When can I start an approach if I lose comms and my clearance limit is not an initial approach fix?
Note: this may be a dupe of this question. However, you seem to be saying that you've read and understood the regulations on what to do, you just don't believe that ATC or the FAA really expects you to follow them.

In the scenario you describe you are indeed expected to fly from the airport to an IAF before beginning an approach. There's a long and detailed article in IFR Magazine about clearance limits, which discusses the regulations and the practical options. It makes a similar point to yours about lost comms:

Since the clearance limit is the
destination airport, very few approaches start there. An airport is
never used as a fix in IFR. A fix is an intersection, waypoint or
NAVAID. Moreover, receiving an EFC time in advance is simply silly.
This would also presume the issuance of holding instructions. Why
would a controller issue these things since lost communication cannot
be predicted?

It also acknowledges that many pilots share your opinion on the lost comms action:

Many pilots disdain these rules as onerous, unnecessarily
time-consuming and complex.

The article then notes that there have been multiple attempts to change the FAA's mind:

Since 2009, there have been about five challenges to this rule. In the
latest iteration, our past editor, Jeff Van West, wrote the Office of
Chief Counsel in late 2017, arguing that 91.185 (c)(3)(ii) is
inconsistent with current air traffic practices and creates an
unnecessary hazard.

But, you can read that 2017 legal interpretation yourself and you'll see that the FAA really does expect pilots to follow the regulation as written:

As you correctly state in your letter, the requirements of §
91.185(c)(3)(ii) are rarely in effect thanks to the improved technology ensuring that communications between pilot and ATC are not
lost. However, the requirements of (c)(3)(ii) are necessary to ensure
the safety of the NAS when a pilot is unable to communicate with ATC.
[...]
we affirm our previous interpretations of § 91.185(c)(3).

So that's the official answer for now (unless I missed a more recent interpretation).
Finally, if you want an alternative course of action, IFR Magazine's suggestion is to fly from the airport to an IAF and then invoke emergency authority to start a descent immediately, without holding:

ATC does not want you flying a holding pattern while it’s diverting
traffic everywhere to avoid a conflict. You have unintentionally shut
the airport down. When you reach an IAF of your choosing, ATC will
know which approach you intend to use. At the IAF, use your emergency
authority and begin descent.

That complies with the regulation and although it burns more fuel your priority should be acting predictably and landing safely. An IFR reserve should be plenty to allow for the extra flying time: KLAX to SEAVU is about 45NM, which isn't much time at jet speeds.