A more thorough explanation:

Inverse condemnation is a legal term that refers to a situation where the government takes a property for public use, but the action greatly damages the value of the property. In such cases, the property owner can sue the government for compensation.

To prove inverse condemnation, the property owner must show that the government's action failed to promote substantial governmental interests or deprived the owner of the economic value of their property. This can happen even when there is no physical invasion of the property, such as in regulatory taking where the government permanently deprives the property owner of all beneficial uses of their property.

For example, if the government builds a highway that cuts through a property, making it difficult to access or reducing its value, the property owner can sue for inverse condemnation. Similarly, if the government passes a law that prohibits the use of a property in a way that significantly reduces its value, the property owner can also sue for inverse condemnation.

In California, the termination of lease that applies to all property acquired for public uses also includes inverse condemnation actions. Fair market value of the property is generally used to assess damages for inverse condemnation actions. When a plaintiff files for both eminent domain and inverse condemnation, a plaintiff may be entitled to claim separate damages when the inverse condemnation resulted in the reduction of the property’s value before an action for eminent domain.

However, it's important to note that not all actions by the government that affect property values qualify as inverse condemnation. For example, if the government plants trees that block a property owner's view, this may not be considered an invasion of property right and may not qualify for inverse condemnation.

Overall, inverse condemnation is a legal remedy that protects property owners from government actions that significantly reduce the value of their property.