[tzs]

It looks like with California beaches you typically don't have to go as far back to find higher ground than you do with say Florida beaches. From the pictures I've seen a lot of the beachfront houses are built one stilts, often with the back at the level of that higher ground behind the beach.

I don't think they built this was anticipating climate change--it was so if a bad combination of tides and storms pushed water far enough up the beach to reach where the house is it would be under the house instead of in the house. Nevertheless, it looks like a lot of these beachfront houses could take a meter or two of sea level rise and still be above water.

They'd have a lot less beach, so it would probably change the kind of person who wants to live in them, but it is quite possible that they would remain very desirable.

As far as things not actually on the beach goes, playing with the interactive sea level rise map from NOAA linked in kibwen's comment, it looks like there are a few places (such as the Long Beach area) where you get some extensive loss of land a ways in, but for most places on the Pacific coast it is just the beach itself that gets lost. It is more of a mixed bag for places not on the coast but on rivers or bodies of water connect to the coast.

[philistine]

Water is not simply a presence; it has weight, it has impact on everything. If the water level rises, it must have an impact on the coastline itself. Water might never reach the house, but it might make it impossible to maintain nonetheless.