A couple bought Marilyn Monroe’s final Los Angeles home and planned to demolish it; the city declared it a historic landmark, triggering a federal battle over property rights and lost value

More than six decades after Marilyn Monroe died, the modest Los Angeles house where she spent the final months of her life has become the center of a very different kind of drama. The 2,300-square-foot Spanish Colonial home was bought for $8.35 million by Brinah Milstein and Roy Bank, who planned to replace it with a modern residence, as per a report by Reuters.

Then Los Angeles stepped in. The city designated the property a historic and cultural monument in 2024, blocking the owners' plans to tear it down. What followed was a legal fight that has now moved into federal court, with the owners arguing that the government has placed the burden of preserving a public piece of history on private property owners.

At the center of the dispute is a question that reaches far beyond Monroe's old home: how much control can a city exercise over private property in the name of historic preservation?

Why did Los Angeles protect Marilyn Monroe’s house?

Marilyn Monroe purchased the Brentwood property just six months before her death in 1962. It was the only residence she ever owned. The house had already changed considerably over the decades. According to the owners, 14 subsequent owners made major alterations, leaving little of Monroe's time there visible in the existing structure.

“Not a single element of the house as it exists today reflects Ms. Monroe’s brief use of the property, not a wall covering, a tile, a light fixture, an appliance ... nothing,” the owners said in their complaint filed earlier this year.

Milstein and Bank bought the property in 2023. The home had been empty since 2019 and required extensive repairs. They also own the neighboring property and envisioned replacing Monroe's house with a new modern home.

The city initially approved demolition permits before reversing course and giving the property historic status.

What are the owners arguing in federal court?

The owners contend that Los Angeles has effectively transformed their private residence into a public monument while leaving them responsible for the consequences.

Their lawsuit relies on the Fifth Amendment, which prohibits the government from taking private property for public use without “just compensation.”

Their attorney, J. David Breemer of the Pacific Legal Foundation, said, “These homeowners have a straightforward request: either let them use their own property or compensate them fairly for turning it into a public monument.”

The owners argue that the designation has also reduced the property's value by eliminating its redevelopment potential. They say restoring the existing structure would be too expensive and that potential buyers or renters would face problems associated with tourists, trespassing and break-ins.

They also describe what they call a physical taking. According to their lawsuit, visitors and Marilyn Monroe fans have climbed perimeter walls, flown drones over the property and entered the grounds while searching for memorabilia. The owners say they have hired private security because of those incidents.

“The property owners bear all the liability and expense of a monument and the city gets all the benefits for free,” Breemer told Reuters.

How is Los Angeles defending the designation?

City lawyers offer a different interpretation. They argue that the historic designation is a lawful use of the city's preservation authority and does not require the owners to open their property to the public.

The city also points out that visitors were already interested in the house before it received landmark status. When Milstein and Bank purchased it, the previous owners had disclosed that, “We get visits on the street from tourists, and they occasionally ring the doorbell.”

Los Angeles further argues that the owners still possess the same type of property they purchased: a single-family home. In the city's view, preservation restrictions do not automatically create a constitutional obligation to compensate every property owner affected by zoning or historic-preservation rules.

City lawyers also distinguish the case from situations where courts have found a physical taking. They point to a 2021 U.S. Supreme Court decision involving a California regulation that required agricultural employers to allow union organizers onto private land. According to the city, Monroe's historic designation “does not encourage, let alone mandate” public entry onto the property.

What happens to Marilyn Monroe’s house now?

The legal battle remains unresolved. The owners previously challenged the historic designation in California state court on due-process and other grounds but lost. That decision is now on appeal. The federal lawsuit takes a different route by focusing on the Fifth Amendment and the alleged effect of the landmark designation on the owners' property rights and the home's value.

The case therefore places Monroe's final home at the intersection of celebrity history, historic preservation and private property rights. For Los Angeles, the issue is whether protecting a culturally significant residence can legally restrict what its owners may do with it without requiring compensation. For Milstein and Bank, the question is whether they should have to bear the financial and practical consequences of preserving a property they bought as private owners. The final answer will come from the court.

FAQs

Why did the owners sue Los Angeles?
They argue the landmark designation restricts their property rights and has reduced the home's redevelopment value.

Can Marilyn Monroe’s house be demolished?
The city's historic designation currently prevents the owners from proceeding with their planned demolition.