Nevada rental market data

The six-metro median shows asking rents rising 5.6% year over year against 1.0% home-value growth, a 4.6 percentage-point spread. Rent growth ranged from 0.4% at the 10th percentile to 9.4% at the 90th, while home-value growth ranged from -1.4% to 1.8%.

The highlighted markets reinforce the separation: Gardnerville Ranchos recorded 12.2% rent growth and 2.1% value growth, Reno 6.5% and 0.4%, and Carson City 5.8% and 0.1%. Their gross yields were still only 4.2% to 4.4%, so faster rent momentum does not by itself establish strong acquisition economics.

Across six metros, the median was 3.1 months of supply, 42.5 days on market and a 21.5% price-drop share. Pahrump was materially softer at 6.4 months of supply, 87 days on market and 29.9% price drops. That is a genuine counter-signal to the rent-growth story because a buyer may gain negotiating room while also accepting a less liquid resale market.

Carson City and Reno each had 2.8 months of supply, with 42 and 39 days on market. Their permitting rates were 7.3 and 7.0 units per 1,000 residents, respectively. Permits are not completions, and these for-sale indicators do not measure rental vacancy, but both belong in the entry-price and exit-time screen.

Metro gross yields were narrowly distributed: a 4.5% median and a 4.3% to 4.9% 10th-to-90th-percentile range. Affordability varied more. The median price-to-income ratio was 6.3, and the median rent-to-income ratio was 27.7%.

Elko paired a 4.9% gross yield with a 4.3 price-to-income ratio and 21.1% rent-to-income ratio. Pahrump's 4.6% yield came with a 6.0 price-to-income ratio and 27.8% rent-to-income ratio. Across six metros, the median ratio of measured rent to the local two-bedroom HUD Fair Market Rent was 111.3%; that comparison is a screening reference, not proof that a particular unit or tenant program supports the asking rent.

Employment growth was positive across the measured metro distribution: the median was 1.9%, with a 1.3% to 3.5% 10th-to-90th-percentile range. Gardnerville Ranchos was stronger at 4.7%, while Pahrump and Reno registered 2.2% and 1.9%.

Migration records for 16 counties showed net inflow of 8,922 people, or 2.8 per 1,000 residents. These are supportive demand-screening signals, but the employment and migration series cover different periods and geographies. They cannot identify which neighborhoods, price points or property types captured the measured growth.

Across all 17 counties, the median housing vacancy rate was 13.6%, with a wide 7.0% to 28.5% 10th-to-90th-percentile range. This ACS measure covers vacant housing generally; it should not be read as the share of professionally rentable units available to tenants.

At the same time, the median county share of renters spending at least 30% of income on rent was 49.6%. Clark County reported 57.7% rent burden, a 42.2% renter share and 9.1% vacancy. Esmeralda County reported 75.5% rent burden and 27.1% vacancy, but its population was only 1,028. The combination argues for validating tenant incomes, effective rents and rental-specific vacancy rather than treating broad vacancy as evidence of easy leasing or ample rent headroom.

The median investor share across 17 counties was 5.6%, but Clark County recorded a much higher 12.0% share: 3,686 investor purchases out of 30,759 measured purchases. A calculation using the supplied totals puts Clark County at 87.0% of Nevada's 4,235 measured investor purchases.

Small-county percentages require different treatment. Lincoln County's 10.7% share represented three investor purchases out of 28, while Eureka County's 7.1% represented one out of 14. Those rates do not establish deep competition or liquidity, and the HMDA-based figures cover measured purchase originations rather than the entire cash and non-reportable market.