At what point does land typically become considered belonging to a group and not stolen? For instance, we often hear about the US stealing land from Mexico but not Mexico stealing land from Spain or Spain from the Natives. Do we still consider this stolen and this is all land stolen?
In this earlier answer I talk in some detail about land rights in Mexico post-conquest and up to the independence period, hopefully this will be helpful.
As an addition to your specific question: A more useful way of putting it might be: who had which rights to land, and how were they legitimated? Native American people did not have European concepts of personal land rights, borders etc., although they did have often very complex, different ways of ordering land. So you could say that in many places in Latin America land rights were taken from native people through colonisation. While there was some protection for indigenous people in colonial times (as I describe in the answer), in many regions their rights were increasingly taken away through Latin American governments following the wars of independence. Again: who stole from whom is a matter of perspective here, as the Spanish and later the national gov'ts had their own legitimisations for annexing indigenous lands.