《文化資產保存法》自民國七十一年公佈施行以來，歷經四次之增訂修正。但保存古蹟涉及文化資產的保護、地方的發展與人民財產權益等複雜問題。本文的重點便是從憲法保障財產權的觀點，研究解決私有古蹟保存困境之道，而包含下述四部分：第一，論述我國大法官解釋第二三六、三三六、四○○ 、四四○號等相關對憲法保障財產權解釋，並就關於人民享有文化資產得否作為憲法上之基本權利，引介日本學界提出的歷史環境權。第二，分析文化資產保存法對私有古蹟造成的財產權限制，是否皆構成特別犧牲應予以適當補償。第三，鑒於私有古蹟作為公共財以及古蹟保存任務的特性，如何能在國家有限財政下，尋求完善達成私有古蹟保存任務與憲法財產權保障平衡的機制，除了文化資產保存法已採行的發展權移轉，有關公益信託以及所有權證券化似可提供另一個方向。最後，以行政法院之判決，論及就古蹟指定權之行使，人民權利如何救濟。

　　“Cultural Assets Protection Law” enacted in 1982, had undergone four revisions. But private historical houses involve many complex problems, such as cultural assets protection, local development, people’s equity, of assets, and so on “A legal research about the preservation of private historical houses, from the view point of Constitutional Law”, will be three key points elucidated (interpreted) in my article as below: Firstly, it discuss the protection system of property in Constitutional Law and the interpretation of No.236、No.336、No.400 and No.440 of Grand Justice. Secondly, The enactment of “Cultural Assets Law” gives rise to limitation of property. What is the due compensation to the owner of private historical houses base on protection of property rights? And lastly, could we get a balance between the historical building saving and protection of property by following the mechanisms and experiences like “Nation Trust”,“Real Estate Investment Trust” or” Transfer of Development Rights”.People are becoming more and more conscious of unity of human values and regard historic building as a common heritage. The common responsibility to safeguard them for future generation is recognized. It is our duy to hand them on in the full richness of their authenticity.