Loss avoided~20 seconds
The floodplain, surfaced first.
FEMA NFHL · Flood screen · ScenarioA lot can look perfect from the street and still sit partly inside a FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area. The flood factor scores the share of the parcel inside the SFHA (a creek clipping one corner reads differently than a fully mapped floodway), so the constraint shows up before the offer, not after the appraisal.
The flood factor comes from the FEMA National Flood Hazard Layer, queried live, and the report names the zone and the lot fraction it covers.
- Data source
- FEMA NFHL, queried live
- Signal
- Share of the lot inside an SFHA
- Where it lands
- Flood factor + report hazards section
Loss avoided~20 seconds
The five-figure hookup, flagged.
OpenStreetMap · Utility gap · ScenarioOn rural and edge parcels the make-or-break question is distance to power, water, and road access. The utilities factor scores proximity from mapped infrastructure. When mapping is too thin to trust, the factor drops out instead of being assumed serviceable.
Unknown is a finding, not a pass: the engine never applies an optimistic default to utilities.
- Data source
- OpenStreetMap infrastructure
- Signal
- Proximity to power, water, road
- When unmapped
- Factor omitted, never assumed
Loss avoided~20 seconds
Slope you cannot see in photos.
USGS 3DEP · Terrain check · ScenarioTwo adjacent lots can differ by an entire foundation budget because one falls away at 20% grade. The terrain factor reads lot-scale slope from USGS 3DEP, one of the factors that separates a parcel from its neighbors instead of scoring the whole ZIP code the same.
Terrain carries the heaviest default weight in methodology v3 (20%) because slope differs house to house while county-level hazards do not.
- Data source
- USGS 3DEP, queried live
- Signal
- Percent grade at the lot
- Default weight
- 20%, the heaviest
Loss avoided~20 seconds
The unbuildable sliver, caught.
Parcel ring · Lot geometry · ScenarioAcreage alone hides shape. A long, irregular sliver builds very differently than a clean rectangle of the same size. The geometry factor computes shape regularity from the real parcel boundary (area against its bounding rectangle), so a flag lot or remnant strip scores like what it is.
Geometry is the second within-market factor added in methodology v2, computed from the actual parcel polygon rather than a radius guess.
- Data source
- Parcel boundaries (Regrid)
- Signal
- Shape regularity, 0–1
- Default weight
- 11%
Loss avoided~20 seconds
Strong land, capped where septic binds.
USDA SSURGO · Septic-limiting soil · ScenarioA lot can score well on flood, terrain, utilities, and geometry while USDA rates its soil "Very limited" for septic absorption fields. Off an established street grid, the Buildability Formula caps the published Score at 60 instead of letting a strong average bury the finding. On a grid it holds the cap back and says why: sewer assumed, not confirmed.
Score = min(composite, every landmine cap). An applied cap appears as a named banner in the report; a held-back cap is disclosed, never silent.
- Landmine
- Soil rated "Very limited" for septic
- Cap
- 60, off an established street grid
- Mechanism
- Score = min(composite, caps)
Upside found~20 seconds
The envelope, in numbers.
Municipal code · Zoning envelope · ScenarioA district name alone tells you almost nothing. Where the jurisdiction publishes dimensional standards, the report turns FAR, lot coverage, height, and minimum lot size into a buildable envelope (units, floors, and square feet) and names the constraint that binds first.
When only a designation name is known, the engine omits the zoning factor entirely: a name is not an assessment.
- Signal
- FAR · coverage · min lot · height
- Output
- Max units, floors, buildable sf
- If standards unknown
- Factor omitted — not filled in with assumed values
Time saved~20 seconds
A line item, not a landmine.
EPA zones · Radon check · ScenarioEPA Zone 1 radon is not a deal-killer. It is a mitigation system you should price before you bid. The radon reading is the county designation, the same for every lot in the county, so it sits beside the Score as regional context instead of moving the number, and the report tells you to budget for it.
Every factor carries a plain-English note naming its dataset, so you can tell a budget item from a blocker.
- Data source
- EPA radon zones
- Signal
- County zone designation
- Reading
- Regional context, not weighted
Loss avoided~20 seconds
Severity that will not average away.
Federal hazard layers · Wildfire exposure · ScenarioVery-high wildfire hazard potential pulls its factor deep into the red, and in California the wildfire weight rises to 20%, so great zoning cannot paper over a WUI lot. Insurance is where this bites first; the screen puts it in front of you before the insurer does.
Severe findings dominate their factor instead of averaging away. That behavior is published on the Score methodology page.
- Data source
- Federal wildfire hazard mapping
- Regional weight
- Up to 20% (CA)
- If unmapped
- Factor omitted
Upside foundOne question
The target district’s rules, cited, before the hearing.
Geo · Rezoning research · ScenarioWeighing a rezoning? Ask Geo about the district you would seek. It reads that district’s rules from official sources, the city’s code first, and quotes the section with the date it was read, so you can set them beside what the lot allows today. A rezoning is not modelled as a score: its numbers come from the new district’s code.
No rule without its section. Where the code has not been read, Geo says so rather than guess from the district’s name.
- Tool
- research_law (Geo)
- Output
- Rules with section and read date
- Not modelled
- A score for the rezoned lot
Buildability
