Adverse Possession vs. REURB: Practical and Strategic Differences in Property Regularization

The quest for property regularization is one of the greatest challenges in Brazilian urban and real estate law.

Two legal mechanisms often confused, but with distinct foundations and effects, are adverse possession (usucapião) and Urban Land Regularization (REURB).

Although both instruments ultimately aim to grant title and legal security to possession, their paths, requirements, and practical effects differ significantly. This article clarifies these differences and highlights the scenarios in which each mechanism is more appropriate.

1. Adverse Possession: Individual Acquisition Through Possession

1.1 Concept

Provided for in the Civil Code (Arts. 1,238 to 1,244) and the Federal Constitution (Art. 183), adverse possession (usucapião) is an original form of property acquisition.

The possessor, after a certain period of time and upon meeting legal requirements, becomes the owner through a judicial ruling or extrajudicial deed.

1.2 Basic requirements

·         Peaceful, uncontested, and continuous possession;

·         Variable time period (5, 10, or 15 years, depending on the type);

·         Exercise of possession with intent to own (animus domini);

·         Urban or rural property, depending on the chosen modality.

1.3 Practical effects

·         The possessor acquires ownership regardless of the will of the former owner;

·         The title is individual, benefiting only the person who fulfilled the requirements;

·         It does not regularize an entire urban nucleus or condominium—only the specific property or portion in question.

2. REURB: Collective and Urbanistic Regularization

2.1 Concept

Created by Law No. 13,465/2017, REURB is an administrative procedure (with possible judicial intervention) aimed at regularizing consolidated informal urban settlements.

2.2 Main characteristics

·         Collective nature: applies to communities, subdivisions, condominiums, and buildings;

·         Requires proof of consolidated occupation prior to December 22, 2016;

·         Culminates in the issuance of the Urban Land Regularization Certificate (CRF), recorded at the Land Registry Office;

·         Allows for the opening of individualized property registrations for each listed occupant.

2.3 Practical effects

·         Simultaneously regularizes dozens or hundreds of properties;

·         Integrates the area urbanistically, requiring minimum infrastructure, environmental measures, and technical reports;

·         Produces a collective impact, extending beyond individual titling.

3. Structural Differences Between Adverse Possession and REURB

Aspect	Adverse Possession (Usucapião)	REURB
Nature	Judicial action or extrajudicial deed	Administrative procedure (with Land Registry recording)
Character	Individual	Collective
Requirement	Possession with animus domini + time lapse	Consolidated occupation before 12/22/2016
Time frame	5–15 years (depending on type)	No time lapse, as long as before legal cutoff
Final title	Judicial ruling or notarial act	Urban Land Regularization Certificate (CRF)
Scope	Only the possessor’s property	Entire urban nucleus or condominium
Costs	Court costs and attorneys’ fees	Administrative fees, technical services, notary costs, and attorneys’ fees
Effect	Individual ownership	Ownership + urbanistic and environmental integration

4. When to Choose Each Instrument

4.1 Adverse Possession

Best suited when:

·         The case involves a single property or fractional share;

·         The possessor has exercised dominion for years and meets Civil Code requirements;

·         There is no collective interest or need for urban works.

4.2 REURB

Best suited when:

·         The case involves a collective settlement (building, condominium, subdivision);

·         There is a need for urbanistic, environmental, and registral adequacy;

·         It is necessary to open mass individualized registrations;

·         The goal is to resolve the situation of an entire community, not just one possessor.

5. Possibility of Coexistence

In some cases, both instruments may coexist:

·         A settlement may undergo REURB, while one family or unit owner pursues adverse possession of their specific unit or share;

·         Adverse possession may serve as a subsidiary path when the Municipality remains inactive and REURB does not advance.

Conclusion

Although both instruments aim to provide legal security to possession, adverse possession is an individual and judicial remedy, while REURB is a collective, urbanistic, and registral solution.

The attorney must assess each case and guide the client toward the most suitable option:

·         Adverse possession → solution for the isolated individual;

·         REURB → solution for communities, buildings, and entire subdivisions.

In short, choosing correctly between adverse possession and REURB can mean the difference between a lengthy and litigious regularization and a broader, faster, and integrated solution.