A cannabis grower whose $465,000 home was confiscated as an alternative to an 18-month prison term has failed in his challenge against the seizure of the property - one of two he owned.

Daniel James Brazendale was last year convicted in the High Court in Auckland of cultivating cannabis and instead of jailing him Justice Mark Cooper forfeited the 54-year-old's Mangere home to the Crown.

Brazendale argued at trial that the cannabis found by police - 30 plants being grown hydroponically and 32 young plants in a glasshouse - was for medical use to treat an old injury.

In August Brazendale's lawyer, Peter Kaye, argued that the sentencing judge had erred in concluding his client's crop had a substantial commercial purpose and had failed to assess the potential harvest.

Kaye also argued there was no evidence that Brazendale ever sold cannabis, that the sentence was too harsh and that his client's daughters, who were to benefit from the property, were caused undue hardship by the forfeiture.

Brazendale had planned to put the property in a family trust before it was seized.

Crown counsel David Johnstone said Justice Cooper had no option but to find the cannabis was for commercial use because Brazendale, who also owned another house, had no regular income and refused to disclose where his earnings had come from.

Given Brazendale's sophisticated growing set-up the Court of Appeal didn't believe he wasn't cultivating cannabis for financial gain, the Court of Appeal decision reads.

''The combination of the nature of the operation and the absence of any other regular source of income lead inexorably to the conclusion the cultivation was substantially for a commercial purpose. The extend of modification to the house and the installation of a sophisticated set up were obviously intended to increase the turnover and strength of the crop.''

The Court of Appeal also didn't believe the seizure was unduly harsh because Brazendale's offending met the definition of ''significant criminal activity'' and his house was ''designed to be used well beyond the offending for which he was prosecuted''.

Brazendale's daughters made an application for relief because they hadn't contributed to the offending but would miss out on their inheritance because of its seizure.

The decision notes an affidavit from Brazendale's youngest daughter, who is 15, who regarded the seized house as ''home in every sense of the word'' despite living with her mother in Whangarei.

Another daughter did not live at the house, but visited regularly, and the other was married and lived with her husband in Whangarei.

The Court of Appeal wasn't ''persuaded'' the daughters were entitled to any relief and didn't believe it was possible to forfeit the property in part.