Monroe Home Owners Appealed Historic Status Ruling
Owners of the Brentwood property are challenging a court ruling after a historic designation limited their development rights.
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 former Marilyn Monroe home in Brentwood have moved to appeal a federal court dismissal of their lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles. The homeowners claim the city's historic monument designation constitutes an unconstitutional taking of private property by stripping it of its development value.
Why it matters
The legal dispute centers on whether historic preservation mandates can effectively strip a property of its private utility by preventing demolition or renovation. The owners argue this creates a financial burden by forcing them to maintain a monument that is now significantly devalued.
The owners purchased the property for $8.35 million, but estimate the home is now worth $820,000, a 90% loss. Renovating the structure to make it habitable is estimated to cost $700,000.
The players
City of Los Angeles
The local municipal government responsible for zoning, land-use planning, and the administration of historic cultural monument designations.
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
The federal appellate court that will review the challenge regarding whether the city’s historic designation amounts to an unconstitutional property taking.
The details
After the owners received and subsequently had their demolition permits revoked, the city officially designated the Spanish Colonial structure as a historic monument. This classification bars any new construction or demolition, effectively locking the home into its current state. The property has sat unoccupied since 2019, with security currently stationed on-site to prevent trespassing while the legal battle over the land-use rights continues.
Timeline
1962: Marilyn Monroe lived in the Brentwood home for approximately six months.
2019: The house became unoccupied and has remained empty since.
October 2026: The owners announced their intent to appeal the federal court dismissal.
November 2026: Owners plan to file an appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Home Front
This case highlights the tension between municipal historic preservation goals and the private property rights of homeowners. It follows a trend of litigation where owners contest the financial impact of historic status on their home's market value and their ability to renovate.
If you own a property designated as a historic landmark, consult with a qualified real estate attorney to understand how preservation ordinances limit your rights to modify or sell your home. Always confirm the specific zoning and historic status of any property before purchasing if you plan on large-scale renovations.
The takeaway
Historic designations can significantly alter the long-term maintenance and development potential of residential real estate. Homeowners should track their local planning commission's agendas to stay informed about potential landmarking efforts that could impact their property rights.
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 regulations on the Los Angeles Residential section page.
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?
