This dataset was updated May, 2025.This ownership dataset was generated primarily from CPAD data, which already tracks the majority of ownership information in California. CPAD is utilized without any snapping or clipping to FRA/SRA/LRA. CPAD has some important data gaps, so additional data sources are used to supplement the CPAD data. Currently this includes the most currently available data from BIA, DOD, and FWS. Additional sources may be added in subsequent versions. Decision rules were developed to identify priority layers in areas of overlap.Starting in 2022, the ownership dataset was compiled using a new methodology. Previous versions attempted to match federal ownership boundaries to the FRA footprint, and used a manual process for checking and tracking Federal ownership changes within the FRA, with CPAD ownership information only being used for SRA and LRA lands. The manual portion of that process was proving difficult to maintain, and the new method (described below) was developed in order to decrease the manual workload, and increase accountability by using an automated process by which any final ownership designation could be traced back to a specific dataset.The current process for compiling the data sources includes:* Clipping input datasets to the California boundary* Filtering the FWS data on the Primary Interest field to exclude lands that are managed by but not owned by FWS (ex: Leases, Easements, etc)* Supplementing the BIA Pacific Region Surface Trust lands data with the Western Region portion of the LAR dataset which extends into California.* Filtering the BIA data on the Trust Status field to exclude areas that represent mineral rights only.* Filtering the CPAD data on the Ownership Level field to exclude areas that are Privately owned (ex: HOAs)* In the case of overlap, sources were prioritized as follows: FWS > BIA > CPAD > DOD* As an exception to the above, DOD lands on FRA which overlapped with CPAD lands that were incorrectly coded as non-Federal were treated as an override, such that the DOD designation could win out over CPAD.In addition to this ownership dataset, a supplemental _source dataset is available which designates the source that was used to determine the ownership in this dataset. Data Sources:* GreenInfo Network's California Protected Areas Database (CPAD2023a). https://www.calands.org/cpad/; https://www.calands.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/CPAD-2023a-Database-Manual.pdf* US Fish and Wildlife Service FWSInterest dataset (updated December, 2023). https://gis-fws.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/9c49bd03b8dc4b9188a8c84062792cff_0/explore* Department of Defense Military Bases dataset (updated September 2023) https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/military-bases* Bureau of Indian Affairs, Pacific Region, Surface Trust and Pacific Region Office (PRO) land boundaries data (2023) via John Mosley John.Mosley@bia.gov* Bureau of Indian Affairs, Land Area Representations (LAR) and BIA Regions datasets (updated Oct 2019) https://biamaps.doi.gov/bogs/datadownload.html Data Gaps & Changes:Known gaps include several BOR, ACE and Navy lands which were not included in CPAD nor the DOD MIRTA dataset. Our hope for future versions is to refine the process by pulling in additional data sources to fill in some of those data gaps. Additionally, any feedback received about missing or inaccurate data can be taken back to the appropriate source data where appropriate, so fixes can occur in the source data, instead of just in this dataset.25_1: The CPAD Input dataset was amended to merge large gaps in certain areas of the state known to be erroneous, such as Yosemite National Park, and to eliminate overlaps from the original input. The FWS input dataset was updated in February of 2025, and the DOD input dataset was updated in October of 2024. The BIA input dataset was the same as was used for the previous ownership version.24_1: Input datasets this year included numerous changes since the previous version, particularly the CPAD and DOD inputs. Of particular note was the re-addition of Camp Pendleton to the DOD input dataset, which is reflected in this version of the ownership dataset. We were unable to obtain an updated input for tribral data, so the previous inputs was used for this version.23_1: A few discrepancies were discovered between data changes that occurred in CPAD when compared with parcel data. These issues will be taken to CPAD for clarification for future updates, but for ownership23_1 it reflects the data as it was coded in CPAD at the time. In addition, there was a change in the DOD input data between last year and this year, with the removal of Camp Pendleton. An inquiry was sent for clarification on this change, but for ownership23_1 it reflects the data per the DOD input dataset.22_1 : represents an initial version of ownership with a new methodology which was developed under a short timeframe. A comparison with previous versions of ownership highlighted the some data gaps with the current version. Some of these known gaps include several BOR, ACE and Navy lands which were not included in CPAD nor the DOD MIRTA dataset. Our hope for future versions is to refine the process by pulling in additional data sources to fill in some of those data gaps. In addition, any topological errors (like overlaps or gaps) that exist in the input datasets may thus carry over to the ownership dataset. Ideally, any feedback received about missing or inaccurate data can be taken back to the relevant source data where appropriate, so fixes can occur in the source data, instead of just in this dataset.
This map shows the breakdown of parcel ownership in Weld County by surface owner. The parcels that are 40 acres and larger are labeled with the owner name, the parcels that are between 10 acres and 40 acres are labeled with a number that corresponds to the owner name index and everything smaller than 10 acres is too small to label.
OSA web map to view State of Colorado property data
To access the tax lot layer you will need to contact the county Assessor's office. ORMAP is a statewide digital cadastral base map that is publicly accessible, continually maintained, supports the Oregon property tax system, supports a multi-purpose land information system, strives to comply with appropriate state and national standards, and will continue to be improved over time.
[Metadata] Description: Detailed Government Landownership in the State of Hawaii as of 2022: County, Federal, State, and State DHHL Lands (by TMK parcel) Sources: County of Kauai, April, 2022; City & County of Honolulu, April 27, 2022; County of Maui, April, 2022; County of Hawaii, April, 2022; State Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, October, 2022. This dataset was created using ownership information provided by the counties via tax map key parcel layers and ownership tables. Parcels were queried using the "Owner" field for state, county, and federal agency names. State GIS staff verified land ownership using the online service QPublic, the 2022 Department of Hawaiian Home Lands layer and other GIS layers and resources. Where ownership was still unclear, State GIS personnel reached out to appropriate agencies for clarification. Standardization and Summary fields "ownedby," “majorowner” and “type” were created using additional filters and queries. The parcel boundaries are intended to provide a visual reference only and do not represent legal or survey level accuracy. Attributes are for assessment purposes only and are subject to change at any time.For additional information, please refer to metadata at https://files.hawaii.gov/dbedt/op/gis/data/gov_own_detailed.pdf or contact the Hawaii Statewide GIS Program, Office of Planning and Sustainable Development, State of Hawaii; PO Box 2359, Honolulu, Hi. 96804; (808) 587-2846; email: gis@hawaii.gov; Website: https://planning.hawaii.gov/gis.
This Image Service of Maryland Property Data allows for the manipulation of the display properties of the Statewide Tax Maps dataset. This is a MD iMAP hosted service. Find more information at https://imap.maryland.gov.Image Service Link: https://mdgeodata.md.gov/imap/rest/services/PlanningCadastre/MD_PropertyData/ImageServer
Parcels and Land Ownership dataset current as of 2010. Parcel map was generated based on DeKalb County street centerline, ROW from DeKalb tax map, building structure and DeKalb tax map..
A Web Map displaying the property ownership boundaries within Natrona County, as well as the municipal boundaries, addresses, Improvement Service District boundaries, streets, roads, Township, Range, and Section Boundaries and zoning boundaries.
These parcel boundaries represent legal descriptions of property ownership, as recorded in various public documents in the local jurisdiction. The boundaries are intended for cartographic use and spatial analysis only, and not for use as legal descriptions or property surveys. Tax parcel boundaries have not been edge-matched across municipal boundaries.
Composite map of Future Land Use. This is a pdf document.
Parcels and Land Ownership dataset current as of unknown. This data set consists of digital map files containing parcel-level cadastral information obtained from property descriptions. Cadastral features contained in the data set include real property boundary lines, rights-of-way boundaries, property dimensions.
For large areas, like Washington State, download as a file geodatabase. Large data sets like this one, for the State of Washington, may exceed the limits for downloading as shape files, excel files, or KML files. For areas less than a county, you may use the map to zoom to your area and download as shape file, excel or KML, if that format is desired.The Boundary layer consists of lines representing the boundaries of Parcels and Legal Descriptions. (See the metadata for those two layers.) Boundary lines are the places that are surveyed in order to delimit the extent of Parcels and Legal Descriptions. The character and accuracy of Boundary locations is held in the attributes of the Points that are at the ends of Boundary lines. All the boundaries of Parcels and Legal Descriptions are covered by a Boundary line. Currently the Boundary layer has little functionality. The only distinction it makes is between upland boundaries and shorelines. In the future Boundary lines will have a richer set of attributes in order to accommodate cartographic needs to distinguish between types of boundaries.WA Boundaries Metadata
Extensive land use and geographic data at the tax lot level in GIS format (ESRI Shapefile). Contains more than seventy fields derived from data maintained by city agencies, merged with tax lot features from the Department of Finance’s Digital Tax Map, clipped to the shoreline. All previously released versions of this data are available at BYTES of the BIG APPLE- Archive
This dataset (2020-2023) is a compilation of the Land Use/Land Cover datasets created by the 5 Water Management Districts in Florida based on imagery -- Northwest Florida Water Management District (NWFWMD) 2022.Bay (1/4/2022 – 3/24/2022), Calhoun (1/7/2022 – 1/18/2022), Escambia (11/13/2021 – 1/15/2021), Franklin (1/7/2022 – 1/18/2022), Gadsden (1/7/2022 – 1/16/2022), Gulf (1/7/2022 – 1/14/2022), Holmes (1/8/2022 – 1/18/2022), Jackson (1/7/2022 – 1/14/2022), Jefferson (1/7/2022 – 2/16/2022), Leon (February 2022), Liberty (1/7/2022 – 1/16/2022), Okaloosa (10/31/2021 – 2/13/2022), Santa Rosa (10/26/2021-1/17/2022), Wakulla (1/7/2022 – 1/14/2022), Walton (1/7/2022-1/14/2022), Washington (1/13/2022 – 1/19/2022).Suwannee River Water Management District (SRWMD) 2022-2023.(Alachua (12/27/2022-12/28/2022, Baker (1/6/2023-1/15/2023), Bradford (11/9/2021-11/16/2021), Columbia (12/17/2021-1/29/2022), Gilchrist (12/17/2021-1/29/2022), Levy (12/17/2021-1/29/2022), Suwannee (12/17/2021-1/29/2022), Union (11/9/2021-11/9/2021).(Dixie 12/17/2021-01/29/2022), (Hamilton 12/17/2021-01/29/2022), (Jefferson 01/07/2022-02/16/2022), (Lafayette 12/17/2021-01/29/2022), (Madison 12/17/2021-01/29/2022), (Taylor 12/17/2021-01/29/2022).Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) 2023. South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) 2021-2023.St. John's River Water Management District (SJRWMD) 2020.Year Flight Season Counties:2020 (Dec. 2019 - Mar 2020) Alachua, Baker, Clay, Flagler, Lake, Marion, Osceola, Polk, Putnam.2021 (Dec. 2020 - Mar 2021) Brevard, Indian River, Nassau, Okeechobee, Orange, St. Johns, Seminole, Volusia. 2022 (Dec. 2021 - Mar 2022) Bradford, Union. Codes are derived from the Florida Land Use, Cover, and Forms Classification System (FLUCCS-DOT 1999) but may have been altered to accommodate region differences by each of the Water Management Districts.
**Suggested to use 'Download' button instead of 'Open in ArcGIS Pro'The REST service page displays all data provided in this layer package: https://arcgis.dnr.alaska.gov/arcgis/rest/services/Mapper/Ownership_Layers/MapServer
Vector polygon map data of property parcels from Harris County, Texas containing 1,410,276 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 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.
The statewide dataset contains a combination of land cover mapping from 2016 aerial imagery and land use derived from standardized assessor parcel information for Massachusetts. The data layer is the result of a cooperative project between MassGIS and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Office of Coastal Management (OCM). Funding was provided by the Mass. Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs.
This land cover/land use dataset does not conform to the classification schemes or polygon delineation of previous land use data from MassGIS (1951-1999; 2005).In this map service layer hosted at MassGIS' ArcGIS Server, all impervious polygons are symbolized by their generalized use code; all non-impervious land cover polygons are symbolized by their land cover category. The idea behind this method is to use both cover and use codes to provide a truer picture of how land is being used: parcel use codes may indicate allowed or assessed, not actual use; land cover alone (especially impervious) does not indicate actual use.
See the full datalayer description for more details.This map service is best displayed at large (zoomed in) scales. Also available are a Feature Service and a Tile Service (cache). The tile cache will display very quickly in in ArcGIS Online, ArcGIS Desktop, and other applications that can consume tile services.
Publication Date: April 2025 2024 Parcel Data. Updated annually, or as needed. The data can be downloaded here: https://gis.ny.gov/parcels#data-download. This feature service has two layers: 1) NYS Tax Parcels Public, and 2) NYS Tax Parcels Public Footprint which contains polygons representing counties for which tax parcel polygons are available in the NYS Tax Parcels Public layer. County footprint polygons display when zoomed out beyond 1:37,050-scale. Tax parcel polygons display when zoomed in below 1:37,051-scale. The NYS Tax Parcels Public layer contains 2024 parcel data only for NY State counties which gave NYS ITS Geospatial Services permission to share this data with the public. Work to obtain parcel data from additional counties, as well as permission to share the data, is ongoing. To date, 36 counties have provided Geospatial Services permission to share their parcel data with the public. Parcel data for counties which do not allow Geospatial Services to redistribute their data must be obtained directly from those counties. Geospatial Services' goal is to eventually include parcel data for all counties in New York State. Parcel geometry was incorporated as received from County Real Property Departments. No attempt was made to edge-match parcels along adjacent counties. County attribute values were populated using 2024 Assessment Roll tabular data the NYS ITS Geospatial Services obtained from the NYS Department of Tax and Finance’s Office of Real Property Tax Services (ORPTS). Tabular assessment data was joined to the county provided parcel geometry using the SWIS & SBL or SWIS & PRINT KEY unique identifier for each parcel. Detailed information about assessment attributes can be found in the ORPTS Assessor’s Manuals available here: https://www.tax.ny.gov/research/property/assess/manuals/assersmanual.htm. New York City data comes from NYC MapPluto which can be found here: https://www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/data-maps/open-data/dwn-pluto-mappluto.page. Thanks to the following counties that specifically authorized Geospatial Services to share their GIS tax parcel data with the public: Albany, Cayuga, Chautauqua, Cortland, Erie, Genesee, Greene, Hamilton, Lewis, Livingston, Montgomery, NYC- Bronx, NYC- Kings (Brooklyn), NYC- New York (Manhattan), NYC- Queens, NYC- Richmond (Staten Island), Oneida, Onondaga, Ontario, Orange, Oswego, Otsego, Putnam, Rensselaer, Rockland, Schuyler, St Lawrence, Steuben, Suffolk, Sullivan, Tioga, Tompkins, Ulster, Warren, Wayne, and Westchester. Geometry accuracy varies by contributing county. This map service is available to the public. The State of New York, acting through the New York State Office of Information Technology Services, makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, with respect to the use of or reliance on the Data provided. The User accepts the Data provided “as is” with no guarantees that it is error free, complete, accurate, current or fit for any particular purpose and assumes all risks associated with its use. The State disclaims any responsibility or legal liability to Users for damages of any kind, relating to the providing of the Data or the use of it. Users should be aware that temporal changes may have occurred since this Data was created.
Minnesota's original public land survey plat maps were created between 1848 and 1907 during the first government land survey of the state by the U.S. Surveyor General's Office. This collection of more than 3,600 maps includes later General Land Office (GLO) and Bureau of Land Management maps up through 2001. Scanned images of the maps are available in several digital formats and most have been georeferenced.
The survey plat maps, and the accompanying survey field notes, serve as the fundamental legal records for real estate in Minnesota; all property titles and descriptions stem from them. They also are an essential resource for surveyors and provide a record of the state's physical geography prior to European settlement. Finally, they testify to many years of hard work by the surveying community, often under very challenging conditions.
The deteriorating physical condition of the older maps (drawn on paper, linen, and other similar materials) and the need to provide wider public access to the maps, made handling the original records increasingly impractical. To meet this challenge, the Office of the Secretary of State (SOS), the State Archives of the Minnesota Historical Society (MHS), the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), MnGeo and the Minnesota Association of County Surveyors collaborated in a digitization project which produced high quality (800 dpi), 24-bit color images of the maps in standard TIFF, JPEG and PDF formats - nearly 1.5 terabytes of data. Funding was provided by MnDOT.
In 2010-11, most of the JPEG plat map images were georeferenced. The intent was to locate the plat images to coincide with statewide geographic data without appreciably altering (warping) the image. This increases the value of the images in mapping software where they can be used as a background layer.
Parcels and Land Ownership dataset current as of 2010. GIS version of municipal tax maps.
This dataset was updated May, 2025.This ownership dataset was generated primarily from CPAD data, which already tracks the majority of ownership information in California. CPAD is utilized without any snapping or clipping to FRA/SRA/LRA. CPAD has some important data gaps, so additional data sources are used to supplement the CPAD data. Currently this includes the most currently available data from BIA, DOD, and FWS. Additional sources may be added in subsequent versions. Decision rules were developed to identify priority layers in areas of overlap.Starting in 2022, the ownership dataset was compiled using a new methodology. Previous versions attempted to match federal ownership boundaries to the FRA footprint, and used a manual process for checking and tracking Federal ownership changes within the FRA, with CPAD ownership information only being used for SRA and LRA lands. The manual portion of that process was proving difficult to maintain, and the new method (described below) was developed in order to decrease the manual workload, and increase accountability by using an automated process by which any final ownership designation could be traced back to a specific dataset.The current process for compiling the data sources includes:* Clipping input datasets to the California boundary* Filtering the FWS data on the Primary Interest field to exclude lands that are managed by but not owned by FWS (ex: Leases, Easements, etc)* Supplementing the BIA Pacific Region Surface Trust lands data with the Western Region portion of the LAR dataset which extends into California.* Filtering the BIA data on the Trust Status field to exclude areas that represent mineral rights only.* Filtering the CPAD data on the Ownership Level field to exclude areas that are Privately owned (ex: HOAs)* In the case of overlap, sources were prioritized as follows: FWS > BIA > CPAD > DOD* As an exception to the above, DOD lands on FRA which overlapped with CPAD lands that were incorrectly coded as non-Federal were treated as an override, such that the DOD designation could win out over CPAD.In addition to this ownership dataset, a supplemental _source dataset is available which designates the source that was used to determine the ownership in this dataset. Data Sources:* GreenInfo Network's California Protected Areas Database (CPAD2023a). https://www.calands.org/cpad/; https://www.calands.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/CPAD-2023a-Database-Manual.pdf* US Fish and Wildlife Service FWSInterest dataset (updated December, 2023). https://gis-fws.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/9c49bd03b8dc4b9188a8c84062792cff_0/explore* Department of Defense Military Bases dataset (updated September 2023) https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/military-bases* Bureau of Indian Affairs, Pacific Region, Surface Trust and Pacific Region Office (PRO) land boundaries data (2023) via John Mosley John.Mosley@bia.gov* Bureau of Indian Affairs, Land Area Representations (LAR) and BIA Regions datasets (updated Oct 2019) https://biamaps.doi.gov/bogs/datadownload.html Data Gaps & Changes:Known gaps include several BOR, ACE and Navy lands which were not included in CPAD nor the DOD MIRTA dataset. Our hope for future versions is to refine the process by pulling in additional data sources to fill in some of those data gaps. Additionally, any feedback received about missing or inaccurate data can be taken back to the appropriate source data where appropriate, so fixes can occur in the source data, instead of just in this dataset.25_1: The CPAD Input dataset was amended to merge large gaps in certain areas of the state known to be erroneous, such as Yosemite National Park, and to eliminate overlaps from the original input. The FWS input dataset was updated in February of 2025, and the DOD input dataset was updated in October of 2024. The BIA input dataset was the same as was used for the previous ownership version.24_1: Input datasets this year included numerous changes since the previous version, particularly the CPAD and DOD inputs. Of particular note was the re-addition of Camp Pendleton to the DOD input dataset, which is reflected in this version of the ownership dataset. We were unable to obtain an updated input for tribral data, so the previous inputs was used for this version.23_1: A few discrepancies were discovered between data changes that occurred in CPAD when compared with parcel data. These issues will be taken to CPAD for clarification for future updates, but for ownership23_1 it reflects the data as it was coded in CPAD at the time. In addition, there was a change in the DOD input data between last year and this year, with the removal of Camp Pendleton. An inquiry was sent for clarification on this change, but for ownership23_1 it reflects the data per the DOD input dataset.22_1 : represents an initial version of ownership with a new methodology which was developed under a short timeframe. A comparison with previous versions of ownership highlighted the some data gaps with the current version. Some of these known gaps include several BOR, ACE and Navy lands which were not included in CPAD nor the DOD MIRTA dataset. Our hope for future versions is to refine the process by pulling in additional data sources to fill in some of those data gaps. In addition, any topological errors (like overlaps or gaps) that exist in the input datasets may thus carry over to the ownership dataset. Ideally, any feedback received about missing or inaccurate data can be taken back to the relevant source data where appropriate, so fixes can occur in the source data, instead of just in this dataset.