Connecticut rental market data

Recent-lease rent increased 0.9% year over year to $1,731 in July 2026. The separate rental-liquidity measures moved less favorably: vacancy reached 6.0%, up 0.7 percentage point, and time on market reached 32.8 days, up 3.8 days.

This combination supports testing longer lease-up periods and more conservative effective rent rather than treating positive rent growth as proof of stronger absorption. It does not show that every Connecticut property has 6.0% vacancy or takes 32.8 days to lease. The lower vacancy relative to the national series is also a counter-signal, although Connecticut's measured marketing time was longer.

Across five measured metros, median home-value growth was 5.3% and median asking-rent growth was 2.9%, a 2.4-percentage-point rent shortfall. The same pattern appears in all three highlighted metros: Norwich, CT posted 6.6% value growth versus 4.8% rent growth; Hartford, CT posted 5.3% versus 3.1%; and Bridgeport, CT posted 5.6% versus 2.9%.

The supplied gross yields were 5.4% in Norwich, CT, 5.9% in Hartford, CT and 4.9% in Bridgeport, CT. Screening should therefore focus on purchase basis and property-specific achievable rent rather than assume recent value gains have improved income economics. These Zillow asking-rent measures are distinct from Apartment List's recent-lease series, and gross yield does not include vacancy, taxes, insurance, maintenance, financing or capital work.

The nine measured counties recorded 82,972 movers in and 88,646 movers out, for net migration of -5,674, or -1.6 per 1,000 residents. Employment was less negative: year-over-year job growth across five metros had a 0.3% median, with a measured range from the 10th percentile of -1.6% to the 90th percentile of 0.6%.

Norwich, CT recorded 0.8% job growth, Bridgeport, CT 0.4% and Hartford, CT 0.3%. Those gains are a counter-signal to the migration loss, but the series cover different periods and cannot establish household formation or rental absorption. Screening needs submarket employment and tenant-demand checks rather than using either statewide migration or metro payroll growth alone.

FHFA home-price appreciation across nine measured areas had a 6.3% median annual change and a 61.8% median five-year change. Northwest Hills Planning Region recorded 6.8% annual and 64.8% five-year appreciation, yet its June 2026 for-sale listings had a 44-day median marketing time, a 13.1% price-reduced share and a 0.69 pending ratio. South Central Connecticut Planning Region had a shorter 35-day median and a 1.16 pending ratio.

The combination shows that historical appreciation and current resale speed are separate screening questions. Realtor listing measures describe the for-sale market, not rental lease-up. The packet also contains zero county-level Zillow price, rent and gross-yield observations, preventing a county-level link between appreciation, current rents and income return.

Across nine measured areas, the median renter share was 33.6%, the median share of renter households spending at least 30% of income on rent was 51.9%, and the median year built was 1969. Greater Bridgeport Planning Region combined a 34.7% renter share with 58.7% rent burden and a 1959 median year built.

Northwest Hills Planning Region presents a different profile: ACS housing vacancy was 14.2%, but renters represented 23.7% of households and single-family homes represented 79.2% of stock. That broad ACS vacancy measure should not be read as available rental inventory or blended with Apartment List's Vacancy Index. The figures support checking tenant affordability and building condition by asset, but they do not report unit-level arrears, concessions or rehabilitation needs.

Across nine measured areas, the effective property-tax rate had a 1.7% median and ran from 1.4% at the 10th percentile to 2.0% at the 90th percentile. Median tax bills ranged from $5,057 to $8,795 across the same percentiles. Greater Bridgeport Planning Region recorded a 2.0% rate and an $8,670 median tax, compared with 2.0% and $6,454 in Capitol Planning Region and 1.9% and $6,759 in South Central Connecticut Planning Region.

Inland flood was the mutually exclusive leading-hazard label for all nine measured areas. That classification is useful as a prompt for address-level review, not evidence that any parcel is exposed or that a particular insurance premium applies. Property-specific tax assessments, flood mapping, building elevation and insurance quotes remain outside this packet.