This kind of asset is exactly what NFTs (backed by real-world contracts) would be ideal for. I'd love to buy 1/100th of that asset just by interacting with a smart contract.
You pay: $20,000 in $some_coin (ignoring gas fees for the moment) 1/100 of annual royalties is $1,142, taxable at your marginal rate (say 20%), so $913 free-and-clear.
Even without doing discounted cash-flow magic, that gets you to an annual 4.5% annual rate of return. Not great, not terrible.
BUT, you're doing this all in NFT-land, which means either you hold it (in a cold wallet, ready to be shown once the next royalty agency asks who owns this stuff), some other entity holds it (and you trust them and pay their fees), and no one has stolen your metaphorical apes over the next 21 years, which is just what it would take to make back the investment. Also, making the double-bank-shot bet that courts will recognize NFTs as proof of ownership, and that the NFT itself does not become taxable property, as a security.
Short of some kind of presumably inherent joy in interacting with a smart contract, I'm really not sure what you intend to gain, here.
None of those securitization processes could be made more efficient, secure or cost effective with an NFT or any other blockchain technology. Introducing cryptocurrency into the securitization process would only be for the purposes of a marketing stunt that would make the process more costly, complex and risky.
You say you would love to buy 1/100th of an asset that has a list price of $2 million, so presumably you would be willing to invest $20,000. Well, I have news for you, multi-hundred million dollar securitizations are not done because someone says they would love to "interact" with a "smart contract" and have $20k to invest, they are done because multiple investors have promise to buy tens of millions of dollars of those securities. And those investors are interested in earning dollars, not "interacting" with "smart contracts" for fun and games.
So no, NFTs are not ideal for this kind of asset.