Marilyn Monroe’s former home at 12305 Fifth Helena Drive in Brentwood is owned by Brinah Milstein and her husband, television producer Roy Bank, who paid $8.35 million in an all-cash purchase in July 2023.1 They bought it intending to tear it down and expand their house next door, but the Los Angeles City Council designated the property a Historic-Cultural Monument in 2024, and the couple has since lost preservation challenges in both state and federal court.
The Current Owners and Their Plan
Milstein and Bank already owned the property adjacent to Monroe’s former residence when they closed on the Fifth Helena Drive house. Their plan was simple: demolish the one-story Spanish Colonial Revival and combine the two lots into a single larger estate. Shortly after closing, they obtained a demolition permit from the city.
Word of the planned teardown leaked in late 2023, and public reaction was immediate. The 2,100-square-foot residence is the only home Monroe ever owned in her own name, bought by the actress in February 1962 for $77,500. She died inside the house roughly six months later, on August 4, 1962. Those facts made the demolition proposal politically untenable almost as soon as it became public.
How the City Blocked the Demolition
Los Angeles City Councilwoman Traci Park moved in September 2023 to start the process of designating the home as a Historic-Cultural Monument. In January 2024, the city’s Cultural Heritage Commission formally blocked the demolition on the basis of the property’s cultural significance, and the previously issued demolition permit was revoked.
On June 26, 2024, the Los Angeles City Council voted 12-0 to designate the residence a Historic-Cultural Monument. Under city law, any proposed exterior or interior alterations to a designated monument must be reviewed against the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation before the city will issue a permit. The Office of Historic Resources and the Cultural Heritage Commission oversee that review. Demolition of a designated monument is nearly impossible to approve in practice.
Los Angeles does not require a property to reach a particular age to qualify for monument status, though enough time must have passed to evaluate its significance in context. The Monroe residence qualified on the basis of its association with an individual of extraordinary cultural significance.
The Lawsuits
Milstein and Bank filed suit in Los Angeles County Superior Court on May 6, 2024, weeks before the City Council’s final vote. They argued the city had violated its own procedures and engaged in a rushed, politically motivated process designed to guarantee a preservation outcome. Their central legal theory was that revoking the demolition permit and imposing landmark restrictions amounted to an unconstitutional taking of their property without just compensation. In court filings, they described the property’s market value after designation as “zero, or a negative amount.”
In September 2025, Superior Court Judge James C. Chalfant denied the owners’ petition and upheld the landmark designation.
The owners pursued a parallel federal case. On May 6, 2026, U.S. District Judge Percy Anderson dismissed that complaint. The federal court found the claim that the property was “worthless” to be “conclusory and implausible” and held that the owners had failed to show their investment-backed expectations were objectively reasonable. The court also rejected the argument that the landmark designation amounted to a physical taking, finding no government-authorized invasion of the property. Judge Anderson gave the owners permission to file an amended complaint, so the federal litigation may not be entirely finished.
The Fifth Amendment requires the government to pay just compensation when it takes private property, and courts have extended that principle to regulations severe enough to function like a seizure. Courts have generally held that landmark status does not wipe out all economic value, because an owner can still use a protected house as a residence and sell it. A 2,100-square-foot home on a quiet Brentwood cul-de-sac retains significant residential and market value even with preservation restrictions, which is why the federal court treated the owners’ “worthless” claim as implausible on its face.
What Landmark Status Means for the Property
As long as the Historic-Cultural Monument designation stands, any owner faces significant restrictions on what they can do with the house. Exterior changes, from window replacements to roof repairs, must align with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Those standards prioritize repairing original materials over replacing them and prohibit additions that would compromise the historic character of the structure. Interior alterations visible from the outside also fall under review.
The financial picture runs in both directions. Maintaining a 1929 structure to preservation standards typically costs more than conventional upkeep, because original materials must be repaired rather than swapped out for modern equivalents. On the other side, California’s Mills Act allows owners of designated historic properties to apply for a property-tax reassessment based on the property’s income-generating potential rather than market value, with reported savings ranging from 20 to 70 percent of the annual bill. Whether Milstein and Bank would seek a Mills Act contract while arguing the designation itself is unconstitutional is a separate question.
At the federal level, owners of properties on the National Register of Historic Places can claim tax deductions for granting a preservation easement to a qualifying nonprofit, and rehabilitation work that follows the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards may qualify for federal historic preservation tax credits. The Monroe home’s local designation does not automatically place it on the National Register, but it could strengthen a future nomination.
Is the House Open to the Public
No. Despite its fame, the property is a private residence with no public access, and the landmark designation does not change that. It sits at the end of a cul-de-sac, and the courtyard and front entrance are not visible from the street. There are no tours, no visitor hours, and no plans for any public opening. Historic-Cultural Monument status protects the building from demolition; it does not convert a private home into a museum.
Fans who drive to the address will find little to see and risk running afoul of residential parking rules. Many Brentwood streets fall within Preferential Parking Districts where vehicles without resident permits can be cited. Local ordinances also prohibit loitering and photography that interferes with residents’ quiet enjoyment of their property. Drone photography over the area is legal under FAA rules governing navigable airspace, but California law separately restricts drone surveillance of individuals on private property without consent.