How the analysis actually works.

Parcel identification

We resolve your search against the Montana State Library cadastral framework and take the parcel polygon in WGS84. Every subsequent analysis is run against that specific boundary rather than a point, which is why the figures describe your property instead of the general area. The cadastral boundary is an assessment-mapping product, not a survey, so every derived percentage should be read as close rather than exact.

Terrain

We build a regular sampling grid across the parcel, spaced as finely as 10 metres and coarsening for very large parcels to stay within a sane request budget, then sample the USGS 3DEP elevation surface at every node. Nodes are tested against the boundary so statistics are computed from interior ground only.

Slope is computed at each node by central differences over its neighbours, expressed as a percentage — the unit Montana county code and septic regulation both use. At the grid edge we fall back to one-sided differences rather than dropping the node, because dropping edge nodes systematically biases a small parcel's statistics toward its interior.

We report the steepest extent at the 95th percentile rather than the single maximum, because an isolated maximum on an elevation surface is usually a ditch edge, a berm or a data seam rather than real ground. We also compute the largest connected run of gentle nodes, which distinguishes a parcel with one coherent building area from one where the same total acreage is scattered in slivers across a hillside.

We never describe terrain as buildable. A bare-earth model cannot see fill, existing grading, a soft spot, a spring, or rock an inch below the surface.

Soils

We query USDA Soil Data Access for every SSURGO map unit intersecting the parcel, then read the map-unit aggregates and the major component records: drainage class, hydrologic group, depth to a restrictive layer, depth to bedrock, annual and spring water-table minima, linear extensibility, erodibility, and the NRCS interpretation ratings for septic absorption fields and dwellings.

Coverage share per map unit is measured, not assumed. Soil Data Access does not expose a polygon-geometry function we can reach, so rather than dividing the parcel evenly between its map units — a number we would have invented — we sample the soil map at 25 points spread across the parcel and report the resulting share along with the number of points it rests on. A unit that intersects the parcel but is never hit by a sample is shown as present but below sampling resolution, not as zero.

We pay particular attention to the April-to-June water-table minimum, because a site evaluated in September can pass while sitting in two feet of water at spring runoff.

Flood, wetlands and overlap percentages

We intersect the parcel with the FEMA National Flood Hazard Layer and the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory, and compute overlap by testing the same interior grid used for terrain against each intersecting polygon. Where the parcel is outside a mapped high-risk flood area we also search outward to report the distance to the nearest one, as context rather than as a risk figure.

Two distinctions are enforced in code, not left to prose. Outside a mapped high-risk flood area is never rendered as an absence of flood risk. A mapped wetland is never rendered as a jurisdictional determination — only a delineation and an Army Corps call can do that.

Access

We test the state transportation framework's road centrelines against the boundary to establish whether a mapped physical route reaches the parcel, and record classification, ownership and surface where the layer carries them. We also surface the county assessor's own access classification from the cadastral record as an independent signal.

There is no code path in this product that concludes a parcel has legal access. Legal access lives in recorded easements, deeded rights of way and plat dedications, none of which appear in any GIS layer.

County regulatory data

There is no statewide Montana zoning dataset, because there is no statewide Montana zoning. Our registry is built county by county from primary county sources, and every field is nullable. Where a county publishes an authoritative digital zoning layer we can report a district; where it does not, we say so and name the office with jurisdiction rather than inferring a rule from a neighbouring county.

One finding from that research is worth stating plainly: most Montana counties have no county building department at all. Buyers routinely assume an inspection regime exists that does not.

Build Complexity

Build Complexity is not a grade and not a buildability rating. It counts how many things about this parcel are likely to take work, cost money, or need a professional to resolve. A high score can describe an outstanding property — a creek, mature trees, a hillside view and forty acres of privacy will score higher than a flat, featureless lot on a paved road. Every point is traceable to a finding you can read below; nothing contributes to it that is not shown. Missing data raises the score rather than lowering it, because an information gap is a real cost and never a clean bill of health.

Mechanically: each scoring category has a fixed weight, findings inside it contribute according to their severity and their own weight, and data-confidence penalties add a modest, visible amount. The categories and their weights are wastewater 16, terrain 12, flood 12, access 12, soils 10, water 10, wetlands 10, regulatory 10, wildfire 8.

The outlook label is not permitted to contradict the findings. A single potential constraint prevents a FAVORABLE outlook regardless of what the arithmetic produced, and a category we did not assess scores zero rather than being guessed at.

Confidence levels

Strong data

Drawn from an authoritative state or federal dataset with good coverage at this location. Still a map, not a site visit.

Limited data

Real records exist, but they are sparse, coarse, or dated at this location. Treat the direction as useful and the precision as soft.

County verification recommended

The county holds the authoritative answer and does not publish it in a form we can read automatically. We tell you exactly who to ask.

Professional verification required

No dataset can answer this. It requires a licensed professional on the ground — a site evaluator, surveyor, engineer, or title company.