Monroe Home Owners Have Appealed Historic Ruling
The property owners are challenging a city decision that prevents demolition of the historic Brentwood site.
Updated on Oct. 12, 2026 in Residential
Live Poll
Should local governments be permitted to restrict private property rights to preserve historic landmarks?
The owners of the historic Brentwood home where Marilyn Monroe lived in 1962 are appealing a federal court dismissal of their lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles. The suit follows the city's designation of the site as a historic monument, which effectively prevents its demolition.
Why it matters
The owners argue that the designation constitutes an unconstitutional taking of private property by drastically reducing its value. The legal battle centers on whether local historic protections can force private owners to maintain a property as a public monument at their own expense.
The property owners estimate the current value of the home is $820,000, representing a 90% decline from their $8.35 million purchase price. Additionally, the owners project that rehabilitating the unoccupied site for habitation would cost $700,000.
The players
City of Los Angeles
The local municipal government responsible for zoning laws, building permits, and the designation of historic landmarks.
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
The federal appellate court that will review the legal challenge regarding the classification of private property as a historic monument.
The details
The City of Los Angeles revoked previously issued demolition permits after designating the Spanish Colonial home as a historic monument. This status prohibits the owners from demolishing the structure or building new ones, leaving the property, which has been unoccupied since 2019, under strict maintenance requirements. The owners now contend that the city's intervention has effectively stripped them of the ability to redevelop or utilize the parcel for its intended investment purposes.
Timeline
Marilyn Monroe resided in the home for six months in 1962.
The house has remained unoccupied since 2019.
The owners announced their intent to appeal the ruling in October 2026.
The formal appeal to the Ninth Circuit must be filed within 30 days of October 12, 2026.
Money Landscape
This dispute marks a significant collision between local municipal zoning authority and the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause protections. It underscores the financial risks that property owners face when government entities apply historic preservation designations to private assets.
This case illustrates the volatility of residential real estate values when government regulatory status changes unexpectedly. Homeowners should consult with a professional regarding the potential impact of local historic or landmark overlays on their property's marketability and maintenance obligations.
The takeaway
The conflict serves as a reminder that property valuations can shift dramatically based on local municipal land-use designations. Residents should review current local zoning and historic registry records to understand how future designation changes could impact their property rights and maintenance costs.
What happens next
The property owners are expected to file their formal appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals within 30 days of October 12, 2026.
Further reading
Learn more about local property rights in the Los Angeles Residential section.
Source note: This article includes information reported by SM Mirror.
Live Poll
Should local governments be permitted to restrict private property rights to preserve historic landmarks?
