Zoning for Douglas County NE development jurisdiction. Layer maintained by DCGIS on behalf of DCES. This is a view layer

Geospatial data about Douglas County, Georgia Parcels. Export to CAD, GIS, PDF, CSV and access via API.

Douglas County Zoning layer includes zoning code and description. Is regularly updated by Douglas County GIS. You can also check out our zoning lookup map: https://dogis.org/zoning Questions? Contact Us

This is a public-facing map service of Douglas County NE Parcels. Data maintained by DC Assessor. Data published by DC GIS

Property subdivision data sourced from Assessor records. This data is updated regularly.

This dataset is a compilation of county parcel data from Minnesota counties that have opted-in for their parcel data to be included in this dataset.

It includes the following 59 counties that have opted-in as of the publication date of this dataset: Aitkin County, Anoka County, Becker County, Benton County, Big Stone County, Carlton County, Carver County, Cass County, Chippewa County, Chisago County, Clay County, Clearwater County, Cook County, Crow Wing County, Dakota County, Douglas County, Fillmore County, Grant County, Hennepin County, Houston County, Isanti County, Itasca County, Jackson County, Koochiching County, Lac qui Parle County, Lake County, Lake of the Woods County, Lyon County, Marshall County, McLeod County, Mille Lacs County, Morrison County, Mower County, Murray County, Norman County, Olmsted County, Otter Tail County, Pennington County, Pipestone County, Polk County, Pope County, Ramsey County, Red Lake County, Renville County, Rice County, Scott County, Sherburne County, St. Louis County, Stearns County, Steele County, Stevens County, Traverse County, Wabasha County, Waseca County, Washington County, Wilkin County, Winona County, Wright County, and Yellow Medicine County.

If you represent a county not included in this dataset and would like to opt-in, please contact Heather Albrecht (Heather.Albrecht@hennepin.us), co-chair of the Minnesota Geospatial Advisory Council (GAC)’s Parcels and Land Records Committee's Open Data Subcommittee. County parcel data does not need to be in the GAC parcel data standard to be included. MnGeo will map the county fields to the GAC standard.

County parcel data records have been assembled into a single dataset with a common coordinate system (UTM Zone 15) and common attribute schema. The county parcel data attributes have been mapped to the GAC parcel data standard for Minnesota: https://www.mngeo.state.mn.us/committee/standards/parcel_attrib/parcel_attrib.html

This compiled parcel dataset was created using Python code developed by Minnesota state agency GIS professionals, and represents a best effort to map individual county source file attributes into the common attribute schema of the GAC parcel data standard. The attributes from counties are mapped to the most appropriate destination column. In some cases, the county source files included attributes that were not mapped to the GAC standard. Additionally, some county attribute fields were parsed and mapped to multiple GAC standard fields, such as a single line address. Each quarter, MnGeo provides a text file to counties that shows how county fields are mapped to the GAC standard. Additionally, this text file shows the fields that are not mapped to the standard and those that are parsed. If a county shares changes to how their data should be mapped, MnGeo updates the compilation. If you represent a county and would like to update how MnGeo is mapping your county attribute fields to this compiled dataset, please contact us.

This dataset is a snapshot of parcel data, and the source date of the county data may vary. Users should consult County websites to see the most up-to-date and complete parcel data.

There have been recent changes in date/time fields, and their processing, introduced by our software vendor. In some cases, this has resulted in date fields being empty. We are aware of the issue and are working to correct it for future parcel data releases.

The State of Minnesota makes no representation or warranties, express or implied, with respect to the use or reuse of data provided herewith, regardless of its format or the means of its transmission. THE DATA IS PROVIDED “AS IS” WITH NO GUARANTEE OR REPRESENTATION ABOUT THE ACCURACY, CURRENCY, SUITABILITY, PERFORMANCE, MECHANTABILITY, RELIABILITY OR FITINESS OF THIS DATA FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE. This dataset is NOT suitable for accurate boundary determination. Contact a licensed land surveyor if you have questions about boundary determinations.

DOWNLOAD NOTES: This dataset is only provided in Esri File Geodatabase and OGC GeoPackage formats. A shapefile is not available because the size of the dataset exceeds the limit for that format. The distribution version of the fgdb is compressed to help reduce the data footprint. QGIS users should consider using the Geopackage format for better results.

This Zoning feature class is an element of the Oregon GIS Framework statewide, Zoning spatial data. This version is authorized for public use. Attributes include zoning districts that have been generalized to state classes. As of June 30, 2023, this feature class contains zoning data from 229 local jurisdictions. DLCD plans to continue adding to and updating this statewide zoning dataset as they receive zoning information from the local jurisdictions. Jurisdictions included in the latest version of the statewide zoning geodatabase: Cities: Adams, Adrian, Albany, Amity, Antelope, Ashland, Astoria, Athena, Aurora, Banks, Barlow, Bay City, Beaverton, Bend, Boardman, Bonanza, Brookings, Brownsville, Burns, Butte Falls, Canby, Cannon Beach, Carlton, Cascade Locks, Cave Junction, Central Point, Chiloquin, Coburg, Columbia City, Coos Bay, Cornelius, Corvallis, Cottage Grove, Creswell, Culver, Dayton, Detroit, Donald, Drain, Dufur, Dundee, Dunes City, Durham, Eagle Point, Echo, Enterprise, Estacada, Eugene, Fairview, Falls City, Florence, Forest Grove, Fossil, Garibaldi, Gaston, Gates, Gearhart, Gervais, Gladstone, Gold Beach, Gold Hill, Grants Pass, Grass Valley, Gresham, Halsey, Happy Valley, Harrisburg, Helix, Hermiston, Hillsboro, Hines, Hood River, Hubbard, Idanha, Independence, Jacksonville, Jefferson, Johnson City, Jordan Valley, Junction City, Keizer, King City, Klamath Falls, La Grande, La Pine, Lafayette, Lake Oswego, Lebanon, Lincoln City, Lowell, Lyons, Madras, Malin, Manzanita, Maupin, Maywood Park, McMinnville, Medford, Merrill, Metolius, Mill City, Millersburg, Milton-Freewater, Milwaukie, Mitchell, Molalla, Monmouth, Moro, Mosier, Mount Angel, Myrtle Creek, Myrtle Point, Nehalem, Newberg, Newport, North Bend, North Plains, Nyssa, Oakridge, Ontario, Oregon City, Pendleton, Philomath, Phoenix, Pilot Rock, Port Orford, Portland, Prescott, Prineville, Rainier, Redmond, Reedsport, Rivergrove, Rockaway Beach, Rogue River, Roseburg, Rufus, Saint Helens, Salem, Sandy, Scappoose, Scio, Scotts Mills, Seaside, Shady Cove, Shaniko, Sheridan, Sherwood, Silverton, Sisters, Sodaville, Spray, Springfield, Stanfield, Stayton, Sublimity, Sutherlin, Sweet Home, Talent, Tangent, The Dalles, Tigard, Tillamook, Toledo, Troutdale, Tualatin, Turner, Ukiah, Umatilla, Vale, Veneta, Vernonia, Warrenton, Wasco, Waterloo, West Linn, Westfir, Weston, Wheeler, Willamina, Wilsonville, Winston, Wood Village, Woodburn, Yamhill. Counties: Baker County, Benton County, Clackamas County, Clatsop County, Columbia County, Coos County, Crook County, Curry County, Deschutes County, Douglas County, Harney County, Hood River County, Jackson County, Jefferson County, Josephine County, Klamath County, Lane County, Lincoln County, Linn County, Malheur County, Marion County, Multnomah County, Polk County, Sherman County, Tillamook County, Umatilla County, Union County, Wasco County, Washington County, Wheeler County, Yamhill County. R emaining jurisdictions either chose not to share data to incorporate into the public, statewide dataset or did not respond to DLCD’s request for data. These jurisdictions’ attributes are designated “not shared” in the orZDesc field and “NS” in the orZCode field.

DOUGLAS COUNTY SURVEY/GISGIS PARCEL MAPPING GUIDELINES FOR PARCEL DISCREPANCIESIt is the intent of the Douglas County GIS Parcel Mapping to accurately identify the areas of land parcels to be valued and taxed 1. Discrepancies in areas• The Auditor/Assessor (tax) acreage areas started with the original US General Land Office (GLO) township plat maps created from the Public Land Survey (PLS) that was done between 1858 and 1871. The recovery of the PLS corners and the accurate location of these corners with GPS obtained coordinates has allowed for accurate section subdivisions, which results in accurate areas for parcels based on legal descriptions, which may be significantly different than the original areas. (See Example 2)• Any parcel bordering a meandered lake and/or a water boundary will likely have a disparity of area between the Auditor/Assessor acreages and the GIS acreages because of the inaccuracy of the original GLO meander lines from which the original areas were determined. Water lines are not able to be drafted to the same accuracy as the normal parcel lines. The water lines are usually just sketched on a survey and their dimensions are not generally given on a land record. The water boundaries of our GIS parcels are located from aerial photography. This is a subjective determination based on the interpretation by the Survey/GIS technician of what is water. Some lakes fluctuate significantly and the areas of all parcels bordering water are subject to constant change. In these cases the ordinary high water line (OHW) is attempted to be identified. Use of 2-foot contours will be made, if available. (See Example 1)• Some land records do not accurately report the area described in the land description and the description area is ignored. (See Example 3)• The parcel mapping has made every attempt to map the parcels based on available survey information as surveyed and located on the ground. This may conflict with some record legal descriptions.Solutions• If an actual survey by a licensed Land Surveyor is available, it will be utilized for the tax acreage.• If the Auditor/Assessor finds a discrepancy between the tax and GIS areas, they will request a review by the County Survey/GIS department.• As a starting guideline, the County Survey/GIS department will identify all parcels that differ in tax area versus GIS parcel area of 10 % or more and a difference of at least 5 acres. (This could be expanded later after the initial review.)• Each of these identified parcels will be reviewed individually by the County Survey/GIS department to determine the reason for the discrepancy and a recommendation will be made by the County Survey/GIS department to the Auditor/Assessor if the change should be made or not.• If a change is to be made to the tax area, a letter will be sent to the taxpayer informing them that their area will be changed during the next tax cycle, which could affect their property valuation. This letter will originate from the Auditor/Assessor with explanation from the County Survey/GIS department. 2. Gaps and Overlaps• Land descriptions for adjoining parcels sometimes overlap or leave a gap between them.o In these instances the Survey/GIS technician has to make a decision where to place this boundary. A number of circumstances are reviewed to facilitate this decision as these dilemmas are usually decided on a case by case basis. All effort will be made to not leave a gap, but sometimes this is not possible and the gap will be shown with “unknown” ownership. (Note: The County does not have the authority to change boundaries!)o Some of the circumstances reviewed are: Which parcel had the initial legal description? Does the physical occupation of the parcel line as shown on the air photo more closely fit one of the described parcels? Interpretation of the intent of the legal description. Is the legal description surveyable?Note: These overlaps will be shown on the GIS map with a dashed “survey line” and accompanying text for the line not used for the parcel boundary. 3. Parcel lines that do not match location of buildings Structures on parcels do not always lie within the boundaries of the parcel. This may be a circumstance of building without the benefit of a survey or of misinterpreting these boundaries. The parcel lines should be shown accurately as surveyed and/or described regardless of the location of structures on the ground. NOTE: The GIS mapping is not a survey, but is an interpretation of parcel boundaries predicated upon resources available to the County Survey/GIS department.Gary Stevenson Page 1 7/21/2017Example 1Example 2A Example 2B Example 3

Heat Map of Liens showing the density.

Infrastructure, such as roads, airports, water and energy transmission and distribution facilities, sewage treatment plants, and many other facilities, is vital to the sustainability and vitality of any populated area. Rehabilitation of existing and development of new infrastructure requires three natural resources: natural aggregate (stone, sand, and gravel), water, and energy http://rockyweb.cr.usgs.gov/frontrange/overview.htm.

The principal goals of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Front Range Infrastructure Resources Project (FRIRP) were to develop information, define tools, and demonstrate ways to: (1) implement a multidisciplinary evaluation of the distribution and quality of a region's infrastructure resources, (2) identify issues that may affect availability of resources, and (3) work with cooperators to provide decision makers with tools to evaluate alternatives to enhance decision-making. Geographic integration of data (geospatial databases) can provide an interactive tool to facilitate decision-making by stakeholders http://rockyweb.cr.usgs.gov/frontrange/overview.htm.

Platted subdivisions are tracts of land that have been legally divided into smaller lots, blocks, and streets, with a recorded map (plat) showing these divisions, for the purpose of building developments or sale. Data maintained by DC Assessor staff

November 2025

zoning BASED ON PARCEL MAPS

This digital map shows bedding attitude symbols display over the geographic extent of surficial deposits and rock stratigraphic units (formations) as compiled by Trimble and Machette 1973-1977 and published in 1979 (U.S. Geological Survey Map I-856-H) under the Front Range Urban Corridor Geology Program. Trimble and Machette compiled their geologic map from published geologic maps and unpublished geologic mapping having varied map unit schemes. A convenient feature of the compiled map is its uniform classification of geologic units that mostly matches those of companion maps to the north (USGS I-855-G) and to the south (USGS I-857-F). Published as a color paper map, the Trimble and Machette map was intended for land-use planning in the Front Range Urban Corridor. This map recently (1997-1999), was digitized under the USGS Front Range Infrastructure Resources Project (see cross-reference). In general, the mountainous areas in the west part of the map exhibit various igneous and metamorphic bedrock units of Precambrian age, major faults, and fault brecciation zones at the east margin (5-20 km wide) of the Front Range. The eastern and central parts of the map (Colorado Piedmont) depict a mantle of unconsolidated deposits of Quaternary age and interspersed outcroppings of Cretaceous or Tertiary-Cretaceous sedimentary bedrock. The Quaternary mantle is comprised of eolian deposits (quartz sand and silt), alluvium (gravel, sand, and silt of variable composition), colluvium, and few landslides. At the mountain front, north-trending, dipping Paleozoic and Mesozoic sandstone, shale, and limestone bedrock formations form hogbacks and intervening valleys.

This application is a tool to find School Districts in Nebraska by County or Education Service Unit (ESU). Information for each School District includes: Address, District Name and Number, ESU Number, and Student Population. Search results may be filtered by School District Name and ESU. School District and ESU information are derived from Tax Unit Group (TUG) parcel data. The parcels used herein reflect County assessor data at the end of the 2018 calendar year.

Owner, account and tax information for the accounts in the required newspaper advertisement in preparation for the annual tax lien sale.

The Parcel Lineage dataset shows account numbers and current state parcel numbers, along with the "parent state parcel numbers" of which the current account is comprise. This data is updated regularly.

Full legal address description of parcels within Douglas County. This data is updated regularly.

Open data. The National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) dataset represents the current effective flood data for the country, where maps have been modernized. It is a compilation of effective Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) databases and Letters of Map Change (LOMCs). The NFHL is updated as studies go effective. For more information, visit FEMA's Map Service Center (MSC).

Maintained by: DC GISOwner: DouglasCountyCO_GISServicesSource: Edit Frequency: NoneSummary: Data Including Feature Layer: Open data. The National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) dataset represents the current effective flood data for the country, where maps have been modernized. It is a compilation of effective Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) databases and Letters of Map Change (LOMCs). The NFHL is updated as studies go effective. For more information, visit FEMA's Map Service Center (MSC).