Property Research, GIS Analysis and Site Feasibility
Before you close on a lot, and before a developer commits to a site, somebody should find out whether what you want to build is even possible there. That is this service. It is a GIS-driven study of a specific parcel, run against the jurisdiction’s own published data and the county record, written up so a buyer or a lender can read it, and it ends with a verdict rather than a pile of files. It is desk work against the public record and live map servers, which means the parcel can be anywhere in the country.
Based in Fort Smith, Arkansas. Working throughout the United States through a remote-first process; on site in the Arkansas River Valley, Northwest Arkansas and Oklahoma.
What a study actually contains
The last commercial land study I ran came back past twenty pages, plus exhibit sheets and a one-page verdict. Here is what went into it.
Parcel identity and the record. Parcel number, alternate identifiers, owner of record, legal description, deed instrument and book, assessor values, and the tax status. Where the legal description is metes-and-bounds rather than a platted lot, that gets said, because it changes where recorded easements live.
Area reconciliation. The assessor’s acreage and the mapped GIS polygon frequently do not agree, sometimes by a quarter of the site. I report both, state which one the study runs on, and flag that a sealed boundary survey is what finally settles it. Getting this wrong quietly is how a yield study ends up overstating a site by acres.
GIS layers, queried live and dated. Parcel fabric, zoning, future land use, wards and council districts, subdivision plat layer, water and wastewater by layer family, storm drainage, watershed boundary, hydrography, school attendance areas, historic districts, corridor and business improvement overlays, moratorium areas, airport noise contours and runway buffers. Every query carries the date it was run, because these layers change and a finding without a date is not a finding.
What came back empty, on purpose. Half the value of the study is knowing what does not apply. If no historic district, no corridor overlay, no airport buffer and no incentive district touches the parcel, the report says so and says which layer was queried to find that out. It also says which of those the jurisdiction does not publish as a layer at all, so you know the difference between “checked and clear” and “cannot be checked from a map, call the city.”
Zoning and the entitlement path. Not just the district. Whether your use is listed, and whether prohibition is by omission rather than by an explicit ban, which is the trap that kills more deals than any setback ever has. If a rezoning is required: which district reaches the use, whether that district carries a minimum acreage the site can actually meet, whether adjacency or a planned development district could close a gap, and what the approval sequence is, usually development plan review, a commission recommendation and a governing body vote. Most ordinances also carry a written-interpretation mechanism that anyone can file, and the report names it, because a written interpretation is cheap insurance before a purchase contingency.
Dimensional standards and the buildable envelope. Setbacks by frontage, including the double-frontage case where two street lines are both front lot lines. Height limits. Maximum lot coverage. Residential adjacency provisions, and the important distinction between a dimensional setback that eats footprint and a screening requirement that does not. Then I draw it: the governing band on each edge, the right-of-way landscape strip, easement reserves, and what is left in square feet.
Flood. A live query against the national flood hazard layer, reporting the zone, how much of the parcel it covers and where, the governing FIRM panel and its effective date, and whether a base flood elevation is published for that polygon or not. If any part of the program lands in the special flood hazard area, the report says what that triggers: elevation work, a floodplain development permit, and hydrologic and hydraulic analysis, all of which are survey and civil steps that come next.
Soils, topography and drainage. Soil map units and hydrologic soil group from the federal soil survey, with the shrink-swell and foundation implications called out where expansive clay is in play. Published contours for planning. Watershed and receiving basin. Where the site actually drains, and what that does to detention siting.
Utilities and access. Mapped water, wastewater, storm, electric, gas and telecom features crossing the parcel, counted by layer family. Then the honest caveat: mapped infrastructure is not a recorded easement. On an unplatted parcel there is no plat to carry dedicated easements, so recorded easements live at the county clerk and a title search is the route. Access and frontage: which street governs the curb cut, whether the state DOT or the city public works department has jurisdiction over that frontage, and what fire apparatus access and hydrant flow will do to the layout.
Environmental screening. Federal and state screening routes are run and reported: regulatory enforcement and compliance history, hazardous waste and brownfield records, underground and leaking storage tanks, radon, wetlands and regulated streams, protected habitat, and cultural and historic resources. What screening tells you is where the risk is and whether the next step is warranted. A Phase I environmental site assessment is a licensed consultant’s product and the report says plainly when you need one and why.
Codes and adopted editions. Which building, fire, energy, electrical, mechanical, plumbing and existing-building codes the jurisdiction has adopted by ordinance, with the note that adopted editions must be confirmed current at application. Accessibility triggers. Structural design criteria that the engineer will need.
Adjacent properties. Every parcel that shares a boundary or sits across a bordering street, identified by direction, owner of record, zoning and size, with a recommendation on each edge: connect, do not connect, screen, or revisit if the deal changes. Common ownership of an adjoining parcel gets flagged, because assemblage changes the entitlement math.
Massing and yield. A massing test that puts the program on the site at scale, inside the envelope, with drive aisles, fire lanes, turnarounds, parking, loading and detention reserved. Yield is reported with the detention carve on and off so you can see what it costs. Where drive-aisle efficiency drives the number, I run the sensitivity band rather than picking one flattering figure.
Ownership, value and market context. Assessor land and improvement values, the recorded acquisition and its instrument, tax status, and a recorded-sales sweep for comparable properties. When that sweep comes back with zero arms-length sales, that is a finding too: a thin transaction market means nobody can anchor pricing locally, and the report says so instead of manufacturing a number.
Confidence, gaps and what to order next. A matrix by section: what is strong enough to plan on, what is gray, and exactly what closes the gap. Then a next-steps table naming the professional, the purpose, the rough duration and the priority for each: zoning verification letter, subdivision confirmation, ALTA and topographic survey, title commitment, utility owner records and design locate, geotechnical, Phase I, civil.
The verdict. A go or no-go memo in plain language, with the reason. Where the program is an income property, that includes a planning-grade pro forma with yield-on-cost and debt service coverage against stated targets, a development cost stack, and ranked alternative uses when the proposed one does not pencil. I have told a client that the use they came in with was infeasible and shown them which alternative uses scored better on the same land. That is what the study is for.
And what it is not. Planning-grade due diligence. Not a sealed boundary survey, not a title opinion, not an appraisal, not a geotechnical or environmental certification, not legal advice. Every finding names its source and its confidence, and the report tells you which licensed professional confirms it before you rely on it.
What’s included
Parcel identity, ownership, legal description and area reconciliation
Zoning district, permitted uses, and the full entitlement path if a rezoning is required
Dimensional standards and the buildable envelope drawn to scale
Live GIS layer queries, dated, including the layers that come back clear
Recorded easements, right-of-way, deed restrictions and HOA covenants, routed to the correct record
Flood zone, floodway, governing FIRM panel and what a special flood hazard area triggers
Soils, topography, watershed and drainage
Utility availability and mapped infrastructure by layer family
Environmental, wetland, habitat, historic and wildfire screening routes, run against the public record, with the point where a Phase I ESA becomes the next step named
Adopted code editions and the design criteria the engineers will need
Adjacent property analysis, edge by edge
Massing test, yield, and rendered exhibits where they help
Confidence and gaps matrix, plus a prioritized next-steps table
A written go or no-go verdict, with a planning-grade pro forma where the program is an income property
How it works
One. Establish which book governs
Parcel data, the recorded plat if one exists, the deed and any covenants, the assessor record. Inside a city, the controlling document may be a zoning code, a unified development ordinance or a form-based code; outside the city limits it is usually a county ordinance with different numbers; and an HOA or a plat note can be stricter than either. The first job on any parcel, in any state, is finding out which document actually governs and what version of it is in effect. That work is identical whether the lot is two miles from me or two thousand.
Two. Run the layers and draw the envelope
Every applicable GIS layer gets queried and dated. Setbacks, height, coverage and easements are numbers until you draw them, and then they are a shape. I draw the buildable envelope to scale over the survey or the parcel geometry so you can see, in feet, what is left. This is where most surprises live: a utility easement across the back third, a front setback measured from a right-of-way line that sits well inside the pavement, a slope that eats the walkout, a second street frontage that turns a side yard into a front yard.
Three. Check the constraints that cost money
Flood zone and floodway, because a project in a mapped special flood hazard area carries elevation requirements, a permit, an engineering analysis and a different insurance picture. Utilities, because a site that needs 900 feet of sewer extension is a different project than the one next door. Soils and topography, because rock, expansive clay, high water table and steep grade are all budget events and they show up in different places in different regions. Access, because which agency owns your frontage decides who issues the driveway permit.
Four. Test the program on the site
Massing at scale inside the envelope, with the circulation, fire access and stormwater that a real site plan has to carry. Yield reported honestly, with the sensitivities shown rather than hidden.
Five. Verdict and next steps
You get the written report with sources cited, the envelope drawing, the massing exhibits, a confidence matrix, and a plain-language go or no-go with the reason. Buyers use it to decide whether to close. Developers use it to decide whether to option. Both of them use the next-steps table to spend the survey and geotech money in the right order.
Where I work
This service is built on public record, published GIS, federal flood and soil data and recorded documents, all of which are reachable from anywhere. Calls to a planning department or a utility provider happen by phone, and I document who I spoke to, when, and what they said. For parcels in the Arkansas River Valley, Northwest Arkansas and Oklahoma, I will walk the site and photograph it as part of the study. For parcels outside that region, the report is desk-based unless we agree in advance to add a site visit or use photographs you provide, and the report states plainly which findings came from the record and which came from the ground.
On licensure
I am licensed in Arkansas. Property research is analysis and reporting rather than stamped design work, so it is available nationwide as written. If a study turns into a design project in another state, licensure and reciprocity get confirmed for that project before anything is drawn, and a local architect of record is coordinated where the state requires one.
Frequently asked questions
When should I order this, before or after I have the lot under contract?
During the due diligence period, ideally the week you go under contract. That is the window where you can still walk away, and it is short. If you have not made an offer yet and are choosing between two or three properties, a smaller comparison version of this study is usually the better buy, because it answers "which of these is worth putting under contract" for less than a full study on the wrong one.
Does this replace a survey or a geotechnical report?
No, and it is not meant to. A boundary survey, a title commitment and a geotechnical report are licensed work by other disciplines. This service reads the public record and the available data, draws what it means, and tells you where the real risk is, so you know which of those reports to order first and what to ask them to look for. The report ends with that list, in priority order.
Can you really conclude anything before a survey exists?
Yes, with the limits stated. You can establish whether your use is even permitted, what the approval path looks like, whether the site clears district minimums, where the flood line falls, what utilities are mapped, who owns the frontage, and whether the program fits at all. That is usually enough to decide whether to keep spending. What a desk study cannot give you is a boundary you can build to, a title exception list, or a bearing capacity. The report labels every finding with its confidence and names the professional who closes it.
Can you do this for a parcel you have never seen?
Yes, and that is the normal case. The study is built from recorded documents, adopted ordinances, live GIS queries, federal flood and soil data, and direct calls to the planning department and the utility providers. The one thing a desk study cannot give you is what the ground looks like today: an unrecorded encroachment, a drainage problem, what the neighbors built. If your parcel is in the Arkansas River Valley, Northwest Arkansas or Oklahoma I go look. Everywhere else, send me photos or we add a site visit to the scope, and either way the report says plainly which findings are from the record and which are from the ground.
What if the answer is no?
Then you get a no, in writing, with the reason and the alternatives. I have delivered a study whose verdict was that the client's intended use would not pencil on their own land, alongside a ranked list of uses that scored materially better on the same site. That is a good outcome. It costs a fraction of what finding out later costs.