In the fifth year after buying a small-property-rights house in Longhua, Shenzhen, the entire building faced tenant eviction for demolition. The 32 owners went from despair to full confirmation of their property rights. The lawyer reviews these 480 days.

In the spring of 2023, in a unified-construction building on Dalang Street, Longhua, Shenzhen, Old Zhou clutched the "Cooperative Housing Construction Agreement" stamped with the seal of the shareholding company, his hands trembling slightly. The eviction notice posted downstairs was clear: vacate within three months, with compensation calculated at 200 yuan per square meter. He did the math—the 85-square-meter apartment he had bought five years ago at a unit price of 7,800 yuan would now yield less than 20,000 yuan under the current compensation standard, while the listed price for commercial housing in the same area had already climbed to nearly 60,000 yuan per square meter.

Old Zhou is not an isolated case. Among the 32 homeowners living in this building, some are taxi drivers who have been working hard in Shenzhen for over a decade, some are hourly domestic workers in Futian, and others, like Old Zhou, are ordinary laborers who sold their houses in their hometown counties and pooled all their savings to scrape together the down payment. The documents they hold are varied: some have "Joint Venture Housing Agreements," some have "Usage Rights Transfer Contracts," and a few even have simple receipts. The only thing they have in common is that the houses cannot be transferred to their names—because these are small-property-rights houses built on village collective land.

The eviction notice came down, and the 32 property owners split into two factions.

The day the news spread, the owners' group chat was in an uproar. One faction advocated "accepting the loss," arguing that small-property-rights housing was inherently shady and that lawsuits would only end in defeat; the other refused to give up, insisting that the developer had promised a "permanent right to use" back then, so how could demolition happen so abruptly? Old Zhou belonged to the latter camp, but after visiting three law firms, the answers he got were all similar: "The validity of the sales contract for small-property-rights housing is questionable, and the odds of winning this case are slim." One young lawyer even bluntly said that such disputes would be difficult even to get filed in court.

The turning point came after Old Zhou found Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm. After listening to the situation, Director Lawyer Shen Jinlong didn't rush to a conclusion. Instead, he asked a question first: "For this building of yours, do you have any records of the land approval procedures and planning permits from back then?" It was this question that led Old Zhou to dig out a yellowed copy of the "Construction Land Planning Permit" from the bottom of his drawer—which stated it was a "village residential project," not a "commercial development."

The first thing Lawyer Shen's team did after taking the case was not to draft a complaint, but to spend two weeks visiting the planning and land departments to retrieve the land use classification and construction approval archives for the building. The verification results lifted everyone's spirits: although the building lacked an independent property certificate, its land source was legal and its construction approval procedures were complete, classifying it as a "legally constructed but unregistered building" left over from historical circumstances, not an illegal hastily-built structure. This classification became the key to overturning the case later.

Legally, it's not called a "sale" but a "transfer of usage rights," which opens up more possibilities.

Many clients panic at the mention of "small property rights housing," assuming the law offers no protection. However, there's a distinction that's easily overlooked — not all small property rights housing in Shenzhen is illegal construction. For village residential buildings approved and constructed before the 2004 urbanization land conversion, those that meet the requirements can apply for rights confirmation under the "Shenzhen Special Economic Zone Regulations on Handling Several Issues Concerning Historical遗留 Illegal Private Housing." Attorney Shen's team adopted a clear strategy for 32 homeowners: avoid the minefield of "invalid sales contracts" and instead pursue a "property rights protection dispute" route, filing the case under "removal of obstruction dispute," seeking confirmation of the homeowners' lawful possessory and usage rights over the properties, and demanding compensation from the eviction party for losses caused by the forced eviction.

The legal fulcrum of this strategy lies in the right to claim return of the original property under Article 235 of the Civil Code, which targets situations of "unauthorized possession of immovable or movable property." As the original rights holder of the land, the developer had long since transferred the long-term right to use the housing to the property owners. Subsequently demanding its return under the guise of "clearing leases" itself constitutes an abuse of rights. To put it plainly, although this housing is "small property rights," it does not mean you have no "rights"—it's just that the name of this right is not "ownership" but rather "usufructuary rights" or "contractual claims." The key lies in a single word: precision. Only by accurately identifying the legal basis can a lawsuit stand firm.

The trial process was more twists and turns than expected. The developer's lawyer latched onto one point: the agreement signed by both parties was titled "Cooperative Housing Construction" but was in fact a property sale, and the sales contract for small-property-rights housing should be deemed invalid for violating mandatory legal provisions. However, the Zhiming lawyers were well prepared — they submitted 32 records of payments made by homeowners to the village shareholding company over five years for water, electricity, gas, and property management fees, as well as evidence that some owners actually resided there and had children attending nearby schools. These pieces of evidence pointed to one fact: the homeowners had possessed and used these properties in good faith, openly, and continuously, and over the course of several years, the developer had never raised any objections.

After winning the first instance, the developer appealed, and the second instance upheld the original judgment.

Over 480 days, 32 cases were advanced in three batches, with Attorney Shen Jinlong's team shuttling back and forth between the Shenzhen Futian District People's Court and the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court. The first-instance judgment upheld the homeowners' core claims: confirming that the 32 households held lawful possession and use rights over the properties in question, and that the developer could not forcibly terminate leases. The developer appealed to the Shenzhen Intermediate Court, which upheld the original ruling in the second instance. On the day the judgment was delivered, Old Zhou crouched outside the courthouse for a long time, then called his wife. His first words were: "Our home is safe."

Once this case was closed, the team summarized three lessons during the review, which I believe are useful for anyone in Shenzhen considering buying small property rights housing. First, check the land—properties built before 2004 with planning permits are far more stable than those hastily constructed after 2004. Second, check the agreement—any contract labeled as "cooperative housing construction" is likely a sale designed to circumvent regulation, and the rules for resolving future disputes are completely different from those for ordinary commercial housing. Third, watch what happens after an incident—once you receive a lease termination notice or demolition announcement, don't delay. Secure evidence and consult a professional lawyer as soon as possible; the longer you wait, the more variables arise.

Question: If small property rights houses encounter demolition, will the owners really not receive compensation?
Answer: It cannot be generalized. Shenzhen's principle for handling historically遗留 illegal buildings is "respect history, handle by category." In cases like the one above where legal construction approval procedures were obtained, the owner's right to possession and use is protected by law, and in demolition compensation, at least compensation for above-ground attachments and relocation fees can be claimed. However, if it is purely illegal rushed construction, the compensation is indeed extremely limited.

Old Zhou later rented the place out for 4,200 yuan a month. He said that even though the property didn't have a proper title certificate, living there felt secure. In Shenzhen, matters involving housing are never trivial. If you've run into a similar bind—whether it's being evicted from a small-property-rights home, buying a place that can't be transferred to your name, or dealing with a double sale or a developer who's taken the money and run—don't just piece together scattered information online. Instead, bring your documents and drop by Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm for a sit-down. Director Shen Longjin and his team have been in this line of work for 26 years, handling over a thousand property dispute cases. They've seen it all. The office is at Room 1802, Block A, Xintian Century Business Center, Shixia North Second Street, Futian District, Shenzhen. Give them a call first at 0755-25986969 to talk through your situation—you might just find a path you never even considered.