Adverse possession of undeveloped land

We previously wrote about the elements of an adverse possession claim, specifically the proof required to establish it.

It is important to recognize that “both the quality and quantity of possessory acts necessary to establish a claim of adverse possession may vary with the characteristics of the land.” Walker v. Murphree, 722 So. 2d 1277, 1281 (¶16) (Miss. Ct. App. 1998).

“Adverse possession of ‘wild’ or unimproved lands may be established by evidence of acts that would be wholly insufficient in the case of improved or developed lands.” Phillips v. Forrest County Industrial Park Commission, 407 So. 3d 257, 265 (Miss. Ct. App. 2025).

In the Phillips case, the Forrest County Industrial Park Commission (the Commission) claimed two acres by adverse possession. The question was whether the Commission could prove the elements of adverse possession.

At trial, the Commission offered evidence that, for many years, the property at issue was “raw land.”

The Commission preferred to keep the property in the Industrial Park forested for as long as possible until it is ready for development. This minimizes the Commission's costs of maintaining the property.

Yet, between approximately 2007 and 2011, the Commission spent funds on environmental and engineering due diligence studies of the two acres.

This work involved engineers and archeologists conducting surveys and studies on the land, including taking soil samples and assessing whether endangered species were present on the property. The Commission spent approximately $143,000 on the studies.

Keeping in mind the characteristics of the two acres at issue, the Court of Appeals held that there was sufficient evidence of the Commission's possessory acts to put any owner of the disputed property on notice of the Commission's claim.

With respect to undeveloped land, the Court also noted that “an important question is whether the person claiming ownership adversely exercises toward the land the same character of control applied toward property actually his and which he would not have exercised over property which did not belong to him.”

The Court held that it was clear from the record that the Commission exercised “the same character of control” toward the two acres at issue as it did to the property actually deeded to it.

S. Craig Panter

Panter Law Firm, PLLC

7736 Old Canton Road, Suite B

Madison, MS 39110

601-607-3156

Posted February 21, 2026