Concept, Types, Penalties and Solutions (Arts. 202 and 245 CP)

Squatting is one of the most urgent and socially sensitive legal problems in Spain. The criminal system protects real estate ownership through two distinct criminal types: trespass (Art. 202 CP), which protects the inviolability of the home (Art. 18.2 SC) when the dwelling is inhabited or constitutes a habitual residence, and usurpation of real estate (Art. 245 CP), which protects real estate patrimony when the property is empty or does not constitute a dwelling. Supreme Court doctrine has consolidated the technical criteria of delimitation: the dwelling requires real and effective use as a residence; empty properties, second homes not used or premises fall under usurpation.

The commission modalities present relevant nuances. Trespass (Art. 202 CP) sanctions whoever, without inhabiting it, enters another's dwelling or remains in it against the inhabitant's will, without need of violence or intimidation; with violence or intimidation (Art. 202.2 CP) the penalty is aggravated. Usurpation with violence or intimidation (Art. 245.1 CP) is the serious type: occupying another's property without title with violence/intimidation. Peaceful usurpation (Art. 245.2 CP) is the minor type: non-violent occupation of uninhabited property. Paradigmatic cases are organized squattings (social movements with internal transfers), squattings of bank or investment fund properties, squattings after mortgage foreclosures, squattings of second residences, extinguished precarious situations with resistance to eviction and squatting with utility fraud (Art. 255 CP), which can concur.

The statutory penalties are notable and modulated by type. Simple trespass (Art. 202.1 CP) carries 6 months to 2 years' prison; with violence or intimidation (Art. 202.2 CP), 1 to 4 years' prison. Usurpation with violence (Art. 245.1 CP), 1 to 2 years' prison. Peaceful usurpation (Art. 245.2 CP), 3 to 6 months' fine. Utility fraud (Art. 255 CP) concurs with additional fine or prison. There is also the civil route (precarious eviction, eviction by term expiration) and the express route introduced by Act 5/2018 that modified the Civil Procedure Act: it allows individual property owners or non-profit entities to recover the property in 15-30 days through an agile summary procedure when the squatting is peaceful. The process becomes significantly more complicated when minors, vulnerable persons or social services are involved.

The technical defense is built on two perspectives. In favor of the owner: immediate action (first 48 critical hours), urgent complaint for trespass (when applicable) or usurpation, request for express eviction under Act 5/2018, expert evidence on habitability and ownership, notarial certification of the property and, where appropriate, criminal complaint with appearance as private prosecution. In defense of the squatting accused: invocation of state of necessity (Art. 20.5 CP) in documented extreme vulnerability cases (families with minors, without housing alternative); proof of precarious title or consent of the holder (even verbal); questioning the character of inhabited property or dwelling (key to choose between trespass and peaceful usurpation); and effective abandonment of the property (Article 245 CP requires another's property, which requires proof of ownership and use). Supreme Court doctrine excludes usurpation when the property is abandoned de facto.

In current forensic practice we observe a progressive hardening of the criminal and civil response. Act 5/2018 introduced express eviction; the Instruction 1/2020 of the General State Attorney's Office on squatting established more agile action guidelines; Royal Decree-Law 11/2020 and subsequent COVID-19 moratoriums have generated interpretative tensions. Organic Law 1/2025 on Justice Service Efficiency, Act 12/2023 on the Right to Housing and consolidated case-law configure a dual regulatory framework where the owner's rights and the protection of persons in vulnerable housing situations confront each other. At Alonso Sala, with more than 15 years of experience, we intervene both defending owners (criminal complaint, express, civil and coordinated administrative eviction) and defending those accused of squatting (proof of title, state of necessity, absence of violence), always articulating a strategy adapted to the case's circumstances and the property's nature.

Owner's Guide: Immediate Steps

Defense of the Squatting Accused

Not every case of occupation constitutes a crime. There are circumstances that can exempt or mitigate liability: prior verbal contracts, extreme necessity situations, de facto abandoned properties, or disputes about the real ownership of the property. Our defense analyzes each case to determine the best procedural strategy.