They have the option of using state coercion should someone contest their ownership, but they're not using it right now. Even with that pedantry aside, saying that property rights leverage "state coercion" is not a good take.
The strength of a government, and thus, the property rights it “grants” people, is the degree to which it has been successful in establishing a violence monopoly.
People in countries like Finland have a 'freedom to roam', showing that property rights don't need to include the right to control who can enter a piece of land.
This dates from a time when people recognized property ownership, but there was no government monopoly on violence. (See especially the Icelandic Commonwealth and the Icelandic sagas.)