Hello, this question is a bit too broad for AH, in my opinion. You would need an entire book, and in fact several exist. In particular, Erdkamp, Verboven, and Zuiderhoek, ed., Ownership and Exploitation of Land and Natural Resources in the Roman World. Oxford Studies on the Roman Economy (Oxford, 2015). The individual chapters are by various scholars. As a whole, the book argues (among many things) that some old notions about the Roman economy from Republic to Late Antiquity should be reconsidered. One such is the notion that latifundia increased in land area over time, while their ownership pool decreased. This is an old theory and is directly attacked in the book. In fact, what evidence we do have seems to suggest that the amount of land under control of mega-estates did not increase over time, but stayed about the same. Imperial land holdings did increase, of course, but in economic terms these were often not very different from private small holdings: the land was leased out and the rents were paid in kind, not in tax, so that crop failure risk was mostly on the Imperial estate. In addition, these small lessees enjoyed tenure, meaning they could invest in more long-term, higher-profit agriculture, like vineyards.

The most relevant chapter is Kyle Harper's, Chapter 3. From the book's conclusion (p.340):

Thus in his chapter (Chapter 3), Kyle Harper targets the rarely questioned view that the size of aristocratic property had grown since the late republic until everywhere in late antiquity the best agricultural lands were monopolized by only a few hundred families. This ‘accumulation thesis’ was propagated since the early nineteenth century, but relies on just ‘a few dramatic literary sources’. It was developed before modern archaeology, epigraphy, and papyrology showed that small and moderate-sized landholdings continued to thrive until late antiquity. Neither census requirements nor estimates of elite wealth imply elite properties that are as large as postulated by the accumulation thesis. Papyrological and epigraphic sources indicate that the typical size of medium to large-scale holdings of local elites did not change much between the principate and late antiquity. Truly massive estates in the order of hundreds of thousands of iugera (one iugerum equals roughly a quarter of a hectare) did exist, but there is no indication that their number increased in late antiquity. According to Harper, land continued to be a production factor that constantly changed hands through markets; it did not become progressively locked inside a social and political power system. The Roman Empire allowed imperial elites to build up properties that were orders of magnitude larger than in the Hellenistic period but this development had already reached its limits by the end of the republic.