Counties / Texas / Loving County

Loving County, TX

FIPS 48301 · population 33 · outside every metro area

n/a
home value · n/a
The numbers

What this county costs and earns

Everything here joins on the county FIPS code, so each figure comes from the agency that publishes it with no name matching in between.

ACS owner-reported value
n/a
no home-value estimate published here
n/a
ACS median gross rent
n/a
no rent estimate published here
n/a
Gross yield
n/a
gross yield cannot be computed without measured market rent
requires both measured price and measured rent
HUD 2-bed standard
$1,015
the Section 8 payment standard
HUD Fair Market Rent · direct
Owner-reported valuen/a
Surveyed gross rentn/a
Rent burden 30%+0.0%
Median year built1938
Housing composition

Who occupies the stock—and what it is

ACS 2024 5-year
18.2%vacant
33estimated housing units
Occupied tenure88.9% renter
owner 11.1%renter 88.9%
Structure mix75.8% single-family
Single-family 75.8%20+ units 6.1%Mobile home 18.2%Other 0.0%
ACS estimates describe the standing housing stock and occupied tenure. They do not measure current listings, transaction prices or asking rents.

Survey source: Census ACS 5-year — county housing value, tenure and stock · ACS 2024 5-year · pulled 2026-07-30. These values describe different housing universes and are not combined into gross yield.

Annual average covered jobs953▲ 23.4% from the prior annual release
Covered establishments20annual average reporting locations
Average weekly wage$2,028▼ 1.3% from the prior annual release
Largest private supersectorNatural resources and miningn/a of disclosed private covered jobs
Local labor base

Jobs, pay and private-sector concentration

2025
0%COVERED JOBS+23.4%WEEKLY WAGE−1.3%Natural resources and miningn/a
Annual QCEW counts cover jobs located at reporting establishments. The industry share uses disclosed private covered employment; it is not a resident-employment measure or a forecast.

Workplace source: BLS QCEW — county employment and wages · annual county employment and wages 2025 vs 2024 · pulled 2026-07-31. QCEW counts covered jobs located in the county, not employed residents or the metro score’s CES/LAUS series.

County brief

What the local evidence says

01Decision frame

Loving County presents a decision tension for a conventional rental investor: the 2025 QCEW workplace-job count is 953 against a resident population of 33, but no market rent, Zillow home-value observation, FHFA HPI observation, or Realtor listing evidence is supplied. That may indicate a specialized, thin housing market rather than proven rental depth. Investors should be cautious and verify whether local workers rent, how many units exist, and whether the job base connects to county housing. With market rent unpublished, gross yield cannot be computed; HUD FMR cannot substitute for it.

02Housing economics

Housing economics and carrying costs remain unresolved. HUD’s two-bedroom FMR is $1,015 per month, but it is a payment standard, not an asking-rent estimate; no market-rent or sale-price figure is supplied. Price-to-rent analysis and rent-based capitalization are therefore unavailable. No property-tax rate, median tax, insurance premium, repair budget, vacancy measure, or flood-insurance requirement is reported. Inland flood is the dominant hazard, while modeled climate loss is 0.09% of building value per year. That is not a premium or dollar loss, so parcel-level flood mapping, elevation, claims, and insurance terms remain necessary.

03Demand & competition

Demand evidence is narrow and mixed. Jobs rose 23.45% year over year to 953 across 20 establishments; the average covered-worker weekly wage was $2,028, down 1.27%. These are annual covered jobs at county workplaces, not resident employment or unemployment. Natural resources and mining is the largest disclosed private supersector, but its disclosed employment count is 0, so the label cannot establish industry concentration or household demand. Buyer competition is untested: 2 total purchases included 0 investor purchases, producing a 0% investor share. This small sample cannot show strong or weak demand.

04Risk & next checks

Screening should stop short of a rental-return conclusion. Only 4 of 8 evidence groups are available; migration, mover income, closed sales, asking rents, listings, marketing time, price reductions, taxes, insurance, and housing inventory are not published. Those gaps prevent a defensible rent level, valuation, liquidity, demand trend, or all-in yield. Next checks are local lease evidence, closed-sale and unit-inventory review, QCEW-to-resident-worker validation, and parcel-specific flood and tax underwriting.

Cities & communities

Where people live within Loving County

Census-recognized incorporated places and CDPs that intersect this county. The list does not pretend to include every neighborhood or informal community.

Population scale

Largest Census places

ACS 2024 5-year
Mentone CDP10
Bars use total place population, not a county-share estimate. An asterisk marks a place that crosses a county line.
Official directory

1 Census places

Population
  1. 01
    Mentone CDPCensus-designated place
    10

Population is the total place-wide ACS estimate, not an allocated county share. A place crossing a county line is labelled explicitly. Source: Census ACS 5-year — cities and communities · ACS 2024 5-year · pulled 2026-07-30.

Risk, demand and competition

The three things a price does not tell you

01
Risk & carrying costFEMA NRI + Census ACS
Dominant hazardinland flooding

0.094% of building value expected lost per year

Effective property taxn/a

Annual bill n/a

02
DemandIRS SOI household flows
Net migrationn/a

Household flow not published

Arriving vs leaving incomen/a

Income flow not published

03
CompetitionHMDA financed purchases
Purchases by investors0.0%

0 of 2 mortgages

investorother financed
No rent index is published for this county.Zillow’s county rent series does not cover every county, and estimating one from a neighbouring county would be a guess wearing a number’s clothes. Everything above is measured here; no wider market is mapped for it either.
Bear case

What can break the county thesis

  1. Workplace jobs may not translate into county renter households because QCEW measures jobs located at workplaces, not resident employment.
  2. Missing rent, sale-price, inventory, tax, and insurance evidence could invalidate return and liquidity assumptions.
  3. Inland-flood exposure and absent parcel-level insurance terms could make property costs differ materially from the modeled county loss ratio.
Underwriting questions

Before pricing a property

Can gross yield be calculated from the published rent information?

No. Market rent is not published; the available HUD FMR is a payment standard, not market rent.

What does the employment measure say about the demand base?

It reports annual average covered jobs located at county workplaces; it does not report resident employment, unemployment, or a metro series.

What does the purchase sample say about investor competition?

It reports no investor purchases, so investor participation is absent in the reported purchase sample.