Depth profiling of nanostructures is of high importance both technologically and fundamentally. Therefore, many different methods have been developed for determination of the depth distribution of atoms, for example ion beam (e.g. O(2)(+) , Ar(+)) sputtering, low-damage C(60) cluster ion sputtering for depth profiling of organic materials, water droplet cluster ion beam depth profiling, ion-probing techniques (Rutherford backscattering spectroscopy (RBS), secondary-ion mass spectroscopy (SIMS) and glow-discharge optical emission spectroscopy (GDOES)), X-ray microanalysis using the electron probe variation technique combined with Monte Carlo calculations, angle-resolved XPS (ARXPS), and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) peak-shape analysis. Each of the depth profiling techniques has its own advantages and disadvantages. However, in many cases, non-destructive techniques are preferred; these include ARXPS and XPS peak-shape analysis. The former together with parallel factor analysis is suitable for giving an overall understanding of chemistry and morphology with depth. It works very well for flat surfaces but it fails for rough or nanostructured surfaces because of the shadowing effect. In the latter method shadowing effects can be avoided because only a single spectrum is used in the analysis and this may be taken at near normal emission angle. It is a rather robust means of determining atom depth distributions on the nanoscale both for large-area XPS analysis and for imaging. We critically discuss some of the techniques mentioned above and show that both ARXPS imaging and, particularly, XPS peak-shape analysis for 3D imaging of nanostructures are very promising techniques and open a gateway for visualizing nanostructures.