Representative Image (AI-generated)
A 267-acre family property
A California family’s attempt to build a second home on its 267-acre coastal property has ended at the nation’s highest court, after the US Supreme Court declined to hear the family’s appeal in June 2026. The dispute began in 2017, when Willie Benedetti filed a lawsuit challenging Marin County’s land-use restrictions; the county later adopted amended rules requiring owners seeking certain additional homes on agricultural coastal land to record a covenant tied to agricultural use. The Supreme Court denied the family’s petition on June 29, 2026. Willie Benedetti spent decades farming the 267 acres and operated agricultural businesses connected to the property. Willie filed the initial lawsuit in July 2017. He died in 2018, before the litigation was resolved, and his sons Arron and Arthur continued the case. In August 2025, California’s First District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court’s judgment, although it disagreed with part of the trial court’s reasoning.
The family therefore challenged the requirement that a person seeking to build the additional home either personally participate in commercial agriculture or lease the property to a commercial agricultural producer.
Which represents the Benedetti family, the rule improperly conditions residential development on a landowner’s continued involvement in farming, according to the Pacific Legal Foundation. The land consists of two contiguous parcels within the county’s coastal agricultural production zoning area, according to the court record. The property at the centre of the dispute is in Valley Ford, in Marin County, California. One of the parcels already had a residence where Willie lived with his son Arron. Willie also intended to build another home on the property for his other son, Arthur. However, the family’s plans became complicated after Marin County adopted an amended local coastal program and later implementing ordinances that changed the conditions attached to additional residential development on agricultural land. The Benedettis argued that the county’s requirement went beyond ordinary land-use regulation. Arron and Arthur are plumbers rather than farmers, and the court record states that neither is engaged in the day-to-day operation of the family’s agricultural companies. The Marin County Superior Court rejected the family’s claims. The Benedettis then appealed. The appellate court held that the Benedettis could bring a facial challenge under Nollan and Dolan. However, it concluded that the county’s agricultural covenant satisfied the constitutional requirements.
The case reaches the Supreme Court
The county’s requirement remains enforceable under the judgment that the family challenged, leaving the 267-acre property at the centre of a dispute over how far local governments can go in tying residential development to the continued agricultural use of private land. For the Benedetti family, the litigation that began with a planned second home on a long-held agricultural property has therefore reached its current endpoint without a Supreme Court review.