Counties / Arizona / Pima County

Pima County, AZ

FIPS 04019 · population 1,060,490 · part of Tucson, AZ

$343k
Zillow home value · 2026-06
Direct county rent answer

What does rent cost in Pima County, AZ?

The latest county-level Zillow ZORI is $1,483 per month in 2026-06. It is a typical asking-rent index across rental types—not an arithmetic average, signed lease or quote for one property.

County Zillow ZORI$1,4832026-06 · up 0.8% year over year
County ACS gross rent$1,212ACS 2024 5-year · occupied-renter survey
HUD two-bedroom FMR$1,402FY2026 · administrative standard
HUD Fair Market Rent by bedroom count in Pima County
BedroomsHUD monthly FMRGeographyMeasurement boundary
Studio$967Pima County, AZHUD administrative benchmark; compare with same-bedroom listings, never treat it as observed asking rent.
1 bedroom$1,081Pima County, AZHUD administrative benchmark; compare with same-bedroom listings, never treat it as observed asking rent.
2 bedrooms$1,402Pima County, AZHUD administrative benchmark; compare with same-bedroom listings, never treat it as observed asking rent.
3 bedrooms$1,950Pima County, AZHUD administrative benchmark; compare with same-bedroom listings, never treat it as observed asking rent.
4 bedrooms$2,245Pima County, AZHUD administrative benchmark; compare with same-bedroom listings, never treat it as observed asking rent.

Zillow asking rent, ACS gross rent and HUD FMR describe different housing universes. They remain separate and no metro, city or neighboring-county value replaces missing county evidence.Zillow pulled 2026-07-26 · HUD pulled 2026-07-26

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.

Zillow home value
$343k
▼ 2.1% year over year
Zillow ZHVI · direct
Median asking rent
$1,483
▲ 0.8% year over year
Zillow ZORI · direct
Gross yield
5.2%
annual rent ÷ price, before costs
derived: rent × 12 ÷ price ✓
HUD 2-bed standard
$1,402
market rent is 1.06x the standard
HUD Fair Market Rent · direct
Independent price check

Do two methods point the same way?

Zillow estimates a current home value. FHFA tracks repeat mortgage transactions. Their growth rates should be read side by side, not averaged.

The annual signals disagree
FHFA five-year cumulative+56.2%not annualized · through 2025
0%ZILLOW ZHVI2026-06−2.1%FHFA HPI2025+1.1%
Annual changes use different methods and may use different periods. The comparison checks direction and magnitude; it does not create a blended estimate. Zillow county ZHVI pulled 2026-07-26; FHFA annual county HPI pulled 2026-08-02.
Owner-reported value$320k
Surveyed gross rent$1,212
Rent burden 30%+53.2%
Median year built1986
Housing composition

Who occupies the stock—and what it is

ACS 2024 5-year
8.8%vacant
479,939estimated housing units
Occupied tenure34.8% renter
owner 65.2%renter 34.8%
Structure mix67.3% single-family
Single-family 67.3%20+ units 9.6%Mobile home 9.6%Other 13.5%
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 jobs386,542▲ 0.1% from the prior annual release
Covered establishments23,406annual average reporting locations
Average weekly wage$1,235▲ 3.7% from the prior annual release
Largest private supersectorEducation and health services23.2% of disclosed private covered jobs
Local labor base

Jobs, pay and private-sector concentration

2025
0%COVERED JOBS+0.1%WEEKLY WAGE+3.7%Education and health services23.2%
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 2021-2025; latest 2025 vs 2024 · pulled 2026-08-02. QCEW counts covered jobs located in the county, not employed residents or the metro score’s CES/LAUS series.

Resident income

How local income has compounded

BEA per-capita personal income divides all personal income by the county population. It is broader than wages, but it is not household income or a measure of what renters can afford.

Per-capita personal income19692024
Per-capita personal income history for Pima CountyA line chart of annual BEA per-capita personal income from 1969 through 2024.$0k$35k$70k196919972024$4k$60k
Nominal annual dollars; not adjusted for inflation. A rising line can reflect wage, business-income, transfer-income and investment-income changes together.
Renter affordability

Who carries the heaviest rent burden

HUD CHAS separates renter households by income relative to local HAMFI. Moderate burden means housing costs above 30% through 50% of income; severe burden means more than 50%.

Share of renter households in each income band2018-2022
Renter cost burden by HAMFI income band in Pima CountyFive horizontal bars show moderate and severe housing cost burden shares among renter households in each HUD income band.0%25%50%75%100%At or below 30% HAMFI31,83574.6% burdened30–50% HAMFI26,93582.6% burdened50–80% HAMFI33,67549.9% burdened80–100% HAMFI16,22520.6% burdenedAbove 100% HAMFI43,0305.3% burdened
Moderate: >30% to 50%Severe: >50%
Each percentage uses HUD’s published subtotal for that income band. For disclosure, HUD keeps 0 as 0, publishes 1–7 households as 4 and rounds 8 or more to the nearest 5. Independently rounded categories can differ from their displayed sum and are not forced into a percentage.
Direct local rental evidence

Recent leases and rental-market liquidity in Pima County, AZ

These Apartment List observations match the exact county Census code 04019. They are kept separate from Zillow asking rent, Census occupied-home rent and wider metro measures.

Direct recent-lease rent history

Monthly overall-rent index; missing observations are not filled from another geography.

$1,228$1,154$1,0792021-082026-07
Recent-lease rent$1,1422026-07 · -1.6% year over year
Rental vacancy7.9%2026-07 · -0.5 percentage points year over year
Time on market31 days2026-07 · -6.0 days year over year
County brief

What the local evidence says

01Decision frame

Pima County presents a two-sided underwriting case: a published $1,483 median asking rent and 5.19% gross yield meet weakening price signals, while migration and wage evidence offers some demand support. Caution is warranted for an investor relying on resale liquidity, flood exposure, or thin post-cost cash flow; investigation should focus on whether the rent signal holds for the specific asset. Zillow county data are labeled 2026-06; FHFA’s repeat-transaction index is labeled 2025. Zillow’s median home value fell 2.1% year over year, while FHFA rose 1.11% annually. These different vintages and methods should not be averaged.

02Housing economics

The gross yield is before operating costs and taxes. HUD’s two-bedroom FMR is $1,402, a payment standard, not an estimate of market asking rent. Property tax is 0.71%, and median annual tax is $2,272. The modeled climate-loss ratio is 0.24% of building value annually; inland flood is the dominant hazard, but the record supplies neither insurance pricing nor parcel-level loss. No expense stack, unit mix, condition, financing, or insurance quote is published, preventing a net-yield, DSCR, or cash-on-cash conclusion.

03Demand & competition

Demand evidence is supportive but not decisive. Tax-return flows show positive net migration and a $5,661 average-AGI advantage for incoming households. QCEW shows annual covered employment up 0.06% and covered-worker wages up 3.69%; Education and health services is the largest disclosed private supersector, not the whole economy. Realtor.com MLS evidence shows median listing price down 1.66% and 22.02% of listings price-reduced. Those are asking-market and seller-concession measures, not closed-sale prices or proof of buyer demand. Investor purchases represented 6.04% of total purchases, a participation measure rather than a demand forecast.

04Risk & next checks

Risk limits are material. Inland-flood exposure requires parcel-level flood-zone, drainage, claims, and insurance review; the modeled ratio is not a quote. Achieved rent, vacancy, operating costs, and financing could make the gross yield insufficient. The FHFA result does not resolve Zillow’s softness, and closed-sale comparables are absent. Verify those items before relying on a rent-led case; this county record supports investigation, not a net-return conclusion.

County ZIP rental landscape

How asking rent and renter pressure vary inside Pima County, AZ

This view uses 12 direct Zillow ZIP markets matched to Census ZCTAs. Each ZIP is assigned by its largest HUD residential county share; this is not an exhaustive county inventory.

Selected ZIP range$1,096$1,589Zillow asking-rent index
Monthly spread$493highest minus lowest selected ZIP
Observed burden range41.3%61.0%ACS renter households paying 30%+
Renter households covered107,259across the selected ZCTAs
01 · ASKING RENT LADDERDirect ZIP ZORI
Horizontal bars compare Zillow asking-rent indexes across the selected direct-evidence ZIP set.85741$1,58985730$1,54085745$1,50485704$1,43185713$1,42485719$1,29985716$1,29985711$1,18385706$1,14685712$1,12285710$1,10485705$1,096
02 · PRESSURE MATRIXRent × observed burden
Each point is one selected ZIP and ZCTA match. Horizontal position is Zillow asking rent and vertical position is the ACS renter cost-burden share.63.5%57.3%51.2%45.0%38.8%857198570585710857168571285711857068570485713857458574185730Zillow asking-rent index →ACS burden share →
03 · BENCHMARK GAPZORI vs HUD 2BR
Bars show the percentage difference between the Zillow blended asking-rent index and the local HUD two-bedroom standard. Their housing universes differ.85713+111.3%85745+106.7%85730+105.5%85716+96.2%85706+94.7%85719+94.1%85711+93.9%85741+91.8%85705+91.3%85712+88.3%85704+86.7%85710+77.7%
WHAT THE LOCAL DISTRIBUTION SAYS

Pima County’s Zillow ZORI was $1,483 in June 2026, up 0.8% from a year earlier. Within the 12 selected direct-evidence ZIP/ZCTA matches, the typical observed asking-rent index runs from $1,096 to $1,589, a $493 spread, with a $1,299 median. That distribution makes the decision question a screening exercise rather than a single county-rent conclusion: determine whether the asking-rent index range relevant to a search fits the household budget, then test the actual unit’s bedroom count and total move-in cost. The displayed set is a renter-household-ordered selection, not all local rental options.

The measures answer different questions and should remain separate. Zillow ZORI is a period-specific typical observed asking-rent index, while the ACS 2024 five-year ZCTA estimates describe survey-era household rents and income, and HUD’s FY2026 two-bedroom FMR is an administrative standard. Across the displayed matches, the Zillow-to-HUD two-bedroom relationship ranges from 77.7% ($1,104 ZORI against $1,420 FMR) to 111.3% ($1,424 against $1,280). Those ratios are reference points, not a conversion of an all-bedroom asking-rent index into a two-bedroom standard. For the ZIP-labelled ZCTA estimates, ACS median gross rent spans $973 to $1,586, versus $1,212 countywide; it should not be treated as a current listing quote or blended with ZORI.

The ACS burden and vacancy estimates highlight a practical trade-off without establishing why it occurs. Countywide, 53.2% of renter households are estimated to pay 30% or more of income toward gross rent; the displayed ZCTA values range from 41.3% to 61.0%. The county ACS vacancy rate is 8.8%, while the selected values run from 5.7% to 12.7%. Renter share also ranges from 31.2% to 72.1%, so the selected places are not similarly renter-weighted. A lower burden estimate is not proof that current asking rents are low, and a higher vacancy estimate is not proof of available units at a desired rent or bedroom count. Use those survey measures to frame search questions, not to predict lease terms.

Coverage and geography constrain the comparison. Of 27 eligible direct-ZORI matches, 12 are shown, covering 107,259 renter households; therefore the set is not an exhaustive county inventory. The displayed ZIP labels are assigned to Pima County using the largest HUD residential-address share, yet ZIPs can cross county boundaries, and Census ZCTAs are statistical areas rather than USPS delivery ZIPs. Before acting, verify the property’s current advertised rent, exact bedroom count, unit type, availability date, lease length, utilities and recurring fees, deposits, application terms, income or program eligibility, and whether it falls inside the relevant postal-service and county geography. These unit-level checks are necessary because the three rent measures do not describe the same transaction.

Selected ZIP evidence

Keep each source universe visible

27 ZIP profiles passed the county gate; the 12 with the most renter households are shown.

ZIP / ZCTAZillow asking rentACS gross rentHUD 2BRBurden 30%+VacancyIncome screenHUD county share
85719$1,299$1,146$1,38061.0%8.3%$52k100.0%
85705$1,096$973$1,20054.0%12.7%$44k100.0%
85710$1,104$1,219$1,42058.5%7.4%$44k100.0%
85716$1,299$1,080$1,35050.8%12.4%$52k100.0%
85712$1,122$1,016$1,27046.1%8.7%$45k100.0%
85711$1,183$1,079$1,26053.8%7.0%$47k100.0%
85706$1,146$1,001$1,21048.0%6.8%$46k100.0%
85704$1,431$1,561$1,65048.2%8.2%$57k100.0%
85713$1,424$1,069$1,28049.7%10.4%$57k100.0%
85745$1,504$1,172$1,41041.3%6.2%$60k100.0%
85741$1,589$1,586$1,73046.7%5.7%$64k100.0%
85730$1,540$1,271$1,46052.5%6.3%$62k100.0%
READ BEFORE USING

ACS values are 2024 five-year survey estimates for ZCTAs and can differ from present advertised rents, household circumstances, and USPS ZIP delivery areas. They should be read as area-level estimates, not observations about a specific available unit or lease.

HUD FMR is a bedroom-specific administrative standard, not a market asking-rent measure. ZIPs are assigned by their largest HUD residential-address county share and can cross county lines; the selected direct-ZORI set is not exhaustive, even where coverage is substantial.

SOURCE LEDGERCensus ACS 5-year — county housing value, tenure and stockACS 2024 5-year · pulled 2026-07-30Census ACS five-year — ZCTA housing and incomeACS 2024 5-year ZCTA · pulled 2026-08-08HUD Fair Market Rents — Section 8 standardFY2026 FMR · pulled 2026-07-26HUD-USPS ZIP-to-county residential-address crosswalkHUD-USPS 2026Q1 · pulled 2026-08-09Zillow ZHVI and ZORI — county values and rentscounty ZHVI/ZORI 2026-06 · pulled 2026-07-26Zillow ZORI — ZIP market rentsZORI ZIP 2026-06 · pulled 2026-08-08
Cities & communities

Where people live within Pima 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
Tucson city547.1KCasas Adobes CDP72.1KMarana town*56.9KCatalina Foothills CDP52.6KOro Valley town48.2KSahuarita town35.9KDrexel Heights CDP27.7KGreen Valley CDP22.1K
Bars use total place population, not a county-share estimate. An asterisk marks a place that crosses a county line.
Official directory

55 Census places

Population
  1. 01
    Tucson cityIncorporated place
    547,073
  2. 02
    Casas Adobes CDPCensus-designated place
    72,059
  3. 03
    Marana townIncorporated place · spans 2 counties
    56,938
  4. 04
    Catalina Foothills CDPCensus-designated place
    52,593
  5. 05
    Oro Valley townIncorporated place
    48,162
  6. 06
    Sahuarita townIncorporated place
    35,862
  7. 07
    Drexel Heights CDPCensus-designated place
    27,675
  8. 08
    Green Valley CDPCensus-designated place
    22,114
  9. 09
    Flowing Wells CDPCensus-designated place
    16,559
  10. 10
    Vail CDPCensus-designated place
    16,315
  11. 11
    Tanque Verde CDPCensus-designated place
    15,866
  12. 12
    Valencia West CDPCensus-designated place
    14,728
Show 43 more places
  1. 13
    Tucson Estates CDPCensus-designated place
    12,136
  2. 14
    Tucson Mountains CDPCensus-designated place
    11,353
  3. 15
    Corona de Tucson CDPCensus-designated place
    9,566
  4. 16
    Picture Rocks CDPCensus-designated place
    9,448
  5. 17
    Rincon Valley CDPCensus-designated place
    6,512
  6. 18
    Catalina CDPCensus-designated place
    6,489
  7. 19
    Avra Valley CDPCensus-designated place
    6,277
  8. 20
    Three Points CDPCensus-designated place
    5,254
  9. 21
    Summit CDPCensus-designated place
    4,896
  10. 22
    South Tucson cityIncorporated place
    4,550
  11. 23
    Ajo CDPCensus-designated place
    3,107
  12. 24
    Sells CDPCensus-designated place
    1,935
  13. 25
    Arivaca Junction CDPCensus-designated place
    642
  14. 26
    Santa Rosa CDPCensus-designated place
    615
  15. 27
    Nelson CDPCensus-designated place
    519
  16. 28
    Elephant Head CDPCensus-designated place
    481
  17. 29
    J-Six Ranchettes CDPCensus-designated place
    419
  18. 30
    Pisinemo CDPCensus-designated place
    311
  19. 31
    Arivaca CDPCensus-designated place
    268
  20. 32
    San Miguel CDPCensus-designated place
    237
  21. 33
    Gu Oidak CDPCensus-designated place
    192
  22. 34
    South Komelik CDPCensus-designated place
    178
  23. 35
    Ali Molina CDPCensus-designated place
    171
  24. 36
    Topawa CDPCensus-designated place
    166
  25. 37
    Chiawuli Tak CDPCensus-designated place
    146
  26. 38
    Wahak Hotrontk CDPCensus-designated place
    125
  27. 39
    Haivana Nakya CDPCensus-designated place
    96
  28. 40
    Anegam CDPCensus-designated place
    92
  29. 41
    Ventana CDPCensus-designated place
    92
  30. 42
    Ali Chukson CDPCensus-designated place
    77
  31. 43
    Ko Vaya CDPCensus-designated place
    53
  32. 44
    Kleindale CDPCensus-designated place
    52
  33. 45
    Why CDPCensus-designated place
    52
  34. 46
    Maish Vaya CDPCensus-designated place
    38
  35. 47
    Cowlic CDPCensus-designated place
    25
  36. 48
    Ak Chin CDPCensus-designated place
    22
  37. 49
    Ali Chuk CDPCensus-designated place
    18
  38. 50
    Charco CDPCensus-designated place
    7
  39. 51
    Comobabi CDPCensus-designated place
    0
  40. 52
    Nolic CDPCensus-designated place
    0
  41. 53
    Rillito CDPCensus-designated place
    0
  42. 54
    Summerhaven CDPCensus-designated place
    0
  43. 55
    Willow Canyon CDPCensus-designated place
    0

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

0.240% of building value expected lost per year

Effective property tax0.71%

$2,272 median annual bill

02
DemandIRS SOI household flows
Net migration+1,617

22,250 in · 20,633 out

Arriving vs leaving income+$5,661

$76,350 arriving · $70,689 leaving

03
CompetitionHMDA financed purchases
Purchases by investors6.0%

751 of 12,435 mortgages

investorother financed
Current listing pressure

What sellers and visible supply are doing

Realtor.com® Economic Research · county inventory 2026-06 · pulled 2026-07-28
Active listings3,784▼ 6.0% year over year
Median days on market62▲ 8.8% year over year
Listings price-reduced22.0%seller-concession signal
Median listing pricen/a▼ 1.7% year over year

Listing price is an asking price, not a closed sale. Quality-flagged county rows are withheld instead of displayed.

Bear case

What can break the county thesis

  1. Inland-flood exposure, drainage conditions, claims history, or insurance exclusions could raise carrying costs beyond county-level figures.
  2. Achieved rent, vacancy, repairs, management, financing, and insurance costs could make the published gross yield inadequate after costs.
  3. Soft asking-price evidence and absent closed-sale comparables could weaken resale underwriting despite FHFA’s separate appreciation reading.
Underwriting questions

Before pricing a property

What rent measure should underwriting use?

The record publishes median monthly asking rent; HUD two-bedroom FMR is a payment standard, not market rent.

What does the employment evidence actually measure?

QCEW is annual average covered employment at workplaces in the county, with a covered-worker average wage; it is not resident employment, unemployment, a forecast, or a metro series.

What does the investor share measure?

It is the share of purchase mortgages to non-occupants, reported alongside total purchases; it does not by itself establish buyer demand.