Check this out (and before we go further, a disclosure: this is one of ours).
Here’s the story: Los Angeles issued a Brentwood homeowner demolition and grading permits, okaying the tear down of a dilapidated house. The owners already owned the adjacent parcel, and purchased the dilapidated house with plans to tear it down and make a better use of the adjacent land. The day after the city issued the permits, a city council member (cosplaying as Marilyn Monroe) began the city’s process of designating the property a historic-cultural monument because the house was once owned by Ms. Monroe for a few months (it’s where she o.d.’d in 1962).
Since MM’s ownership, the house has gone through at least 14 different owners, many of whom renovated, altered, and repaired both the inside and outside of the structure. Nonetheless, the city soon approved the historic-cultural monument designation and revoked the already-approved permits.
Not surprisingly, the designation turned the place into a morbid attractive-nuisance spot on the LA celebrity tour circuit, even though the house isn’t visible from the public street because it is behind a wall. That doesn’t deter the knuckleheads who have jumped the wall and broken in to search for non-existent MM memorabilia (you’d have better luck at the made-in-China Hollywood tchotchke shops, my dudes).
It’s heartening to know that historic
preservationists are out there!
But here’s the kicker: the historic-cultural designation wipes out any economically-beneficial uses of the property. In effect, the owners have been forced to preserve the entire property (including structures that weren’t there when MM owned it) in a state of arrested decay like some kind of bizarre ghost town.
“Historic preservation,” you say? Reminds us of … that’s right, the most famous case in the books about historic preservation, Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978). And you’d be right: here’s the federal court complaint the owners filed, which asserts takings claims (not limited to Penn Central, but also including a Lucas-theory claim, and a claim that the taking is not for a public use).
Our firm now represents the owners, and earlier this week, we made a brief appearance on a national radio program to talk about the case. Stream it below, or listen or download the interview here.
The latest development is that the City has asked the District Court to dismiss (the usual reasons: ripeness, failure to plead a takings claim). The owners oppose. Stay tuned for more on that (hearing scheduled for May 11, 2026).
More on the case here:
Ingrid Jacques, “Marilyn Monroe died here. Now LA won’t let the owners touch it,” USA Today (Apr. 24, 2026)
Kristine Parks, “Marilyn Monroe’s former home declared historic monument; owners say it killed their $8M investment,” Fox News (Apr. 25, 2026)