The first part of this article surveyed the U.S. land use control laws in terms of case laws and statutory laws, respectively. In the case laws area, the elements of “private nuisance” and “public nuisance”, and the factors for consideration outlined in Restatement (Second) of Torts were discussed. Nuisance was compared with trespass, and its relation with environmental protection legislation was expounded. In the statutory laws area, the evolution of zoning laws, its methods of control and adjustment, as well as the disposition for nonconforming uses were discussed. Subdivision regulation was also reviewed briefly. The second part of this article explored the constitutionally permissible boundaries for land use control under the U.S. governments’ police power, to draw line where regulation ceased and a “taking”occurred hence “just compensation” is mandated by the fifth amendment. In an effort to search for guidelines to help determining whether a governmental action is a “regulation” or a “taking,” a series of the U.S. Supreme Court cases pertinent to this issue viz. Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, United States v. Causby, Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City, Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Co中., Nollan v. California Costal Commission, Lucas v. South Carolina Costal Council, Dolan v. City of Tigard, Palazzolo v. Rhode Island et al,Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, were studied. The taking jurisprudences learned from these U.S. cases were then applied for a comparative legal study to analyze the eminent domain cases of Taiwan’s, whereas the Constitutional Court of Taiwan renders its constitutional protection of property rights based on the Germanic Legal System’s“sonderopfer” theory,.