Squatters Versus a Holdover Tenant: Why You Cannot Change the Locks in California

Published August 10, 2026

A squatter never had permission and a holdover tenant's permission expired, but California treats a self help lockout against either one the same way: a civil violation with statutory damages, and possibly a misdemeanor.

The short answer

California prohibits landlords from changing locks, shutting off utilities, or removing belongings to force out anyone in possession of a home, whether they are a squatter with no lease or a holdover tenant whose lease expired. Civil Code section 789.3 makes this a civil violation with statutory damages of at least 250 dollars per act, up to 100 dollars a day. Forcing entry can also be a misdemeanor under Penal Code section 418. The only lawful path is a court order.

Last verified: August 10, 2026

Two different people, one identical rule

A holdover tenant had a lease. It ended, by its own terms or by a notice to terminate, and they did not leave. They have a paper trail: a signed lease, rent receipts, maybe a security deposit still on file with you. Nobody disputes they were lawfully in possession at some point.

A squatter never had your permission at all. No lease, no rent history with you, sometimes a forged document or a stranger's name on a fake sublease. They occupied the property without your consent, and it may be a felony under other statutes for them to have done so.

Landlords intuitively feel these are different problems and that the squatter, having no legal claim at all, should be easier to remove. Under California's self help prohibition, the law does not make that distinction. Civil Code section 789.3 was written to stop landlords from taking matters into their own hands against a "tenant," but California courts and most local law enforcement agencies extend the same reasoning to anyone who has established actual residence in a dwelling, because the underlying problem, an owner using force or exclusion instead of court process, is the same regardless of how the occupant got in.

The practical result: once someone is living in the home, sleeping there, receiving mail there, keeping belongings there, you are very likely required to go through unlawful detainer court to remove them, the identical process used against a rent-paying tenant. Code of Civil Procedure section 1161, the state's core eviction statute, is written around removing "the tenant" from possession, and it is the standard vehicle courts and sheriffs use to enforce a lawful removal against anyone holding property against the owner's wishes.

What Civil Code section 789.3 actually bans

The statute is specific. A landlord may not intentionally terminate a tenancy by any of the following, drawn directly from the code:

• Interrupting or shutting off utilities: water, heat, light, electricity, gas, telephone, elevator, or refrigeration
• Changing the locks, or using a boot lock or similar device to bar entry
• Removing outside doors or windows
• Removing the occupant's personal property, furnishings, or other items from the unit

Any one of these acts, done to force someone out instead of using the court process, triggers liability.

What it costs you

Civil Code section 789.3 sets statutory damages "not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100) for each day or part thereof the landlord remains in violation," and requires a minimum of "two hundred fifty dollars ($250)" be awarded for each separate cause of action. On top of that the statute allows actual damages, which can include hotel costs, lost or damaged property, and lost wages if the occupant could not get to work, plus attorney's fees to the prevailing party and injunctive relief ordering you to restore access.

Those numbers stack fast. A lockout that drags on for two weeks while the displaced occupant fights back is not a 250 dollar mistake. It is 250 dollars per cause of action plus up to 100 dollars a day plus their attorney's bill plus yours.

The criminal exposure

Beyond the civil statute, Penal Code section 418 makes it a misdemeanor to use "force or violence" to enter or detain "any lands or other possessions of another, except in the cases and in the manner allowed by law." A landlord or a crew hired to force entry, break a lock, or physically move someone's belongings out while they are not home can fall squarely inside that statute, because doing it outside the court-supervised eviction process is not one of the "cases and manner allowed by law."

Separately, Penal Code section 602.5 criminalizes a person entering or remaining in a noncommercial dwelling without consent. That statute is aimed at the occupant's conduct, not the owner's, and it does not by itself hand an owner or their agent the authority to physically remove someone who has established residence. It confirms that unauthorized occupation is itself potentially criminal, which is exactly why the lawful response is to call police for a fact-specific trespass determination early, before anyone moves in belongings, or to file for unlawful detainer once someone is established in the home.

The line that actually matters: early versus established

Timing is the real variable, not lease status. If you catch someone breaking in or moving belongings into a vacant unit before they have established residence, that is often a straightforward police matter under trespass and burglary statutes, and officers can remove them without a court order.

Once a person has established actual residence, meaning they are sleeping there, have moved belongings in, and have been there for some period that looks like occupancy rather than a single break-in, police departments across California, including in the South Bay, generally treat further removal as a civil landlord-tenant matter for the courts, not something they will do at your request. We could not confirm one statewide statutory day-count that draws this line; agencies apply it as a fact question, and the answer can differ department to department, which is exactly why calling police immediately when you discover unauthorized occupants, rather than waiting, matters.

The lawful path is the same lawsuit either way

For a holdover tenant, you typically serve a notice to quit consistent with the lease's terms or Civil Code section 1946, then file an unlawful detainer if they do not leave.

For an established squatter, the mechanics are different in the paperwork but the venue is the same court process, generally through an unlawful detainer action treating the occupant as a "tenant at sufferance," alongside a police report documenting the unauthorized entry. An attorney experienced in California unlawful detainer practice can tell you which notice and pleading path fits your specific facts, because the wrong notice type can slow the case down or get it dismissed.

FAQ

If a squatter has no lease, can I just call police to remove them?

Only if they have not yet established residence. Once someone is living in the property with belongings and an ongoing presence, most California police departments treat removal as a civil court matter, not something officers will do on the spot.

Can I turn off the electricity to encourage someone to leave faster?

No. Civil Code section 789.3 lists interrupting utilities, including electricity, gas, and water, as a prohibited self help act with statutory damages attached.

What if my locksmith just rekeys the door while the occupant is out for the day?

That is still a lockout under Civil Code section 789.3 regardless of whether anyone was present, and it can also expose you to criminal liability under forcible entry statutes depending on the facts.

Does it matter that a squatter is committing a crime by being there?

Not for your remedy. Their unauthorized entry may itself violate other statutes, but that does not give you the legal right to respond with self help. You still need a court order or a documented, timely police removal before residence is established.

How fast can I actually get a squatter or holdover tenant out through the courts?

The unlawful detainer process, the same one used for nonpayment cases, has statutory minimums but no single guaranteed total. Expect the case to move on a similar track to any other eviction, with timing set by service, response deadlines, and court calendar rather than by how sympathetic your facts are.

This article is general information about California's self help eviction prohibitions, not legal advice. Every occupancy dispute turns on specific facts about timing, documentation, and how the person got into the property. Confirm your situation with a licensed California attorney and local law enforcement before taking any action.

Topics: playbook, squatters, holdover tenant, self help eviction, California landlord law, South Bay, property management

Get a free management quote

Back to the Schofield Properties blog

Schofield Properties is a family run property management company at 323 Richmond St, El Segundo, CA 90245. We have managed the South Bay since 1972 and personally oversee about 186 doors today. Book a call to talk about your property.