33/68 CA Art I: Property, index

California Article I (part 4): Property, fishing, and the full section map

Lesson 33 of 68 · Property, guns and other rights · 13 min read

On this page (8 sections)
  1. Section 19: Eminent domain
  2. Section 25: Right to fish
  3. Section 26: Provisions are mandatory
  4. Every Article I section
  5. In Williams
  6. Common misconceptions
  7. Check yourself
  8. Sources cited on this page

California's takings clause covers more than the Fifth Amendment: property "taken or damaged." That word matters every time a city project floods, cracks or undermines private property.

Key takeaways

  • §19(a): property may be "taken or damaged" for public use only with just compensation, paid first.
  • Physical damage caused by a public improvement as designed is compensable, foreseeable or not (Albers).
  • §19(b) bars using eminent domain on an owner-occupied home to convey it to a private person, with exceptions.
  • Generally applicable development conditions aren't "exactions" under state or federal takings law (CBIA v. San Jose).

Section 19: Eminent domain

Official textCal. Const., Art. I, §19 — Eminent Domainread in context: Cal. Const., Art. I, §19 — Eminent Domain

(a) Private property may be taken or damaged for a public use and only when just compensation, ascertained by a jury unless waived, has first been paid to, or into court for, the owner. The Legislature may provide for possession by the condemnor following commencement of eminent domain proceedings upon deposit in court and prompt release to the owner of money determined by the court to be the probable amount of just compensation.

(b) The State and local governments are prohibited from acquiring by eminent domain an owner-occupied residence for the purpose of conveying it to a private person.

(c) Subdivision (b) of this section does not apply when State or local government exercises the power of eminent domain for the purpose of protecting public health and safety; preventing serious, repeated criminal activity; responding to an emergency; or remedying environmental contamination that poses a threat to public health and safety.

(d) Subdivision (b) of this section does not apply when State or local government exercises the power of eminent domain for the purpose of acquiring private property for a public work or improvement.

(e) For the purpose of this section:

1. “Conveyance” means a transfer of real property whether by sale, lease, gift, franchise, or otherwise.

2. “Local government” means any city, including a charter city, county, city and county, school district, special district, authority, regional entity, redevelopment agency, or any other political subdivision within the State. 3. “Owner-occupied residence” means real property that is improved with a single-family residence such as a detached home, condominium, or townhouse and that is the owner or owners’ principal place of residence for at least one year prior to the State or local government’s initial written offer to purchase the property. Owner-occupied residence also includes a residential dwelling unit attached to or detached from such a single-family residence which provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons. 4. “Person” means any individual or association, or any business entity, including, but not limited to, a partnership, corporation, or limited liability company.

5. “Public work or improvement” means facilities or infrastructure for the delivery of public services such as education, police, fire protection, parks, recreation, emergency medical, public health, libraries, food protection, streets or highways, public transit, railroad, airports and seaports; utility,

common carrier or other similar projects such as energy-related, communication-related, water-related and wastewater-related facilities or infrastructure; projects identified by a State or local government for recovery from natural disasters; and private uses incidental to, or necessary for, the public work or improvement.

6. “State” means the State of California and any of its agencies or departments. [As amended June 3, 2008. Initiative measure.]

Source: California Constitution as published by the California State Senate (current through November 5, 2024) Verified1

"Or damaged." The Fifth Amendment covers property "taken" Verified2. California adds "damaged" Verified1.

Inverse condemnation. When government damages property without starting eminent domain, owners can sue. "Any actual physical injury to real property proximately caused by the improvement as deliberately designed" is compensable "whether foreseeable or not," subject to exceptions (Albers v. County of Los Angeles (1965) 62 Cal.2d 250) Verified3. Public entities "may be liable on an inverse condemnation theory for the alleged physical damage to plaintiffs' property proximately caused by the excavation as deliberately planned and designed" (Holtz v. Superior Court (1970) 3 Cal.3d 296) Verified4. (Those cases cite the older numbering, §14 Verified4.)

Development conditions. The U.S. Supreme Court's Nollan/Dolan tests apply to exactions Verified56. In San Remo Hotel (2002), the Court of Appeal had applied that review to housing replacement fees "because they were exacted discretionarily and applied only to a relatively small number of property owners" (San Remo Hotel v. City and County of San Francisco (2002) 27 Cal.4th 643) Verified7; the Supreme Court reversed on that point Verified7. In CBIA v. City of San Jose (2015), inclusionary housing conditions "do not impose 'exactions' upon the developers' property so as to bring into play the unconstitutional conditions doctrine under the takings clause of the federal or state Constitution" (California Building Industry Assn. v. City of San Jose (2015) 61 Cal.4th 435) Verified8. The U.S. Supreme Court later held legislatively imposed fees aren't exempt from Nollan/Dolan (Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, 601 U.S. 267 (2024)) Verified9.

Deadlines. A takings claim tied to a subdivision ordinance is governed by the short limitations period of Gov. Code §66499.37 (Hensler v. City of Glendale (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1) Verified10.

§19(b)–(e): Homes. Added June 3, 2008, by initiative Verified1. Federal law allowed such transfers for economic development in Kelo (Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)) Verified11. "Local government" includes "any city" (§19(e)(2)) Verified1. Exceptions: public health and safety, serious repeated crime, emergencies, contamination, and public works Verified1.

Section 25: Right to fish

Official textCal. Const., Art. I, §25 — Right to Fishread in context: Cal. Const., Art. I, §25 — Right to Fish

The people shall have the right to fish upon and from the public lands of the State and in the waters thereof, excepting upon lands set aside for fish hatcheries, and no land owned by the State shall ever be sold or transferred without reserving in the people the absolute right to fish thereupon; and no law shall ever be passed making it a crime for the people to enter upon the public lands within this State for the purpose of fishing in any water containing fish that have been planted therein by the State; provided, that the Legislature may by statute, provide for the season when and the conditions under which the different species of fish may be taken. [New section adopted November 8, 1910.]

Source: California Constitution as published by the California State Senate (current through November 5, 2024) Verified1

Section 26: Provisions are mandatory

Official textCal. Const., Art. I, §26 — Constitution Mandatory and Prohibitoryread in context: Cal. Const., Art. I, §26 — Constitution Mandatory and Prohibitory

The provisions of this Constitution are mandatory and prohibitory, unless by express words they are declared to be otherwise.

Source: California Constitution as published by the California State Senate (current through November 5, 2024) Verified1

"Mandatory and prohibitory" means constitutional provisions are binding commands, not advice Verified1.

Every Article I section

Section Heading Status
§ 1 (former) — Repealed November 5, 1974. See Section 1, below.
§ 1 Inalienable Rights In force
§ 1.1 Reproductive Freedom In force
§ 2 Liberty of Speech and of the Press—Newspersons’ Refusal to Disclose Information Sources Not Adjudged in Contempt In force
§ 3 Right to Assemble and to Petition—Right of Access to Government Information In force
§ 4 (former) — Repealed November 5, 1974. See Section 4, below.
§ 4 Liberty of Conscience In force
§ 5 (former) — Repealed November 5, 1974. See Section 5, below.
§ 5 The Military In force
§ 6 (former) — Repealed November 5, 1974. See Section 6, below.
§ 6 Slavery Prohibited In force
§ 7 Due Process of Law—Use of Pupil School Assignment or Pupil Transportation In force
§ 7.5 (former) — Repealed November 5, 2024. See Section 7.5, below.
§ 7.5 Marriage In force
§ 8 Sex, Race, Etc., Not a Disqualification for Business In force
§ 9 (former) — Repealed November 5, 1974. See Section 9, below.
§ 9 Bill of Attainder—Ex Post Facto Law—Obligation of Contract In force
§ 10 (former) — Repealed November 5, 1974. See Section 10, below.
§ 10 Detention of Witnesses—No Imprisonment for Debt In force
§ 11 (former) — Repealed November 5, 1974. See Section 11, below.
§ 11 Suspension of Habeas Corpus In force
§ 12 Bail—Release on Own Recognizance In force
§ 13 (former) — Repealed November 5, 1974. See Section 13, below.
§ 13 Unreasonable Seizure and Search—Warrant In force
§ 14 (former) — Repealed November 5, 1974. See Section 14, below.
§ 14 Felony Defendant Before Magistrate—Prosecutions In force
§ 14.1 Felony—Prosecution by Indictment In force
§ 14½ (former) — Repealed November 5, 1974.
§ 15 (former) — Repealed November 5, 1974. See Section 15, below.
§ 15 Criminal Prosecutions—Rights of Defendant—Due Process of Law—Jeopardy— Depositions—Assistance of Counsel In force
§ 16 Trial by Jury In force
§ 17 (former) — Repealed November 5, 1974. See Section 17, below.
§ 17 Unusual Punishment—Excessive Fines In force
§ 18 (former) — Repealed November 5, 1974. See Section 18, below.
§ 18 Treason In force
§ 19 (former) — Repealed November 5, 1974. See Section 19, below.
§ 19 Eminent Domain In force
§ 20 (former) — Repealed November 5, 1974. See Section 20, below.
§ 20 Rights of Noncitizens In force
§ 21 (former) — Repealed November 5, 1974. See Section 21, below.
§ 21 Separate Property of Husband and Wife In force
§ 22 (former) — Repealed November 5, 1974. See Section 22, below.
§ 22 No Property Qualification for Electors In force
§ 23 (former) — Repealed November 5, 1974. See Section 23, below.
§ 23 Grand Juries In force
§ 24 Constitutional Rights—Rights Reserved In force
§ 25 Right to Fish In force
§ 26 (former) — Renumbered Section 1 of Article II June 8, 1976. See Section 26, below.
§ 26 Constitution Mandatory and Prohibitory In force
§ 26a (former) — Repealed November 8, 1949.
§ 27 Death Penalty In force
§ 28 “The Victims’ Bill of Rights” In force
§ 29 Criminal Cases—Due Process of Law—Speedy and Public Trial In force
§ 30 Criminal Cases—Jointure-Hearsay Evidence—Discovery In force
§ 31 Prohibition Against Discrimination or Preferential Treatment In force
§ 32 Parole Consideration for Nonviolent Felony Offenses—Credit Earning In force

Section headings and status come from the Senate's published text Verified1.

Lessons: Liberty and equality (§§1–11, 20–22, 31) · Speech and records (§§2–4) · Criminal justice (§§12–18, 23–24, 27–30, 32).

In Williams

  • Public works damage. If a city sewer, storm drain or street project as designed physically damages your property, §19 inverse condemnation is the claim Verified3. Government claims deadlines apply; Our reading: file the claim promptly and get legal advice.
  • Development fees and conditions. Williams impact fees must also follow the Mitigation Fee Act Verified12 and federal exactions limits Verified9. See Williams: fees.
  • Homes. Williams can't condemn an owner-occupied home to hand it to a private developer, outside the exceptions Verified1. See Williams: property.

Common misconceptions

  • "Only a total taking counts." California also compensates physical damage Verified3.
  • "After Kelo, cities can take any home for private development." California's §19(b) bars that for owner-occupied homes, with exceptions Verified1.

Check yourself

Pick an answer for each question. You will see right away if it is right, and why.

Question 1. What word does California's takings clause add to the Fifth Amendment's?

Show the answer and why

"Damaged" Verified1.

Question 2. Is damage from a public improvement compensable if it wasn't foreseeable?

Show the answer and why

Yes, under Albers, if caused by the improvement as deliberately designed, subject to exceptions Verified3.

Question 3. What does §19(b) prohibit?

Show the answer and why

Using eminent domain on an owner-occupied residence to convey it to a private person Verified1.

Question 4. Scenario: Suppose a city storm drain project, built as designed, cracks the foundation of a nearby home. What claim fits?

Show the answer and why

Answer: Inverse condemnation under §19, because property was "damaged" for public use.

California's takings clause covers property "taken or damaged." If a city sewer, storm drain or street project as designed physically damages your property, §19 inverse condemnation is the claim.

From this lesson: “If a city sewer, storm drain or street project as designed physically damages your property, §19 inverse condemnation is the claim.”

Sources cited on this page

  1. Constitutions of California and the United States, 2025-26 edition (PDF) (California State Senate; official; accessed 2026-10-17) California Constitution as last amended November 5, 2024. ↗
  2. The Bill of Rights: A Transcription (U.S. National Archives; official; accessed 2026-10-17) ↗
  3. Albers v. County of Los Angeles (1965) 62 Cal.2d 250 (Caselaw Access Project, Harvard Law School (copy of California opinion); unofficial / third-party; accessed 2026-10-23) Full opinion text read in the Caselaw Access Project copy. Quotes on this site were machine-checked against that text. ↗
  4. Holtz v. Superior Court (1970) 3 Cal.3d 296 (Caselaw Access Project, Harvard Law School (copy of California opinion); unofficial / third-party; accessed 2026-10-23) Full opinion text read in the Caselaw Access Project copy. Quotes on this site were machine-checked against that text. ↗
  5. Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987) (Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School (copy of U.S. Supreme Court opinion); unofficial / third-party; accessed 2026-10-23) Full opinion text read on the LII copy. Quotes on this site were machine-checked against that text. ↗
  6. Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994) (Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School (copy of U.S. Supreme Court opinion); unofficial / third-party; accessed 2026-10-23) Full opinion text read on the LII copy. Quotes on this site were machine-checked against that text. ↗
  7. San Remo Hotel v. City and County of San Francisco (2002) 27 Cal.4th 643 (Caselaw Access Project, Harvard Law School (copy of California opinion); unofficial / third-party; accessed 2026-10-23) Full opinion text read in the Caselaw Access Project copy. Quotes on this site were machine-checked against that text. ↗
  8. California Building Industry Assn. v. City of San Jose (2015) 61 Cal.4th 435 (Caselaw Access Project, Harvard Law School (copy of California opinion); unofficial / third-party; accessed 2026-10-23) Full opinion text read in the Caselaw Access Project copy. Quotes on this site were machine-checked against that text. ↗
  9. Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, 601 U.S. 267 (2024) (Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School (copy of U.S. Supreme Court opinion); unofficial / third-party; accessed 2026-10-23) Full opinion text read on the LII copy. Quotes on this site were machine-checked against that text. ↗
  10. Hensler v. City of Glendale (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1 (Caselaw Access Project, Harvard Law School (copy of California opinion); unofficial / third-party; accessed 2026-10-23) Full opinion text read in the Caselaw Access Project copy. Quotes on this site were machine-checked against that text. ↗
  11. Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) (Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School (copy of U.S. Supreme Court opinion); unofficial / third-party; accessed 2026-10-23) Full opinion text read on the LII copy. Quotes on this site were machine-checked against that text. ↗
  12. Government Code §66001 (Mitigation Fee Act: nexus findings for fees) (California.Public.Law (copy of California statute); unofficial / third-party; accessed 2026-10-23) Unofficial copy of the statute, read directly. Confirm on leginfo before relying on it. ↗

Page last updated: · Site last built: