Also known as: open & notorious · open notorious possession
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
Possession of land that is visible and obvious enough to put a reasonably attentive true owner on notice that someone is asserting a claim to the property.
WindCo installed an underground power cable along the edge of Lopez's ranch and marked the route with visible posts. Maintenance trucks used the gravel track regularly for fifteen years without permission. Lopez later blocked access. The visible markers and regular truck traffic satisfied the open and notorious element and supported WindCo's prescriptive easement claim.
Oakley Osei and his predecessors built a fence and planted crops on a strip they believed was theirs due to a survey error. The fence and crops remained visible to the true owner for the full statutory period. Seasonal farming consistent with the land's character met the open and notorious requirement and allowed tacking of successive periods.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Orson Ochoa and prior owners occupied a beach cabin only during summer months but maintained it openly each year. The cabin and cleared area were plainly visible to the record owner. The consistent seasonal pattern satisfied open and notorious possession and permitted tacking across generations under a good-faith boundary claim.
Octavia Okonkwo paved a driveway that extended several feet onto the neighboring lot. The paved surface and daily vehicle use remained in plain view for the statutory period. The visible improvement and regular traffic met the open and notorious element even though the true owner never inspected the boundary line.
Odette Orozco cleared and graveled a path across an adjoining parcel and used it daily for equipment transport. The improved surface and constant traffic were observable from the public road. The conspicuous physical changes satisfied open and notorious use and supported a prescriptive easement after the statutory period.
Odessa Okada erected a fence and stored equipment on a vacant lot owned by another party. The fence and daily activity remained visible to passersby and the record owner for more than the required period. The conspicuous enclosure and ongoing operations fulfilled the open and notorious requirement for adverse possession.
No. The requirement is satisfied if the acts are visible enough that a reasonably attentive owner would have noticed them. Constructive notice is sufficient. Actual knowledge is not required.
Acts that a usual owner would perform, such as building fences, planting crops, paving driveways, or maintaining visible structures, qualify. Underground or hidden uses generally fail unless surface evidence makes them discoverable.
Yes. Use that matches the ordinary character of the property, such as summer occupancy of a beach cabin or annual farming, satisfies the element when it is consistent and visible throughout the statutory period.
Yes. The same visibility standard governs both doctrines. A claimant must show use that is sufficiently apparent to put the servient owner on notice of the adverse claim.
…with the oft-quoted rule that: [T]o constitute adverse possession, there must be actual possession which is uninterrupted , open and notorious, hostile and exclusive, and under a claim of right made in good faith for the statutory period. (Italics ours.) Butler v. Anderson , 71 Wn.2d 60, 64, 426 P.2d 467 (1967). Also see…