One number.
Published math.
Nine weighted factors, five federal agencies queried live, a versioned formula anyone can audit — the standard for what you can build on American land.
Live score free — no signup · First 3 reports free · ~20 seconds
Same parcel, same sub-scores — only the jurisdiction’s weights change. Methodology v2, computed by the published engine.
Queried live from five federal agencies — plus parcel & zoning partners
Every finding cites its source. Audit the whole chain on the data sources page.
0 to 100,published end to end.
This figure is rendered from the engine's own labeling code — it can never drift.
Nine factors. One score.
Each factor measures a different aspect of feasibility, weighted by how much it constrains what you can build — and re-weighted by region.
Sample shown: live engine output (methodology v2) for a Texas parcel — 89 · A · IC-ready. Factors marked “—” had no data on record and dropped out rather than being guessed. The same sample appears on the homepage.
Zoning—
county & municipal records via partners
Dimensional standards on record — FAR, lot coverage, minimum lot size. Omitted when only a designation name is known.
Flood95
FEMA NFHL, queried live
Flood zone, Special Flood Hazard Area status, and the share of the lot inside an SFHA.
Seismic90
USGS, queried live
Earthquake hazard level at the site.
Soil82
USDA SSURGO, queried live
Soil survey classification, drainage, and building suitability.
Radon90
EPA radon zones, queried live
County radon zone designation.
Wildfire85
federal wildfire hazard layers
Wildfire hazard potential around the parcel.
Utilities90
OpenStreetMap infrastructure
Proximity to power, water, and road access.
Terrain—
USGS 3DEP, queried live
Ground slope at the lot — slope differs house to house, so it separates neighbors.
Lot shape—
parcel ring via partners
Lot shape regularity — a long sliver builds differently than a clean rectangle.
Heavy hits vs. light lifts
A floodplain can’t be “fixed” by great zoning. Severe findings pull their factor deep into the red instead of averaging away.
Heavy penalties
Factor sub-score drops to the 30s–40s
Some conditions dominate their factor. A mapped high-hazard flood zone or very-high seismic hazard pulls that factor deep into the red — and with regional weighting, it can dominate the verdict.
FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area (A/V zones)
Very high seismic hazard
Very high wildfire hazard potential
Poor soil suitability rating
No utility access nearby
Moderate penalties
Factor sub-score in the 50s–70s
These conditions reduce feasibility without dominating it. They warrant additional diligence, mitigation, or budget.
High radon zone (EPA Zone 1)
Moderate seismic hazard
Moderate wildfire exposure
Middling soil drainage class
Steep ground slope at the lot
Strong signals
Factor sub-score in the 85–95 range
Low-risk findings lift the score. And when a factor has no data at all, it simply drops out of the average — it is never estimated or silently penalized.
FEMA zone X — minimal flood risk
Low seismic hazard
Low wildfire risk
High soil suitability rating
Utilities confirmed close by
Transparent by design
A weighted average over the factors that have data, with weights tuned by region. No black box: the formula fits in a sentence.
Deterministic and pure — no network, no clock, no randomness inside the engine.
Weighted average. Nine factor sub-scores, each multiplied by its jurisdiction-aware weight.
Missing data drops out. A factor with no data is removed from both sides of the average — never estimated.
Then labeled. The number maps to a grade, band, and verdict through published thresholds (the scale above).
A number that can't move under you.
Four properties make the Score citable in front of a committee.
Versioned and frozen
Every published methodology is a frozen artifact — the current engine is v2. The same inputs produce the same number, forever; a change to the math requires a reviewed version bump, never a silent tweak.
Golden-tested in CI
A set of hand-computed golden cases guards the engine. If a code change moves any expected score, the build fails. The score cannot change meaning by accident.
Missing data drops out
A factor with no data is removed from both sides of the weighted average. Nothing is estimated, imputed, or silently penalized.
Every finding cited
Each factor carries a note naming the dataset it came from — FEMA NFHL, USGS, EPA, USDA SSURGO. Sources are queried live when a report is generated; successful lookups are cached server-side for up to 7 days so repeat lookups are instant.
Traditional feasibility vs the Score
What a consultant memo gives you, held against a published standard.
Traditional feasibility
- Time to results
- 4–8 weeks
- Cost
- $3,500+
- Method
- varies by consultant
- Repeatability
- one professional's judgment
- Data sources
- assembled by hand
- Citations
- rarely included
The Buildability Score™
- Time to results
- ~20 seconds
- Cost
- One credit — from $29
- Method
- published, versioned formula
- Repeatability
- same inputs, same number, forever
- Data sources
- 5 federal agencies, queried live
- Citations
- every finding names its dataset
The Score is a screening standard, not a replacement for entitlement counsel on the deal you pursue.
Built for people who answer to committees.
Purpose-built for professionals who evaluate land before committing capital
Land investors
Buying land without confirmed buildability is a six-figure gamble.
Screen parcels against one standard before making offers.
Developers
Weeks of feasibility research before knowing if a site is viable.
Kill the bad sites in seconds; spend diligence budget on the good ones.
Lenders
Underwriting collateral without knowing its development potential.
A repeatable, documented number your credit memo can cite.
Architects & builders
Starting design only to discover constraints that kill the concept.
Understand the constraint envelope before the first sketch.
per parcel, sliding to $6 at volume — against a $3,500+ consultant memo and weeks of waiting.
Screen the whole pipeline for the price of vetting one deal the old way.
Score a property freeFrequently asked questions
What is the Buildability Score™?
A 0–100 feasibility score for any U.S. parcel: nine weighted factors — zoning, flood, seismic, soil, radon, wildfire, utilities, terrain, and lot geometry — rolled into one number with a grade and verdict. 70+ is IC-ready; below 50 is high risk.
How is it calculated?
A weighted average of nine sub-scores. Defaults: terrain 18%; zoning and flood 14%; soil, wildfire, and utilities 11%; lot geometry 10%; seismic 7%; radon 4%. Regional overrides apply — Florida floods at 24%, Texas utilities at 22% — and missing data drops out entirely.
Can the score change without notice?
No — each methodology version (current: v2) is frozen and golden-tested: reference cases run in CI, and any change that moves a score fails the build. Improvements ship as a new version; historical scores reproduce exactly.
How accurate is it?
Every factor comes from live federal queries — Census, FEMA, USGS, EPA, USDA — plus parcel and zoning partners, and every finding cites its dataset. It’s a screening tool, not a permit guarantee: verify locally before committing capital.
What does a high score mean?
A score of 70+ (grade B or better) is IC-ready: strong development potential with few major obstacles. 50–69 means proceed with caution — some factors need attention. Below 50 indicates significant challenges worth understanding before you spend on consultants.
How long does it take?
About 20 seconds: geocode via Census, query the sources live, run the engine, return the score with its factor breakdown. The live score is free; your first 3 reports are free with an account.
One standard. Any parcel.
Nine weighted factors, five federal agencies queried live — the verdict takes about 20 seconds.
Score a property freeFirst 3 reports free · No card needed · All 50 states