Yee v. City of Escondido, Cal.

Supreme Court of the United States · 1991 · Property

503 U.S. 519 (1992)

Updated July 23, 2026

PropertyTakings Clausephysical takingper se takingregulatory takingrent controlmobile home parksright to exclude

Facts

Petitioners owned mobile home parks in Escondido, California, where tenants rented pads for largely immobile mobile homes. California's Mobilehome Residency Law limited the grounds for terminating tenancies, permitted in-place sale of mobile homes, and restricted a park owner's ability to block a purchaser, but it did not itself regulate rent. Escondido then adopted a rent control ordinance rolling rents back to 1986 levels and requiring city approval for increases. Petitioners claimed that, together, these laws effectively gave tenants and their successors the right to occupy petitioners' land indefinitely at below-market rents, amounting to a physical occupation of the property.

Issue

Whether Escondido's mobile home rent control ordinance, considered together with California's Mobilehome Residency Law, effects a per se physical taking by transferring to mobile home owners and their successors the right to occupy the park owners' land at below-market rents. Also, whether additional substantive due process and regulatory taking arguments were properly before the Court.

Rule

The government effects a physical taking only when it requires a landowner to submit to the physical occupation of his land; required acquiescence is central to the concept of occupation. When an owner has voluntarily rented property to tenants and the law merely regulates that landlord-tenant relationship, including rent levels, the regulation is not a per se physical taking on its face.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Marina Grove LLC owns a lakeside cabin park in Duluth, Minnesota, where it rents individual lots to cabin owners who keep their structures on-site year-round. The city adopts an ordinance freezing lot rents for three years and requiring municipal approval for any increase, but state law still allows the owner to end tenancies on notice if it decides to redevelop the land into a marina.

On a facial challenge, is the ordinance most likely a per se physical taking?

Explanation. A per se physical taking exists only when government requires the landowner to submit to a physical occupation. Where the owner voluntarily rented the property and the law merely regulates rent within that landlord-tenant relationship, there is no compelled occupation on the face of the scheme. The continued ability to terminate tenancies to change the land's use confirms that this is use regulation, not a required physical invasion.