This is why wealth tax is redundant as it's fairer to instead just increase the capital gains tax rate.
There are cases where you can own high value assets which can't be monetized. For example you might inherit a derelict house worth millions due to its historical value.
You end up with an astronomical tax bill every year even though you might have no income.
Your case of an asset that can’t be monetized is somewhat more sympathetic, though that’s more of an edge case where wealth is poorly defined, if your asset has no liquid value (or value that can be received from recurring rents I suppose) it shouldn’t be considered wealth under a tax regime. Either way, a well defined wealth tax would still address the overall issue better. You don’t have to remain the owner of this hypothetical derelict house.
This is the explicit endgame of any wealth tax. The ergodic nature of market returns ensure most people experience individual downturns that would wipe them out if they had the “drag” introduced by a wealth tax. The wealth will simply accumulate in the hands of those with the best lawyers and who can stay ahead of regulations and move wealth into protected assets.