A lawyer has warned homeowners that neighbours can legally claim ownership of part of their land without permission under the adverse possession rules of England property law
A lawyer has cautioned homeowners that neighbours can legally seize ownership of part of their land without consent under a little-known area of English property law.
The warning came from legal commentator Kal, who outlined how adverse possession rules under the Land Registration Act 2002 can enable someone to become the rightful owner of land they have occupied for years.
Kal described the doctrine as “one of the more crazy doctrines in English law”, explaining that if somebody occupies land openly, without permission and without challenge for a continuous period of 10 years, they may be able to apply to the Land Registry to become the owner.
“Ten years. Ten years is all it takes,” he said on his Better Call Kal YouTube channel.
He told his 18.6k followers that disputes frequently involve not vast swathes of land, but narrow strips between neighbouring properties that can still have a dramatic impact on a home’s value.
It comes as the legal rights for UK homeowners wanting a new greenhouse, shed or garage were also clarified.
Kal, meanwhile, explained: “We’re not talking about acres here. The average boundary dispute in the UK is over just 2% of the average garden, a strip,” he said.
“But that strip can cost you tens of thousands of pounds in your land’s value and years in court as well.”
He explained that someone making an adverse possession claim typically needs to prove three things: factual possession of the land, an intention to possess it, and a reasonable belief that the land belonged to them.
According to the lawyer, that final point has recently become even more significant following a Supreme Court ruling.
Addressing the February 2025 case Brown v Ridley, Kal outlined how the court determined that a claimant only needed to have reasonably believed the land was theirs during any 10-year period of occupation, rather than in the 10 years immediately before applying, reports the Liverpool Echo.
He revealed the case involved neighbours who had built an entire house on land later found to belong to someone else.
“Not a shed, not an extension, a whole house,” he said.
Kal cautioned that the judgment had broadened the potential for disputes between neighbours.
“Now your neighbour could freely admit today, right now, that they know that land is not theirs,” he said.
“But yet they could still successfully claim it from you as long as there was any 10-year stretch in the past where they genuinely thought that it was.”
He added: “That’s the boundary dispute trap. And the Supreme Court just made it a lot wider.”
The lawyer urged homeowners to establish precisely where their legal boundaries lie, warning that many people fail to take action early enough when issues first arise.
He recommended property owners secure title plans from the Land Registry and commission professional surveys when needed.
“If you don’t know exactly where your legal boundary is, go and get one,” he said.
Kal clarified that title plans only indicate general boundaries and may lack the precision required in disputed situations, making a chartered surveyor’s assessment especially important.
“If there is any doubt, a chartered surveyor can determine for you the exact boundary lines,” he said.
He also cautioned homeowners to take immediate action if they believe a neighbour is encroaching, such as through fences, sheds or paths extending onto their property.
“The clock starts the moment they take possession unchallenged,” he said.
Kal urged people to record any problems meticulously with photographs, measurements and written documentation before approaching neighbours calmly and formally rather than inflaming the situation.
“Instead of what is easy to some people which is an angry conversation over the fence, it’s usually far better to send a clear written notice,” he explained.
He noted that written consent can also safeguard homeowners if they knowingly permit a neighbour temporary access to land.
“A simple agreement like this with your permission means it cannot count as adverse possession,” he said.
For disputes that cannot be resolved informally, Kal warned that legal action may be required, including claims for trespass, injunctions and damages.
He cautioned, however, that boundary litigation can prove extraordinarily costly.
“Cases can easily run into tens of thousands of pounds in legal fees,” he said.
He emphasised that prevention and early intervention remain the strongest defence against adverse possession claims.
“If it’s already happened, you still need to act now,” he warned.
“You can object to any adverse possession application at the Land Registry, but typically you only have 65 business days to respond once you’ve been notified.”
