The legal dispute surrounding the former Los Angeles home of Marilyn Monroe has evolved into a broader confrontation over historic preservation policy, private property rights and the financial burden associated with maintaining culturally significant real estate in one of the United States’ most expensive housing markets.

At the center of the case is the Brentwood property where Monroe spent the final months of her life before dying from a drug overdose in August 1962 at the age of 36. The Spanish hacienda-style house, purchased by Monroe in February 1962, was the only residence she fully owned during her lifetime, according to preservation advocates and historians involved in efforts to protect the property from demolition.

The house, located in the affluent Brentwood neighborhood on the west side of Los Angeles, became the subject of an escalating legal and political conflict after current owners Brinah Milstein and her husband Roy Bank sought to demolish it following their $8.35 million purchase of the property in 2023.Milstein, described in court filings as a real estate heiress, and Bank, a television producer, had intended to incorporate the land into their adjacent estate, where they have lived for roughly a decade. According to legal filings, the couple viewed the structure as deteriorated, unoccupied and lacking practical value after years without residents or substantial maintenance.

The conflict intensified after city authorities initially approved a demolition permit. News of the permit prompted a campaign by preservationists, local officials and Monroe supporters seeking to designate the residence as a historic landmark. That campaign culminated in 2024 when Los Angeles formally classified the property as a cultural-historical monument, effectively blocking demolition plans.The designation placed the property under preservation oversight by city authorities, limiting the owners’ ability to significantly alter or remove the structure.

The homeowners subsequently filed lawsuits arguing that the designation had deprived them of the practical use and economic value of the property.In court arguments, the homeowners’ attorney David Breemer said the couple had effectively been compelled to preserve a public monument at private expense.

According to court filings, the plaintiffs argued that the city’s actions amounted to an unconstitutional interference with private property rights.A federal judge this week dismissed the claim that the city had improperly taken control of the property, although the ruling allowed the homeowners an opportunity to amend their complaint and present revised arguments.

Parallel efforts to overturn the preservation designation in state court have so far failed to gain significant momentum.The case has attracted attention among preservation experts because of the unusual sequence of events surrounding the property’s designation. Historic homes are typically sold with preservation protections already in place, allowing buyers to factor restrictions into purchasing decisions.

In this instance, however, the designation occurred after the sale and after demolition plans had already advanced through portions of the approval process.Pete Brown, a spokesperson for the Los Angeles city council office involved in the preservation effort, acknowledged the unusual nature of the dispute. “The intent of the statutes is that all parties are willing participants,” Brown said. “But that’s not what we have in this case.”

Preservation advocates argue the home carries cultural and symbolic significance that extends beyond its architecture. Monroe purchased the property during a period marked by personal and professional transition following the collapse of her marriage to playwright Arthur Miller and a temporary withdrawal from acting because of health issues.

Historians and preservation groups have described the purchase as an example of Monroe asserting financial and personal independence during an era when single women rarely owned high-value residential property. Adrian Scott Fine, president and chief executive of the nonprofit LA Conservancy, said the property represented an important chapter in Monroe’s efforts to establish independence from both the studio system and the powerful men who shaped much of her career.

“She talked about this house and was photographed in this house,” Fine said. “It was where she was embarking on a new chapter of her independence.”Despite those arguments, the condition of the property has emerged as a central issue in the dispute. The house has reportedly remained unoccupied since 2019 and has undergone no significant restoration work during the ongoing legal proceedings.

Court filings and photographs cited by both sides indicate sections of the roof are exposed, plumbing and heating systems are malfunctioning, and leaks and potential mold damage have developed throughout portions of the structure. City officials acknowledged that preservation staff have not inspected the property since 2023, creating uncertainty over whether historically significant interior elements remain intact.

The homeowners argue many original features associated with Monroe have already disappeared following decades of renovations carried out by previous owners. They contend that Mexican tiles and other decorative elements linked to Monroe’s occupancy are no longer present.

Preservation advocates fear the property could effectively undergo “demolition through neglect,” a process in which deterioration gradually destroys historic value even when formal demolition is prohibited. The concern highlights a recurring challenge in preservation law: landmark designation can restrict demolition but does not always guarantee adequate maintenance or restoration.

The case has also generated tension within the surrounding Brentwood community. Because the home cannot be viewed clearly from public streets and remains inaccessible to visitors, some nearby residents have questioned the broader public value of preserving the property.

Local complaints submitted to city officials cite increased congestion from celebrity tour buses and visitors attempting to glimpse the house from nearby streets. According to filings referenced by city officials, some individuals have attempted to climb walls surrounding the property, raising security and safety concerns for both homeowners and neighbors.

City planning authorities maintain they possess enforcement tools if the house deteriorates to the point of becoming hazardous or substandard. Under municipal authority, Los Angeles officials could order emergency stabilization or repairs while requiring homeowners to bear much of the associated cost.

Breemer said his clients were prepared to challenge or incorporate any such enforcement actions into broader settlement negotiations with the city. He declined to specify what resolution the homeowners might ultimately seek beyond compensation for the diminished value of the property.“Selling is not really an option,” Breemer said. “And they don’t want to be landlords.”

The dispute has exposed broader limitations within Los Angeles’ preservation system. City officials acknowledged there is no dedicated municipal funding source capable of purchasing or rehabilitating large numbers of historic properties facing financial or legal distress.

According to the city planning office, Los Angeles oversees more than 1,300 designated historic-cultural monument properties.Traci Park, whose district includes the Monroe property, previously described the home as one of the city’s most iconic cultural sites. However, city representatives have indicated there is currently no formal plan for resolving the property’s future while litigation remains ongoing.

Brown summarized the situation succinctly: “It’s a quandary.”