Alberta’s Property Rights Statutes Amendment Act, 2022 rewrites the statutory rules for improvements made on the wrong parcel, building encroachments and claims based on long-term possession. It gives courts a defined menu of remedies, including removal, easements, land transfers and compensation, while eliminating the ability to acquire land through adverse possession.
The bill also removes the limitation period for recovering possession of real property and coordinates the change across the Law of Property Act, the Limitations Act and the Land Titles Act. Transitional provisions preserve certain existing claims and judgments under the former rules, creating a split between legacy disputes and new proceedings.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill replaces section 69 of the Law of Property Act with separate rules for lasting improvements made under a mistaken belief of ownership and buildings that encroach on adjoining land. It also bars acquisition of title, implied licences and prescribed easements through adverse possession or use, subject to specified treatment of existing proceedings.
Who It Affects
Registered landowners, neighbouring property owners, builders, developers, lenders and title insurers face the most direct consequences. Courts, the Land Titles Office and lawyers handling boundary, possession or registration disputes must apply different rules to claims depending on when proceedings began.
Why It Matters
The legislation shifts Alberta away from a system in which long possession could support recovery of land and toward stronger protection of registered ownership. It also gives courts more explicit tools to resolve mistaken construction and encroachment disputes without relying on broad legacy doctrines.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Section 69 of the Law of Property Act now distinguishes between lasting improvements placed on land by mistake and buildings that physically cross a boundary. For mistaken improvements, the court may order removal or abandonment, grant an easement, require the improver to buy the affected land, or require the registered owner to compensate the improver for the value added.
For a building encroachment, the available remedies are removal, an easement, or a compelled purchase of the encroached land. In both situations, the court must set the amount and terms it considers just.
The amended provision also expands who can rely on the remedy. The definition of “person” includes heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, and an assignee does not need to prove the original improver’s belief that the land was their own when the court finds that requirement should not apply.
That gives successors and transferees a clearer route to continue or defend claims arising from historic construction or improvements.The new section 69.1 makes the policy change explicit: land cannot be acquired by adverse possession. It also prevents a person from acquiring an implied licence to use land through use or adverse possession, and preserves the existing prohibition on acquiring light, easements, rights in gross or profits à prendre by prescription.
The Limitations Act reinforces the change by creating no limitation period for a claim to recover possession of real property and by denying a defendant an adverse-possession defence.The Land Titles Act changes the registration machinery that follows from a section 69 order. A person who obtains specified court-ordered easement or acquisition relief may file a certified judgment in the Land Titles Office.
The Act also preserves successful quiet-title claims under the former provision and allows unresolved proceedings commenced under that provision to continue under the former 10-year possession framework. Similar protection applies under the new adverse-possession and limitation provisions for actions already underway when the amendments take effect.
The Five Things You Need to Know
For a mistaken lasting improvement, the court can order removal, grant an easement, require the improver to acquire the land, or require the registered owner to pay compensation tied to the improvement’s enhancement of land value.
For a building encroachment, the court can order removal, grant an easement, or require the building owner to purchase the affected portion of the adjoining land.
Section 69.1 bars acquisition of land, implied licences and specified property rights through adverse possession or use, while preserving the statutory prohibition on prescriptive acquisition of light, easements, rights in gross and profits à prendre.
The new Limitations Act section 3.2 creates no limitation period for recovering possession of real property and prevents a defendant from relying on adverse possession as a defence.
Proceedings begun under the former provisions and not concluded when the amendments take effect continue under the earlier rules, including the former 10-year limitation period for recovering possession.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Updates judgment registration and preserves legacy title claims
The Land Titles Act now allows a person who obtains specified relief under section 69 of the Law of Property Act—an easement or acquisition order—to file a certified judgment in the Land Titles Office. This connects the court’s property remedy to the registration system rather than leaving the successful party to resolve title consequences through a separate process.
New section 74.1 preserves successful quiet-title claims under the former wording and protects unresolved proceedings commenced under it. The Registrar must continue issuing a certificate of title under the existing procedure for qualifying judgments from those legacy actions.
Modernizes ministerial references and expands registration safeguards
The bill replaces the title “Minister of Justice and Solicitor General” with “Minister of Justice” in two Land Titles Act provisions. It also adds an order under section 69 of the Law of Property Act to the documents subject to the Act’s registration safeguards.
As a result, an order affecting a certificate of title, an interest in land, an instrument or a caveat must satisfy the same consent, service, appeal or court-certification conditions that apply to other specified judgments and orders. The change reduces the risk that a property-altering order will be registered without the procedural protections built into section 191.
Replaces the old improvement and encroachment remedy
The replacement section 69 moves away from the former lien-and-retention model. Instead of treating compensation or retention of land as the core statutory outcomes, it gives the court separate, fact-specific options for mistaken improvements and building encroachments.
The provision is discretionary: the court must consider what is just in the circumstances and can set monetary amounts, duration of easements and other terms. That flexibility may help resolve boundary problems without automatically requiring demolition, but it also leaves the practical result highly dependent on evidence and judicial assessment.
Ends adverse possession and related prescriptive rights
New section 69.1 states that no right or title in land may be acquired through adverse possession. It separately rejects implied licences based on use or adverse possession and provides that those rights are not deemed ever to have been acquired. It maintains the rule that light, easements, rights in gross and profits à prendre cannot arise by prescription.
The provision does not apply retroactively to every dispute. An action for a remedial order that began under the former section 69 and remained unresolved continues as though the new section were not in force.
Removes the possession limitation period
The Limitations Act amendments remove provisions tailored to recovery of possession of land and replace them with a direct rule: no limitation period applies to a claim for recovery of real property, including a claim involving section 69 of the Law of Property Act. A defendant cannot use adverse possession as a defence to that claim.
The amendments also clarify that the general limitations regime does not apply where another provincial enactment supplies the applicable limitation rule. Existing actions that were started but not concluded before the amendments take effect remain governed by the former Act, including its 10-year possession period.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Registered owners whose land is occupied or used without permission gain a stronger ability to seek possession without facing a new adverse-possession claim or a limitation-period defence.
- Owners of buildings that encroach on neighbouring land receive a defined set of alternatives to demolition, including negotiated-style easement or purchase outcomes that a court can impose on just terms.
- Landowners whose property is improved by mistake may obtain compensation based on the increase in value, rather than relying only on the former lien or land-retention framework.
- Heirs, successors, assigns and other successors in interest receive clearer standing under section 69, including in some cases without having to prove the original improver’s state of mind.
- Title professionals and successful litigants benefit from a clearer route for registering qualifying section 69 judgments and reflecting them on title.
Who Bears the Cost
- Owners of long-occupied land lose the possibility of acquiring title or defeating a possession claim through adverse possession, even where occupation has continued for many years.
- Builders and developers face greater exposure when surveys, construction plans or boundary controls fail, because the statutory remedies can require removal, an easement payment or acquisition of the encroached land.
- Registered owners seeking to recover land may face disputes without a limitation deadline, increasing the period during which historic evidence, title research and possession records remain relevant.
- The Land Titles Office and courts must distinguish legacy proceedings from new claims and apply different transitional rules, adding procedural and administrative complexity.
- Lenders, title insurers and purchasers may face higher diligence costs where unresolved encroachments, historic improvements or pending possession actions affect the practical value of registered land.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill protects the reliability of registered title by refusing to let time alone transfer land, but it also preserves judicial discretion to accommodate people who made genuine, value-adding mistakes. That balance gives owners stronger legal control while potentially leaving builders, neighbours and successors exposed to costly late claims or uncertain remedies when historic boundary problems come to light.
The bill’s strongest protection for registered owners comes with a potentially difficult evidentiary problem. Removing the limitation period means a possession dispute may surface long after records, witnesses and physical boundaries have changed.
Registration establishes the legal title, but it may not resolve the factual questions surrounding permission, mistaken construction, historic transfers or the exact location of an encroachment.
The replacement section 69 gives courts broad discretion to choose among removal, easement, acquisition and compensation. That flexibility can avoid disproportionate outcomes, but the statute does not provide a detailed valuation formula or a priority rule for choosing one remedy over another.
Parties may therefore face uncertainty about whether a court will protect the existing structure, preserve the registered boundary or shift ownership for compensation.
The transitional rules create a durable two-track system. A claim commenced under the former provisions may continue under the old 10-year regime, while a later claim may have no limitation period and no adverse-possession defence.
Determining which legal regime applies will itself become a threshold issue in disputes involving long-running occupation or proceedings that were started but not concluded.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.