MEMORANDUM ***

Petitioner Jessica Francia appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the City of San Jacinto on each of her claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the California Constitution. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and now affirm.

“A threshold requirement to a substantive or procedural due process claim is the plaintiffs showing of a liberty or property interest protected by the Constitution.” Wedges/Ledges of Calif., Inc. v. City of Phx., 24 F.3d 56, 62 (9th Cir. 1994). Fran-cia has no legally protected property interest in unrestricted and unmodified access to her business. People v. Ayon, 54 Cal.2d 217, 5 Cal.Rptr. 151, 352 P.2d 519, 522 (1960).

Francia’s claim for inverse condemnation under Article I, Section 19 of the California Constitution fails for the same *657 reason. The California Supreme Court has expressly held “[t]he property owner has no constitutional right to compensation simply because the streets upon which his property abuts are improved so as to affect the traffic flow on such streets. If loss of business or of value of the property results, that is noncompensable.” Ayon, 5 Cal.Rptr. 151, 352 P.2d at 522.

Finally, because Francia has failed to establish that the City deprived her of a federal constitutional right, she cannot establish liability under Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 690-91, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978).

For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of San Jacinto on all claims is AFFIRMED.