Facebook
TwitterCC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedicationhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
License information was derived automatically
This ownership dataset utilizes a methodology that results in a federal ownership extent that matches the Federal Responsibility Areas (FRA) footprint from CAL FIRE's State Responsibility Areas for Fire Protection (SRA) data. FRA lands are snapped to county parcel data, thus federal ownership areas will also be snapped. Since SRA Fees were first implemented in 2011, CAL FIRE has devoted significant resources to improve the quality of SRA data. This includes comparing SRA data to data from other federal, state, and local agencies, an annual comparison to county assessor roll files, and a formal SRA review process that includes input from CAL FIRE Units. As a result, FRA lands provide a solid basis as the footprint for federal lands in California (except in the southeastern desert area). The methodology for federal lands involves:
Facebook
TwitterGIS Map view look up parcel information including owner, taxes, market value and more.Important Mailing Label Information:The "Mailing Labels" button is is copy of the Parcels Layer and is intended to be turned OFF on the map, and is there just for the "Public Notification" Widget. This widget obtains information on the pop-up of a selected layer to create "Mailing Labels." This said, this layer contains the Owners Mailing Address information. Below is Arcaded used to customize the pop-up:Made three custom Arcade Lines below: Proper($feature["OWNER_NAM1"]) + Proper($feature["OWNER_NAM2"])Proper($feature["OWNER_ADDR"])Proper($feature["OWNER_CITY"]) + ',' + $feature["OWNER_STAT"] + ',' + $feature["OWNER_ZIP"]Below is the custom pop-up:{expression/expr0}{expression/expr1}{expression/expr2}
Facebook
TwitterThese 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.
Facebook
TwitterWebmap of Allegheny municipalities and parcel data. Zoom for a clickable parcel map with owner name, property photograph, and link to the County Real Estate website for property sales information.
Facebook
TwitterThis dataset is designed to represent and identify the property boundaries in Lexington-Fayette County. The original dataset was created in late 1990's by a third party that converted existing paper maps to digital GIS files. The data has since been updated by georeferencing recorded plats for corrections and new additions. In cases where the plats do not appear accurate, aerial photos are utilized in attempt to properly locate the property lines. The only except for this process are changes to highway right-of-way in which calls are run from deeds. The geometry of this data is not of survey quality and should not be used for survey purposes. The data is intended for general reference purposes only.As part of the basemap data layers, the parcel boundary map layer is an integral part of the Lexington Fayette-Urban County Government Geographic Information System. Basemap data layers are accessed by personnel in most LFUCG divisions for basic applications such as viewing, querying, and map output production. More advanced user applications may focus on thematic mapping, summarization of data by geography, or planning purposes (including defining boundaries, managing assets and facilities, integrating attribute databases with geographic features, spatial analysis, and presentation output).
Facebook
TwitterA web map used to visualize available digital parcel data for Organized Towns and Unorganized Territories throughout the state of Maine. Individual towns submit parcel data on a voluntary basis; the data are compiled by the Maine Office of GIS for dissemination by the Maine GeoLibrary, and where available, the web map also includes assessor data contained in the Parcels_ADB related table.This web map is intended for use within the Maine Geoparcel Viewer Application; it is not intended for use as a standalone web map.Within Maine, real property data is maintained by the government organization responsible for assessing and collecting property tax for a given location. Organized towns and townships maintain authoritative data for their communities and may voluntarily submit these data to the Maine GeoLibrary Parcel Project. Maine Parcels Organized Towns and Maine Parcels Organized Towns ADB are the product of these voluntary submissions. Communities provide updates to the Maine GeoLibrary on a non-regular basis, sometimes many years apart, which affects the currency of Maine GeoLibrary parcels data. Another resource for real property transaction data is the County Registry of Deeds, although organized town data should very closely match registry information, except in the case of in-process property conveyance transactions.
Facebook
TwitterThis 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.
Facebook
TwitterOSA web map to view State of Colorado property data
Facebook
Twitter[Metadata] Description: Detailed Government Landownership in the State of Hawaii as of 2022: County, Federal, State, and State DHHL Lands (by TMK parcel)
Facebook
TwitterVector 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.
Facebook
TwitterParcels and Land Ownership dataset current as of unknown. Tax Parcel Map Index.
Facebook
TwitterDetailed information on individual parcels within Cumberland County, NC, including the City of Fayetteville, the Town of Hope Mills, the Town of Spring Lake, the Town of Eastover, the Town of Falcon, the Town of Godwin, the Town of Linden, the Town of Stedman, and the Town of Wade. Attributes include:Parcel REID (PIN Number): A unique identifier assigned to each parcel for tax purposes.Owner Information: Name and contact details of the property owner(s).Parcel Boundaries: Geospatial data defining the exact boundaries of each parcel.Assessed Value: The assessed value of the land and any improvements for property tax purposes.Land Use: Current land use classification (e.g., residential, commercial, agricultural).Size: Area of the parcel in square feet or acres.Zoning: Zoning classification and any applicable zoning restrictions.Legal Descriptions: Detailed legal description of the parcel boundaries and location.This layer is crucial for tax assessors, urban planners, developers, and other stakeholders who require accurate and up-to-date parcel information for decision-making and operational purposes. It supports a wide range of applications, including property tax assessments, land use planning, infrastructure development, and real estate transactions.More information at https://cumberlandgis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=a6ea68995c2349e9a177366288589be7
Facebook
TwitterParcels 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.
Facebook
TwitterVector polygon map data of property parcels from Allen County, Indiana containing 162,365 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.
Facebook
Twitter
Facebook
TwitterStatewide Property Inventory started in 1989 per legislation 11011.15, to begin a pro-active approach to managing the State’s Real Property assets in a computerized format. Having the information in an electronic format makes it available to top level decision-makers considering options for the best use of these assets. The Statewide Property Inventory is mandated to capture detailed information on the following: land owned and leased by the state, structures owned and leased by the state, property the state leases to the private sector. Statewide Property Inventory was established in 1988 by legislative mandate. Leases were added in 2004 by executive order. Data is updated annually by the agencies. Point of Contact: Any questions should be referred to the SPIWeb@dgs.ca.gov
Facebook
TwitterAttribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
Update information can be found within the layer’s attributes and in a table on the Utah Parcel Data webpage under LIR Parcels.In Spring of 2016, the Land Information Records work group, an informal committee organized by the Governor’s Office of Management and Budget’s State Planning Coordinator, produced recommendations for expanding the sharing of GIS-based parcel information. Participants in the LIR work group included representatives from county, regional, and state government, including the Utah Association of Counties (County Assessors and County Recorders), Wasatch Front Regional Council, Mountainland and Bear River AOGs, Utah League of Cities and Towns, UDOT, DNR, AGRC, the Division of Emergency Management, Blue Stakes, economic developers, and academic researchers. The LIR work group’s recommendations set the stage for voluntary sharing of additional objective/quantitative parcel GIS data, primarily around tax assessment-related information. Specifically the recommendations document establishes objectives, principles (including the role of local and state government), data content items, expected users, and a general process for data aggregation and publishing. An important realization made by the group was that ‘parcel data’ or ‘parcel record’ products have a different meaning to different users and data stewards. The LIR group focused, specifically, on defining a data sharing recommendation around a tax year parcel GIS data product, aligned with the finalization of the property tax roll by County Assessors on May 22nd of each year. The LIR recommendations do not impact the periodic sharing of basic parcel GIS data (boundary, ID, address) from the County Recorders to AGRC per 63F-1-506 (3.b.vi). Both the tax year parcel and the basic parcel GIS layers are designed for general purpose uses, and are not substitutes for researching and obtaining the most current, legal land records information on file in County records. This document, below, proposes a schedule, guidelines, and process for assembling county parcel and assessment data into an annual, statewide tax parcel GIS layer. gis.utah.gov/data/sgid-cadastre/ It is hoped that this new expanded parcel GIS layer will be put to immediate use supporting the best possible outcomes in public safety, economic development, transportation, planning, and the provision of public services. Another aim of the work group was to improve the usability of the data, through development of content guidelines and consistent metadata documentation, and the efficiency with which the data sharing is distributed.GIS Layer Boundary Geometry:GIS Format Data Files: Ideally, Tax Year Parcel data should be provided in a shapefile (please include the .shp, .shx, .dbf, .prj, and .xml component files) or file geodatabase format. An empty shapefile and file geodatabase schema are available for download at:At the request of a county, AGRC will provide technical assistance to counties to extract, transform, and load parcel and assessment information into the GIS layer format.Geographic Coverage: Tax year parcel polygons should cover the area of each county for which assessment information is created and digital parcels are available. Full coverage may not be available yet for each county. The county may provide parcels that have been adjusted to remove gaps and overlaps for administrative tax purposes or parcels that retain these expected discrepancies that take their source from the legally described boundary or the process of digital conversion. The diversity of topological approaches will be noted in the metadata.One Tax Parcel Record Per Unique Tax Notice: Some counties produce an annual tax year parcel GIS layer with one parcel polygon per tax notice. In some cases, adjacent parcel polygons that compose a single taxed property must be merged into a single polygon. This is the goal for the statewide layer but may not be possible in all counties. AGRC will provide technical support to counties, where needed, to merge GIS parcel boundaries into the best format to match with the annual assessment information.Standard Coordinate System: Parcels will be loaded into Utah’s statewide coordinate system, Universal Transverse Mercator coordinates (NAD83, Zone 12 North). However, boundaries stored in other industry standard coordinate systems will be accepted if they are both defined within the data file(s) and documented in the metadata (see below).Descriptive Attributes:Database Field/Column Definitions: The table below indicates the field names and definitions for attributes requested for each Tax Parcel Polygon record.FIELD NAME FIELD TYPE LENGTH DESCRIPTION EXAMPLE SHAPE (expected) Geometry n/a The boundary of an individual parcel or merged parcels that corresponds with a single county tax notice ex. polygon boundary in UTM NAD83 Zone 12 N or other industry standard coordinates including state plane systemsCOUNTY_NAME Text 20 - County name including spaces ex. BOX ELDERCOUNTY_ID (expected) Text 2 - County ID Number ex. Beaver = 1, Box Elder = 2, Cache = 3,..., Weber = 29ASSESSOR_SRC (expected) Text 100 - Website URL, will be to County Assessor in most all cases ex. webercounty.org/assessorBOUNDARY_SRC (expected) Text 100 - Website URL, will be to County Recorder in most all cases ex. webercounty.org/recorderDISCLAIMER (added by State) Text 50 - Disclaimer URL ex. gis.utah.gov...CURRENT_ASOF (expected) Date - Parcels current as of date ex. 01/01/2016PARCEL_ID (expected) Text 50 - County designated Unique ID number for individual parcels ex. 15034520070000PARCEL_ADD (expected, where available) Text 100 - Parcel’s street address location. Usually the address at recordation ex. 810 S 900 E #304 (example for a condo)TAXEXEMPT_TYPE (expected) Text 100 - Primary category of granted tax exemption ex. None, Religious, Government, Agriculture, Conservation Easement, Other Open Space, OtherTAX_DISTRICT (expected, where applicable) Text 10 - The coding the county uses to identify a unique combination of property tax levying entities ex. 17ATOTAL_MKT_VALUE (expected) Decimal - Total market value of parcel's land, structures, and other improvements as determined by the Assessor for the most current tax year ex. 332000LAND _MKT_VALUE (expected) Decimal - The market value of the parcel's land as determined by the Assessor for the most current tax year ex. 80600PARCEL_ACRES (expected) Decimal - Parcel size in acres ex. 20.360PROP_CLASS (expected) Text 100 - Residential, Commercial, Industrial, Mixed, Agricultural, Vacant, Open Space, Other ex. ResidentialPRIMARY_RES (expected) Text 1 - Is the property a primary residence(s): Y'(es), 'N'(o), or 'U'(nknown) ex. YHOUSING_CNT (expected, where applicable) Text 10 - Number of housing units, can be single number or range like '5-10' ex. 1SUBDIV_NAME (optional) Text 100 - Subdivision name if applicable ex. Highland Manor SubdivisionBLDG_SQFT (expected, where applicable) Integer - Square footage of primary bldg(s) ex. 2816BLDG_SQFT_INFO (expected, where applicable) Text 100 - Note for how building square footage is counted by the County ex. Only finished above and below grade areas are counted.FLOORS_CNT (expected, where applicable) Decimal - Number of floors as reported in county records ex. 2FLOORS_INFO (expected, where applicable) Text 100 - Note for how floors are counted by the County ex. Only above grade floors are countedBUILT_YR (expected, where applicable) Short - Estimated year of initial construction of primary buildings ex. 1968EFFBUILT_YR (optional, where applicable) Short - The 'effective' year built' of primary buildings that factors in updates after construction ex. 1980CONST_MATERIAL (optional, where applicable) Text 100 - Construction Material Types, Values for this field are expected to vary greatly by county ex. Wood Frame, Brick, etc Contact: Sean Fernandez, Cadastral Manager (email: sfernandez@utah.gov; office phone: 801-209-9359)
Facebook
TwitterAttribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
Update information can be found within the layer’s attributes and in a table on the Utah Parcel Data webpage under Basic Parcels."Database containing parcel boundary, parcel identifier, parcel address, owner type, and county recorder contact information" - HB113. The intent of the bill was to not include any attributes that the counties rely on for data sales. If you want other attributes associated with the parcels you need to contact the county recorder.Users should be aware the owner type field 'OWN_TYPE' in the parcel polygons is a very generalized ownership type (Federal, Private, State, Tribal). It is populated with the value of the 'OWNER' field where the parcel's centroid intersects the CADASTRE.LandOwnership polygon layer.This dataset is a snapshot in time and may not be the most current. For the most current data contact the county recorder.
Facebook
TwitterThis 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
Facebook
TwitterAn area depicting ownership parcels of the surface estate. Each surface ownership parcel is tied to a particular legal transaction. The same individual or organization may currently own many parcels that may or may not have been acquired through the same legal transaction. Therefore, they are captured as separate entities rather than merged together. This is in contrast to Basic Ownership, in which the surface ownership parcels having the same owner are merged together. Basic Ownership provides the general user with the Forest Service versus non-Forest Service view of land ownership within National Forest boundaries. Surface Ownership provides the land status user with a current snapshot of ownership within National Forest boundaries. Metadata
Facebook
TwitterCC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedicationhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
License information was derived automatically
This ownership dataset utilizes a methodology that results in a federal ownership extent that matches the Federal Responsibility Areas (FRA) footprint from CAL FIRE's State Responsibility Areas for Fire Protection (SRA) data. FRA lands are snapped to county parcel data, thus federal ownership areas will also be snapped. Since SRA Fees were first implemented in 2011, CAL FIRE has devoted significant resources to improve the quality of SRA data. This includes comparing SRA data to data from other federal, state, and local agencies, an annual comparison to county assessor roll files, and a formal SRA review process that includes input from CAL FIRE Units. As a result, FRA lands provide a solid basis as the footprint for federal lands in California (except in the southeastern desert area). The methodology for federal lands involves: