OPINION OF THE COURT

The Stawairskis, appellants in this action, are owners of a parcel of land in Summit Hill, Pennsylvania. In March 2001, they leased the land to a corporation, SBA Properties, Inc. (“SBA”), permitting SBA to place a cell tower on the property. Thereafter, SBA filed a zoning application in order to place the cell tower on the Stawairskis’ land. The zoning application was denied on May 25, 2001 and the appeal was denied on August 1, 2001. 1 On Febru *421 ary 11, 2005, the Stawairskis filed a complaint, alleging that Summit Hill violated their substantive due process rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by preventing them from using their property for the placement of a cell tower.

We affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in the District Court’s well-reasoned opinion. The District Court granted Summit Hill’s motion to dismiss the Stawairskis’ substantive due process claim, finding the claim to be time barred. 2 We exercise plenary review over a district court’s dismissal of claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Edgar v. Avaya, Inc., 503 F.3d 340, 344 (3d Cir. 2007). In Pennsylvania, the statute of limitations for a § 1983 claim alleging a violation of substantive due process is two years. Sameric Corp. of Delaware, Inc. v. City of Philadelphia, 142 F.3d 582, 599 (3d Cir. 1998). A cause of action accrues under § 1983 when the plaintiff “knew or should have known of the injury upon which its action is based.” Id. The Stawairskis’ complaint was untimely because they were on notice of the fact that they could not put a cell tower on them property, the injury they complain of, from the time SBA’s zoning application was denied, on May 25, 2001, but did not file their complaint until February 11, 2005. 3