The State of Nevada owned the land before the Bundy family began using the land.
The Bundy family never met the requirements of color of title, hostile possession, or payment of taxes to gain title to the land, and grazed cattle there with permission from the state, and later, the BLM. Nevada law specifically provides that making improves to land does not confer ownership.
The Bundy family has never contested ownership of the land. He admits that. In fact, they've confirmed ownership by another party by entering into contracts to use the land for grazing cattle and by paying a fee to do so.
Twenty years ago, Bundy didn't like the terms of the new contract presented to him, so he refused to sign it and quit paying grazing fees. He's been ordered to pay grazing fees multiple times over the last twenty years. He's ignored those orders. The last order gave him 45 days to remove his cattle or else they would be treated as trespassing cattle. He never attempted to remove his cattle.
The institution of fees on those lands was never lawful, it was an administrative action, instituted to drive the cattle off of the land. The same goes for grazing permits.
If anyone had a private claim to the land, the Fed Gov has no rights to it. That is a solid premise WRT lands from Spanish or Mexican control. It was a part of the treaty.
Thus Bundy probably does have a legitimate claim by prescription over the previous occupant.
None of the BLM’s actions on grazing lands are legitimate.
.