This is what the report looks like.

Zoning: SF-3

What the district allows beyond the envelope above.

Classification

SF-3, Single-Family Residence 3

In the sample

Permits 2 dwelling units by-right, with a third permitted as an accessory dwelling under §25-2-774. Height cap 35 ft, FAR 0.5, minimum lot size 5,750 sf.

SourceCity of Austin Land Development Code·Sample values

Comparable sales

Where the property-data provider has nearby sales, the paid report leads with three and lists the rest under them, with price per square foot, beds and baths, and days on market. These three are sample values, laid out the way the sample sheet prints them.

Scroll sideways for lot, GFA and notes.

Comps come from the property-data provider, not from federal data, and are left out when the provider has none.

SourceSample values

The plain answer

The paid report leads with a plain answer, not a verdict badge. For a lot like this one, with no landmine capping the score and every source answering, it reads:

Likely yes. No blocking constraint was identified in the records checked. Local requirements and site conditions still need verification. What fits on it depends on the city’s rules.

A landmine or a source that does not answer turns “Likely yes” into “Maybe”.

SourceBuildability methodology

How the Score is calculated

A 0–100 Buildability Score is computed from nine factors, seven of them weighted into the parcel score and seismic and radon carried alongside it as regional context. The published Score is the lower of the weighted composite and any landmine cap (for example a regulatory floodway, or a soil rated very limited for septic where the lot has no sewer). A factor with no data drops out, and a regional estimate is labeled Estimated.

SourceBuildability methodology

The grading scale

Every score maps to one grade and one band. This sample, 87, is an A in the Strong band. The plain answer shown is the one the land gets when no landmine binds and every source answered.

Rendered from the engine’s own labeling code. Thresholds are part of the published methodology, and changing one requires a version bump.

SourceBuildability methodology

Data sources and retrieval

Federal sources are queried on every fresh report and cached for up to 7 days. When a source has no data for a parcel, that factor drops out of the score; when a reading is a regional estimate, it is labeled Estimated. Every reading carries its source dataset and the ISO date it was retrieved. Sources used in this report:

1. [1]City of Austin Land Development Code (opens in a new tab)
2. [2]FEMA National Flood Hazard Layer (opens in a new tab)
3. [3]USGS Seismic Design Maps (opens in a new tab)
4. [4]USDA Forest Service Wildfire Hazard Potential (opens in a new tab)
5. [5]EPA Map of Radon Zones (opens in a new tab)
6. [6]USDA SSURGO (opens in a new tab)
7. [7]USGS 3DEP elevation (opens in a new tab)
8. [8]OpenStreetMap (Overpass)
9. [9]County parcel record

SourceThe agencies listed

Known limitations

• Zoning readings reflect the current published municipal code and do not anticipate legislative changes in progress.
• Flood and seismic use the most recent published federal models. Local amendments to floodway boundaries may lag.
• Soil readings are SSURGO map-unit averages, not a substitute for a site-specific geotechnical investigation.

SourceBuildability methodology

What $99 buys

Beyond the sheet above and the PDF below, a report on a real parcel comes with:

Buildable envelope

Where we’ve read the district’s code: setbacks, height, coverage and density become a footprint, a floor count and a unit count.

Landmines, first

A landmine, such as a regulatory floodway or a mapped wetland, caps the score however good the average is.

Verifiable certificate

A QR code that recomputes the score from the record. Something a partner or a lender can check.

Geo, for this parcel

Ask anything about the lot. It has read the report and the code behind it.

SourcePricing