Georgia property owners have spent the last few years dealing with a difficult reality: when someone moves into a property without permission, the law hasn’t always provided a fast, practical path to regain possession. That’s especially true in Metro Atlanta where squatting cases surged after the pandemic.
Georgia lawmakers addressed the issue in 2024 with a set of reforms to put squatting more squarely on the radar of law enforcement. But after seeing how the process works (and doesn’t work) in real life—and where loopholes and outstanding issues remain—legislators are now considering a new round of changes that could further streamline removals, while also raising the stakes for anyone who tries to misuse the process.
The new Georgia legislative session kicked off in January, and one of the bills now back under consideration is a carryover from last year: the Georgia Anti-Squatting Act of 2025. The proposal is currently moving through the Georgia General Assembly as a committee substitute tied to HB 61, which has been reviewed in the Senate Public Safety Committee. After passing the House in 2025, the bill moved to the Senate and was viewed favorably in committee last session, but did not receive final action before the legislative deadline. The Senate revived the proposal in the current session and it is once again before the Committee on Public Safety as lawmakers consider potential updates before sending it to the full Senate for a vote.
Because the bill is still in play, the final language could change. But the direction is clear: lawmakers want a faster, more workable procedure for true squatter situations.
Quick Refresher on Georgia’s 2024 Law
In 2024, Georgia created a more structured approach to squatting by treating it as a criminal-trespass-related offense and allowing county sheriffs and other law enforcement officers to issue citations. Under that framework, an alleged squatter generally had a three-day window to vacate or present documentation (like a lease or proof of rent payments).
In practice, that structure helped raise awareness, but it also created procedural bottlenecks. The process could still stretch into months if the matter rolled into court proceedings. And it placed law enforcement in an awkward role: part civil process, part quasi-criminal process, often without a true prosecutor driving the criminal side.
Why Lawmakers are Revisiting Now
From a property-owner standpoint, the biggest issue is time.
When someone is illegally occupying a property, the law is supposed to provide a summary pathway to get the rightful owner back in possession. But under the current scheme, delays can compound, especially if a squatter plays the process out and forces a court date, writ, and set-out timeline that can drag on.
The proposal aims to fix three recurring pain points:
Speed: reduce the waiting periods and procedural steps that can turn a summary process into a months-long ordeal, which often cuts into crucial rent revenue streams for landlords.
Practical enforceability: eliminate a system difficult for law enforcement officers to implement consistently on the ground.
Cleaner roles: shift disputes into a structure where, if there’s a real disagreement, the person removed can bring an action rather than forcing law enforcement into a half-civil, half-criminal court process.
Key Change: Faster Removal Pathway
The core idea in the proposed HB 61 substitute is to simplify the removal process.
In plain terms, the new approach is intended to be more straightforward: the property owner (or the owner’s agent) provides a sworn affidavit to the sheriff’s office, and law enforcement can immediately remove the unlawful occupant without the built-in three-day waiting period under current law.
The tradeoff is also important: the proposal appears to balance that streamlined process by increasing penalties for wrongful removal and creating clearer civil consequences if someone abuses the procedure.
Warning: Not a Substitute for Eviction
One of the most important takeaways for landlords and property owners is this process is designed for true squatter situations, not ordinary landlord-tenant disputes.
If you gave someone permission to move in (even informally), or if there’s a real landlord-tenant relationship, you are typically in eviction/dispossessory territory—not squatter law.
Using a squatter procedure because your significant other won’t move out after a breakup or because a landlord wants a tenant gone, is exactly the kind of scenario that can create serious legal exposure under the new proposal.
Practical Checklist for Property Owners
Even if the law becomes more streamlined, the safest approach is still to proceed carefully and document everything. My practical checklist for property owners includes:
- Talk to your attorney first: the fastest process is still the one done correctly.
- Gather ownership proof: keep a copy of the deed readily available.
- Make a proper demand for possession: clearly tell the occupant to leave.
- Document the demand: send it in a trackable way (certified mail/overnight) and keep proof of delivery.
- Use the correct affidavit language: proposed legislation contemplates a form affidavit; owners should ensure it is properly completed and includes all required elements.
That “demand” step matters. Even if courts ultimately interpret compliance requirements strictly or loosely, failing to make a clear demand is the kind of avoidable mistake that can create headaches later.
What Happens Next?
Because this is still proposed legislation, property owners should treat it as a developing situation, not a green light to change practices overnight.
But if passed, the practical impact could be significant: fewer procedural steps, reduced court entanglement for straightforward squatter cases, and faster restoration of possession, which is particularly important given time is the biggest driver of property damage, safety concerns, and financial loss.
The proposed legislation also creates a new felony offense for squatters presenting a false lease or deed, and includes provisions addressing unlawful occupancy in certain lodging situations (such as extended-stay properties), though the most immediate impact for most readers will be on the residential side.
Bottom Line
Georgia appears poised to take another step toward a faster, clearer response to true squatting cases. But the same theme runs through both the current law and the proposed update: do it right and don’t misuse it.If you’re dealing with a suspected squatter—or you want to make sure your property-management policies are ready if the law changes—Williams Teusink can help you evaluate your options and proceed safely. To learn more about how we can assist, click here.
