Landmark Lawsuit Challenges Los Angeles Historic Preservation Overreach on Marilyn Monroe’s Former Home

The once-neglected home of Hollywood icon Marilyn Monroe has become the center of a high-stakes legal battle over historic preservation laws in Los Angeles. The case, Milstein v. City of Los Angeles, now before a federal court in California, challenges the city’s abrupt decision to designate the property a historic monument—effectively blocking all development and economic use.

How the Dispute Began

In 2023, a California couple, Brinah Milstein and Roy Bank, purchased a deteriorating property on a quiet residential street in Los Angeles. Their plan was straightforward: demolish the existing structure and redevelop the land. After submitting the necessary permits, the City of Los Angeles approved them without objection after a standard 30-day review period.

Just one day later, a local government official filed paperwork to designate the property a historic monument. The City then revoked the permits and approved the historic designation, leaving Milstein and Bank unable to use or even repair their own property without approval from the City’s historical commission.

Marilyn Monroe’s Brief Connection to the Property

Los Angeles justified the historic designation by citing Marilyn Monroe’s brief residency in the home—she owned it for just 157 days before her death in 1962. However, the City had ignored the property for over 60 years without raising any preservation concerns. During that time, 14 successive owners freely renovated both the home and grounds, erasing nearly all traces of Monroe’s time there.

Consequences of the Historic Designation

The new designation imposed severe restrictions on Milstein and Bank. They were barred from making repairs to damaged features without City approval, and the property’s economic value was effectively destroyed. Meanwhile, the City’s failure to provide public access to the derelict home led to a series of safety issues:

• Fans flew drones overhead to glimpse the property.
• Trespassers scaled the walls to take photos.
• Burglars broke in, searching for remnants of Monroe’s legacy.

Milstein and Bank attempted to resolve the issue by proposing to personally fund the relocation of the home to create a public museum. The City rejected the offer, leaving the couple with no alternative but to pursue legal action.

The Federal Lawsuit and Constitutional Claims

In January 2026, Milstein and Bank filed a federal lawsuit arguing that the City of Los Angeles violated their Fifth Amendment rights by failing to provide just compensation for turning their property into a public monument. The lawsuit asserts that the historic designation eradicated all viable economic uses of the property and invited trespassing by the public.

"The government cannot force individual property owners to bear the financial burden of public historic monuments," said a spokesperson for the Pacific Legal Foundation, the public interest law firm representing the owners. "This case is about protecting constitutional property rights and ensuring that historic preservation laws do not become tools for blocking development."

Broader Implications for Historic Preservation Laws

Historic preservation laws exist in jurisdictions across the U.S., but critics argue they are often weaponized by "NIMBY" (Not In My Backyard) activists to block development. Such tactics can prevent the construction of affordable housing and contribute to racial segregation by limiting housing supply in desirable areas.

The outcome of Milstein v. City of Los Angeles could set a precedent for how historic preservation laws are applied, particularly in cases where the historical significance of a property is tenuous or long-forgotten.