North Carolina’s Expedited Procedure for Dealing with Unauthorized Occupants

If you are a property owner with unauthorized non-tenant occupants living on your property, you now have a direct, expedited way to remove those unauthorized persons and recover possession of your property. New legislation addresses the problem of how to evict when no landlord-tenant relationship exists and “summary ejectment” proceedings don’t apply.

The General Assembly of North Carolina recently ratified House Bill 96. This bill, titled “An Act to Create an Alternative Remedy for the Expedited Removal of Unauthorized Persons from Private Property by a Law Enforcement Agency and to Modify the Law Related to Pet Shops,” provides landlords and property owners an expedited process for the removal of unauthorized persons from residential property. This new process is governed by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-159.52 and became effective December 1, 2025.

Under this new law, “unauthorized person” means “a person or persons occupying residential property who has no legal claim to the property, is not entitled to occupy it under a valid rental agreement or contract for deed, has not paid any rent or other form of payment to the property owner or an authorized representative of the property owner in connection with the occupancy of the property, and is not otherwise authorized to occupy the property.” Basically, this new law is specifically for persons who are not a tenant, do not have a signed lease, or have never paid rent.

What’s the Procedure?

The first step is to send a notice to the unauthorized occupant demanding possession of the property. After the demand letter is sent and the time for them to vacate expires, you can file a complaint and summons in the county where the property is located. The summons and complaint are provided to the sheriff, who must serve the unauthorized persons within 24 hours. After the unauthorized persons were served, the sheriff then files a return. Next, a hearing is held before a magistrate as soon as possible, but no more than 48 hours after the unauthorized person was served. If the court rules in favor of the property owner, the court immediately enters an order granting possession to the property owner and stating the time the unauthorized person must vacate, which cannot be more than 4 hours after the order is served on the unauthorized person. Of course, all parties have a right to appeal the magistrate’s order for a new trial. However, if the unauthorized occupant appeals an unfavorable decision against them, the court will set an appeal bond that the unauthorized occupant must first pay to appeal. The appeal bond will be at least $10,000 and could potentially be more based on estimated market rent during the appeal and other reasonable damages.

The Complaint

The complaint form can be found at AOC-CVM-407. Before filing a complaint, at least the following should be true:

1. The requesting party is the property owner or the authorized representative of the property owner

2. The property that is being unlawfully occupied is residential property or property used in connection with or appurtenant to residential property

3. An unauthorized person has entered the property after the property owner acquired the property and is remaining or residing unlawfully on the residential property of the property owner

4. The property was not offered or intended as an accommodation for the general public at the time the unauthorized person entered

5. The property owner or the authorized representative of the property owner has directed the unauthorized person to leave the residential property

6. The unauthorized person is not a tenant of the owner of the property

7. The unauthorized person is not an owner of the property

8. There is no pending litigation between the property owner and the unauthorized person related to the residential property

9. There is no other valid rental agreement or contract for deed that has been entered into or formed

10. No rent or other form of payment has ever been demanded of or paid by the unauthorized person to the property owner or to an authorized representative of the property owner

What happens if, after judgment, the unauthorized person does not leave or remove their belongings within the allotted time?

If the unauthorized person fails to vacate, then it would constitute a criminal trespass under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-159.13(a)(1). If the unauthorized person fails to remove personal property, the property owner or authorized representative may remove the unauthorized person’s personal property from the property and move it to or near property line.

Blanco Tackabery handles a plethora of landlord tenant cases throughout this great state of North Carolina, and we handle a wide variety of issues and situations. If you are a property owner, property manager, or landlord dealing with an unauthorized occupant living on your property, we are ready to help you understand this process and get back what is yours.

Daphne Myers works with the Property Management Practice Group, Civil Litigation Practice Group and Affordable Housing and Community Development Practice Group at Blanco Tackabery. Daphne represents individuals and businesses in civil litigation.

Recently, new versions of regulations governing the termination of leases for nonpayment of rent in the Public Housing and Rural Development spaces became effective. These regulations impose new burdens on the landlord that create potential pitfalls for successful lease terminations, and thus housing providers and management companies operating Public Housing and USDA, Rural Development units should be cognizant of the new requirements.

First, in December 2024, a new version of 24 C.F.R. 966.4 took effect. This regulation is applicable to Public Housing Authorities and managers of Public Housing units, not all properties receiving assistance from HUD. The updated version of the regulation impacts those housing providers must provide termination of lease notices for nonpayment. The new version of this regulation is mostly the same as before, but it contains several new requirements for nonpayment terminations that are substantially more burdensome than the prior version. The new requirements for termination notices for nonpayment are as follows:

• The effective date of termination must be at least 30 days after the notice date.
• The notice must provide instructions on how to cure the nonpayment default (i.e., where can payment be sent and what form of payment will be accepted). The right to cure is not option for the housing provider.
• The notice must include an itemized amount separated by month of the alleged rent owed and any other arrearages permitted by the lease and HUD.
• The notice must provide the tenant with a specific date by which her or she can cure, which will usually be the same date as the effective date of termination.
• The notice about how the tenant can recertify income, request a hardship exemption, or switch from flat rent to income-based rent under applicable regulations.
• When applicable, the notice must also provide information about a Presidential declaration of emergency.

Public Housing Authorities and managers of Public Housing units should take careful note of these new requirements and take steps to put them into practice. Following a lease that does not mirror the regulations will not stop a court from dismissing an eviction if the notice does not comply with 24 CFR 966.4. Managers of Public Housing units should update their lease documents and any other policies or procedures that reflect outdated requirements to create more checks and balances for compliance.

Second, in March 2024, a new version of 7 C.F.R. 3560.159 took effect. This regulation impacts how managers of units subsidized by USDA, Rural Development must provide notice of lease termination for nonpayment. The new version of 7 C.F.R. 3560.159 imposes new requirements on terminating leases for nonpayment of rent. The significant changes are as follows:

• The effective date of the termination notice must be at least earlier than 30 days the tenant actually receives the notice.
• The notice must be provided in accordance with 7 C.F.R. 3560.160(e), which requires personal delivery. Posting is no longer sufficient for nonpayment termination notices USDA, Rural Development arena. The landlord must either send the letter via Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, and obtain proof of delivery, or must hand-deliver the letter to the tenant and obtain a written acknowledgment of receipt.
• The notice must provide instructions on how the tenant can cure the nonpayment violation. The right to cure is thus not optional, and the letter should tell the tenant where to send payment, what form of payment will be accepted, and when payment must be received by to cure. Usually, the cure date will coincide with the effective date of the termination notice
• The notice must provide information about how the tenant can recertify income under applicable regulations.
• When applicable, the notice must provide information about a Presidential declaration of emergency.

Managers of units subsidized by USDA, Rural Development should carefully examine these new requirements and ensure that their practices are in compliance. The most significant change is the requirement of personal delivery. In the past, housing providers could deliver nonpayment notices by posting the letter to the door of the unit. This practice will no longer suffice for nonpayment notices. Housing providers must now obtain personal delivery and have proof of personal delivery. This new requirement will surely create headaches for housing providers, particularly in situations where the tenant is able to dodge service of the notice. If a housing provider cannot obtain personal service of the nonpayment termination and prove service, the new version of the regulation basically says you cannot evict the tenant for nonpayment. Managers of units subsidized by USDA, Rural Development should update lease documents and any other policies or procedures to match the new version of the regulation and create another safeguard for compliance.

In our practice representing management companies and landlords, we have already seen the impact of these newly updated regulations. Legal service organizations are very aware of these updates, and they stand prepared to pounce on landlords slow to comply. A defense of noncompliant notice will usually result in an eviction being dismissed with prejudice, so strict compliance is a must. Housing providers and management agents managing USDA, Rural Development or Public Housing with questions about these new requirements and how best to implement them are encouraged to consult with experienced counsel to ensure they are complying. The attorneys at Blanco Tackabery stand ready to assist.

Henry Hilston employs his experience in state and federal litigation as an asset in his representation of affordable and conventional multifamily property owners and managers. In that practice, he advises property management companies on a wide range of issues, including evictions and other landlord-tenant disputes, VAWA, the Fair Housing Act, and compliance issues under federal and state affordable housing programs, such as the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program and HUD and USDA-Rural Development rental subsidy programs. He also assists those clients with the preparation, review, and revision of management documents, including tenant selection plans, management agreements, and leases.