Real estate disputes in California frequently involve questions of ownership, possession, and legal title. Two legal remedies often invoked in such cases are quiet title actions and adverse possession claims. While both mechanisms can result in a judicial determination of ownership, they are legally distinct in origin, function, and evidentiary burden.
This article compares and contrasts the quiet title and adverse possession remedies in California, with an emphasis on procedural requirements, statutory authority, and practical use cases.
Quiet Title: A Cause of Action to Affirm Legal Ownership
A quiet title action is a civil lawsuit filed to resolve disputes concerning ownership or interests in real property. Its goal is to obtain a judicial decree establishing the plaintiff’s title as superior to that of all adverse claimants, thereby “quieting” any conflicting claims. Quiet title actions are governed primarily by the California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 760.010–764.080.
See CCP § 760.020
A quiet title complaint must be verified and include the following information:
- A description of the property,
- The basis of the plaintiff’s title,
- The adverse claims to be adjudicated,
- The date as of which the determination is sought.
Unlike some other property-related claims, quiet title actions are equitable in nature and may be used to resolve ownership disputes based on:
- Fraudulent conveyances,
- Forged deeds,
- Boundary disputes,
- Trustee’s sale irregularities,
- Disputes among heirs or co-owners.
The remedy sought is declaratory and confirmatory, not possessory. A successful quiet title judgment results in a court order confirming that the plaintiff holds valid and superior title as of a particular date. It does not arise from possession alone.
Quiet title actions are not subject to a general statute of limitations. Rather, the applicable limitations period is tied to the underlying theory of relief—such as fraud, contract, or cancellation of instruments. See Mayer v. L&B Real Estate, 43 Cal. App. 5th 508, 517 (2019) (view opinion).
Adverse Possession: A Doctrine Based on Hostile Possession
In contrast, adverse possession is not a cause of action, but a common-law doctrine that allows someone who has occupied and possessed land for a statutorily defined period to acquire legal title—even without the consent or knowledge of the true owner. The doctrine is codified in California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 318–325.
See CCP § 325
To succeed in a claim of adverse possession in California, a claimant must establish five elements:
- Actual possession of the property,
- Open and notorious use,
- Hostile and adverse claim to the true owner’s interest,
- Continuous and uninterrupted possession for five years, and
- Payment of all property taxes levied during the statutory period.
These elements must be proven by clear and convincing evidence, a notably high standard. See Gilardi v. Hallam, 30 Cal. App. 4th 1716, 1721–22 (1994) (view opinion).
Because of the strict tax payment requirement under CCP § 325(b), many otherwise “longtime occupiers” of land fail to qualify. Casual encroachments, permissive use, or co-occupancy with the record titleholder also negate adverse possession.
Importantly, adverse possession does not require filing suit—it is a defensive doctrine that can be asserted as a basis for title in a quiet title action brought by the adverse possessor or defensively in response to an ejectment action.
Key Differences Between Quiet Title and Adverse Possession
Legal Basis
Quiet title is a statutory cause of action designed to affirm title based on a known legal theory. Adverse possession is a common-law doctrine used to acquire title through unauthorized possession.
Nature of the Remedy
Quiet title confirms or resolves existing legal rights. Adverse possession creates new title rights through operation of law after the statutory period.
Burden of Proof
Quiet title requires a preponderance of the evidence, while adverse possession requires clear and convincing evidence of all five statutory elements, including property tax payment.
Title vs. Possession
Quiet title focuses on formal ownership and is not necessarily dependent on physical occupation. Adverse possession is grounded entirely in physical occupation and conduct inconsistent with the true owner’s rights.
Use Case Scenarios
Quiet title is commonly used in:
- Family disputes over inheritance,
- Title discrepancies from clerical or recording errors,
- Boundary line conflicts with adjacent owners.
Adverse possession typically arises in:
- Fence or structure encroachments,
- Long-term, exclusive occupation of “forgotten” lots,
- Informal land use where paper titleholders are absent.
Strategic Considerations
While adverse possession is theoretically powerful, its use in California is rare due to the high burden of proof and tax payment requirement. Most litigants pursue quiet title actions, even when asserting adverse possession, because they provide a direct judicial pathway to resolve competing claims and obtain a recorded judgment.
Practitioners should also be aware that title insurance policies generally exclude coverage for claims involving adverse possession or prescriptive easements unless specifically endorsed.
Moreover, a quiet title judgment is binding against all known and unknown claimants if properly served under CCP § 763.010, giving it preclusive effect in future disputes.
See CCP § 763.010
Conclusion
Quiet title and adverse possession represent two distinct legal pathways for resolving or asserting real property ownership in California. Quiet title actions are formal, equitable remedies that confirm or clarify title against adverse claims. Adverse possession, by contrast, is a doctrine of ownership by conduct—rarely successful, but legally potent when properly documented and prosecuted.
At Guiding Legal Counsel, APC, we assist clients with complex title disputes, adverse possession defenses, boundary conflicts, and quiet title litigation. If you are unsure of your ownership rights, or facing a claim from a co-occupant or neighbor, we can evaluate your position and develop a litigation or resolution strategy tailored to your situation. Contact us today to schedule a consultation and protect your interest in California real property.