Vector polygon map data of property parcels from Fresno County, California containing 202,076 features.

Property parcel GIS map data consists of detailed information about individual land parcels, including their boundaries, ownership details, and geographic coordinates.

Property parcel data can be used to analyze and visualize land-related information for purposes such as real estate assessment, urban planning, or environmental management.

Available for viewing and sharing as a map in a Koordinates map viewer. This data is also available for export to DWG for CAD, PDF, KML, CSV, and GIS data formats, including Shapefile, MapInfo, and Geodatabase.

Vector polygon map data of city limits from Fresno, California containing 1 feature.

City limits GIS (Geographic Information System) data provides valuable information about the boundaries of a city, which is crucial for various planning and decision-making processes. Urban planners and government officials use this data to understand the extent of their jurisdiction and to make informed decisions regarding zoning, land use, and infrastructure development within the city limits.

By overlaying city limits GIS data with other layers such as population density, land parcels, and environmental features, planners can analyze spatial patterns and identify areas for growth, conservation, or redevelopment. This data also aids in emergency management by defining the areas of responsibility for different emergency services, helping to streamline response efforts during crises..

This city limits data is available for viewing and sharing as a map in a Koordinates map viewer. This data is also available for export to DWG for CAD, PDF, KML, CSV, and GIS data formats, including Shapefile, MapInfo, and Geodatabase.

This map feeds into a web app that allows a user to examine the known status of structures damaged by the wildfire. If a structure point does not appear on the map it may still have been impacted by the fire. Specific addresses can be searched for in the search bar. Use the imagery and topographic basemaps and photos to positively identify a structure. Photos may only be available for damaged and destroyed structures.For more information about the wildfire response efforts, visit the CAL FIRE incident page.

The 1986 Fresno County land use survey data set was developed by DWR through its Division of Planning and Local Assistance (DPLA). The data was gathered using aerial photography and extensive field visits, the land use boundaries and attributes were digitized, and the resultant data went through standard quality control procedures before finalizing. The land uses that were gathered were detailed agricultural land uses, and lesser detailed urban and native vegetation land uses. The data was gathered and digitized by staff of DWR’s San Joaquin District. Quality control procedures were performed jointly by staff at DWR’s DPLA headquarters and San Joaquin District. Important Points about Using this Data Set: 1. The land use boundaries were hand drawn directly on USGS quad maps and then digitized. They were drawn to depict observable areas of the same land use. They were not drawn to represent legal parcel (ownership) boundaries, or meant to be used as parcel boundaries. 2. This survey was a "snapshot" in time. The indicated land use attributes of each delineated area (polygon) were based upon what the surveyor saw in the field at that time, and, to an extent possible, whatever additional information the aerial photography might provide. For example, the surveyor might have seen a cropped field in the photograph, and the field visit showed a field of corn, so the field was given a corn attribute. In another field, the photograph might have shown a crop that was golden in color (indicating grain prior to harvest), and the field visit showed newly planted corn. This field would be given an attribute showing a double crop, grain followed by corn. The DWR land use attribute structure allows for up to three crops per delineated area (polygon). In the cases where there were crops grown before the survey took place, the surveyor may or may not have been able to detect them from the field or the photographs. For crops planted after the survey date, the surveyor could not account for these crops. Thus, although the data is very accurate for that point in time, it may not be an accurate determination of what was grown in the fields for the whole year. If the area being surveyed does have double or multicropping systems, it is likely that there are more crops grown than could be surveyed with a "snapshot". 3. If the data is to be brought into a GIS for analysis of cropped (or planted) acreage, two things must be understood: a. The acreage of each field delineated is the gross area of the field. The amount of actual planted and irrigated acreage will always be less than the gross acreage, because of ditches, farm roads, other roads, farmsteads, etc. Thus, a delineated corn field may have a GIS calculated acreage of 40 acres but will have a smaller cropped (or net) acreage, maybe 38 acres. b. Double and multicropping must be taken into account. A delineated field of 40 acres might have been cropped first with grain, then with corn, and coded as such. To estimate actual cropped acres, the two crops are added together (38 acres of grain and 38 acres of corn) which results in a total of 76 acres of net crop (or planted) acres. 4. Water source and irrigation method information was not collected for this survey. 5. During the transfer of data from the INTERGRAPH system to the AUTOCAD system, some attributes were lost. For those polygons that were attributed with either “D” (double cropped) or “I” (intercropped), the second crop has asterisks in the two fields “IRR_TYP2PA” (irrigated or non-irrigated) and “IRR_TYP2PB” (type of irrigation system). There should have been either and “i” or “n” in the “IRR_TYP2PA” field, and a “U” or “*” in the “IRR_TYP2PB” field. 6. Not all land use codes will be represented in the survey.The associated data are considered DWR enterprise GIS data, which meet all appropriate requirements of the DWR Spatial Data Standards, specifically the DWR Spatial Data Standard version 3.3, dated April 13, 2022. DWR makes no warranties or guarantees - either expressed or implied - as to the completeness, accuracy, or correctness of the data. DWR neither accepts nor assumes liability arising from or for any incorrect, incomplete, or misleading subject data. See the CADWR Land User Viewer (gis.water.ca.gov/app/CADWRLandUseViewer) for the most current contact information. Comments, problems, improvements, updates, or suggestions should be forwarded to gis@water.ca.gov.

The 2000 Fresno County land use survey data set was developed by DWR through its Division of Planning and Local Assistance (DPLA). The data was gathered using aerial photography and extensive field visits, the land use boundaries and attributes were digitized, and the resultant data went through standard quality control procedures before finalizing. The land uses that were gathered were detailed agricultural land uses, and lesser detailed urban and native vegetation land uses. The data was gathered and digitized by staff of DWR’s San Joaquin District. Quality control procedures were performed jointly by staff at DWR’s DPLA headquarters and San Joaquin District. The finalized data include a shapefile of central and western Fresno County (land use vector data) and JPG files (raster data from aerial imagery). Important Points about Using this Data Set: 1. The land use boundaries were either drawn on-screen using developed photoquads, or hand drawn directly on USGS quad maps and then digitized. They were drawn to depict observable areas of the same land use. They were not drawn to represent legal parcel (ownership) boundaries, or meant to be used as parcel boundaries. 2. This survey was a "snapshot" in time. The indicated land use attributes of each delineated area (polygon) were based upon what the surveyor saw in the field at that time, and, to the extent possible, whatever additional information the aerial photography might provide. For example, the surveyor might have seen a cropped field in the photograph, and the field visit showed a field of corn, so the field was given a corn attribute. In another field, the photograph might have shown a crop that was golden in color (indicating grain prior to harvest), and the field visit showed newly planted corn. This field would be given an attribute showing a double crop, grain followed by corn. The DWR land use attribute structure allows for up to three crops per delineated area (polygon). In the cases where there were crops grown before the survey took place, the surveyor may or may not have been able to detect them from the field or the photographs. For crops planted after the survey date, the surveyor could not account for these crops. Thus, although the data is very accurate for that point in time, it may not be an accurate determination of what was grown in the fields for the whole year. If the area being surveyed does have double or multicropping systems, it is likely that there are more crops grown than could be surveyed with a "snapshot". 3. If the data is to be brought into a GIS for analysis of cropped (or planted) acreage, two things must be understood: a. The acreage of each field delineated is the gross area of the field. The amount of actual planted and irrigated acreage will always be less than the gross acreage, because of ditches, farm roads, other roads, farmsteads, etc. Thus, a delineated corn field may have a GIS calculated acreage of 40 acres but will have a smaller cropped (or net) acreage, maybe 38 acres. b. Double and multicropping must be taken into account. A delineated field of 40 acres might have been cropped first with grain, then with corn, and coded as such. To estimate actual cropped acres, the two crops are added together (38 acres of grain and 38 acres of corn) which results in a total of 76 acres of net crop (or planted) acres. 4. If the data is compared to the previous digital survey (i.e. the two coverages intersected for change detection determination) there will be land use changes that may be unexpected. The linework was created independently, so even if a field’s physical boundary hasn’t changed between surveys, the lines may differ due to difference in digitizing. Numerous thin polygons (with very little area) will result. A result could be UV1 (paved roads) to F1 (cotton). In reality, paved roads are not converted to cotton fields, but these small polygons would be created due to the differences in digitizing the linework for each survey. Additionally, this kind of comparison may yield polygons of significant size with unexpected changes. These changes will almost always involve non-cropped land, mainly U (urban), UR1 (single family homes on 1 – 5 acres), UV (urban vacant), NV (native vegetation), and I1 (land not cropped that year, but cropped within the past three years). The unexpected results (such as U to NV, or UR1 to NV) occur mainly because of interpretation of those non-cropped land uses with aerial imagery. Newer surveys or well funded surveys have had the advantage of using improved quality (higher resolution) imagery or additional labor, where more accurate identification of land use is possible, and more accurate linework is created. For example, an older survey may have a large polygon identified as UR, where the actual land use was a mixture of houses and vacant land. A newer survey may have, for that same area, delineated separately those land uses into smaller polygons. The result of an intersection would include changes from UR to UV (which is normally an unlikely change). It is important to understand that the main purpose of DWR performing land use surveys is to aid in development of agricultural water use data. Thus, given our goals and budget, our emphasis is on obtaining accurate agricultural land uses with less emphasis on obtaining accurate non-agricultural land uses (urban and native areas). 5. Water source information was not collected for this survey. 6. Not all land use codes will be represented in the survey.

This geodatabase includes the boundaries of the California Natural Resource Agency’s State Conservancies. The collection of the State Conservancies boundaries was initiated in January 2012 by the Sierra Nevada Conservancy, and the geodatabase was updated in 2022 to include Sierra Nevada Conservancy boundary expansion. The geodatabase was constructed from GIS data requested from each of the State Conservancies. The following documentation describes the contacts who provided data, and where available, the type of spatial information provided. Baldwin Hills Conservancy: A shapefile of the Baldwin Hills Conservancy boundary was requested and received from Amanda Recinos, amanda@greeninfo.org, of GreenInfo Network on behalf of the Executive Officer of the Baldwin Hills Conservancy, David McNeill, on 10 January 2012. This boundary has not been modified from the original boundary provided. California State Coastal Conservancy: The California State Coastal Conservancy was updated by San Jenniches, sjenniches@scc.ca.gov, of the Coastal Conservancy in Fiscal Year 2014-2015. The SNC did not receive the boundary directly from the Coastal Conservancy; the feature class was provided by Nickolas Perez, Nickolas.Perez@water.ca.gov, of the California Natural Resources Agency to the SNC on 30 April 2015. Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy: A shapefile of the Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy boundary was requested and received fromKerrie Godrey, kgodfrey@cvmc.ca.gov, of the Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy on 10 January 2012. This boundary has not been modified from the original boundary provided. Delta Conservancy: A shapefile of the legal Delta and Suisun Marsh boundaries were provided by Elisa Sabatina with the Delta Conservancy, Elisa.Sabatini@deltaconservancy.ca.gov, on 10 January 2012. This boundary has not been modified from the original boundary provided. Rivers and Mountains Conservancy (San Gabriel/Lower LA): A shapefile of the Rivers and Mountains Conservancy was provided by Luz Torres, ltorres@rmc.ca.gov, of the Rivers and Mountains Conservancy on 10 January 2012. This boundary has not been modified from the original boundary provided. San Diego River Conservancy: Michael Nelson, mnelson@sdrc.ca.gov, the Executive Officer of the San Diego River Conservancy reported via email on 11 January 2012 that no prior GIS boundary existed for the Conservancy. Mr. Nelson provided written consent to the SNC, via an email dated 11 January 2012, to develop the San Diego River Conservancy GIS boundary from a PDF document supplied by Mr. Nelson that showed the general location of the San Diego River Conservancy’s boundary as occupying a one half mile buffer from the San Diego River. This boundary has not been modified from the original boundary provided. San Joaquin River Conservancy: The San Joaquin River Conservancy boundary was created from using both the legislation description of the boundary and a pdf version of the San Joaquin River Conservancy boundary provided by Marile Colindres, marile.colindres@sjrc.ca.gov, of the San Joaquin Conservancy on 24 February 2012. This boundary has not been modified from the since the creation of the boundary from the legal description in 2012. Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy: The SNC was not able to acquire GIS data from the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy staff; therefore, the SNC created a boundary to represent the Santa Moninca Mountains Conservancy by using the description of the Conservancy from their website. Specifically, the SNC used the text from their website to select watersheds for GIS boundary: “the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy zone covers an area from the edge of the Mojave Desert to the Pacific Ocean. The zone encompasses the whole of the Santa Monica Mountains, the Simi Hills, the Verdugo Mountains and significant portions of the Santa Susana and San Gabriel Mountains. In addition, the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority also owns or manages thousands of acres in the Sierra Pelona Mountains and in the Whittier-Puente Hills. From north to south, these areas drain into the Santa Clara River, Calleguas Creek, numerous smaller coastal watersheds in the Santa Monica Mountains, and the Los Angeles River and Rio Hondo.The Sierra Nevada Conservancy (SNC) boundary was mapped to correspond with statute AB 2600 (2004) and as re-defined in SB 208 (2022). Work on the boundary was completed by CalFire, GreenInfo Network, and the California Department of Fish and Game. Meets and bounds description of the area as defined in statute: PRC Section 33302 (f) defines the Sierra Nevada Region as the area lying within the Counties of Alpine, Amador, Butte, Calaveras, El Dorado, Fresno, Inyo, Kern, Lassen, Madera, Mariposa, Modoc, Mono, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou, Tehama, Trinity, Tulare, Tuolumne, and Yuba, described as the area bounded as follows: On the east by the eastern boundary of the State of California; the crest of the White/Inyo ranges; and State Routes 395 and 14 south of Olancha; on the south by State Route 58, Tehachapi Creek, and Caliente Creek; on the west by the line of 1,250 feet above sea level from Caliente Creek to the Kern/Tulare County line; the lower level of the western slope’s blue oak woodland, from the Kern/Tulare County line to the Sacramento River near the mouth of Seven-Mile Creek north of Red Bluff; the Sacramento River from Seven-Mile Creek north to Cow Creek below Redding; Cow Creek, Little Cow Creek, Dry Creek, and up to the southern boundary of the Pit River watershed where Bear Creek Mountain Road and Dry Creek Road intersect; the southern boundary of the Pit River watershed; the western boundary of the upper Trinity watershed in the County of Trinity; on the north by the boundary of the upper Trinity watershed in the County of Trinity and the upper Sacramento, McCloud, and Pit River watersheds in the County of Siskiyou; and within the County of Modoc, the easterly boundary of the Klamath River watershed; and on the north in the County of Modoc by the northern boundary of the State of California; excluding both of the following: (1) The Lake Tahoe Region, as described in Section 6605.5 of the Government Code, where it is defined as "region" (2) The San Joaquin River Parkway, as described in Section 32510. According to GreenInfo Network and the California Department of Fish and Game, the blue oak woodland used to define a portion of the Sierra Nevada Conservancy's western boundary was delineated using referenced vegetation and imagery data.The Tahoe Conservancy boundary was created by using the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) boundary received from the Tahoe Conservancy staff and clipping the TRPA boundary to the State of California boundary, using the Teale Albers projection. The TRPA boundary was received by the SNC from the Tahoe Conservancy staff in 2011, and the Tahoe Conservancy boundary was created by the SNC in 2012. Notes:Some conservancy boundaries overlap.