States / North Dakota
State rental intelligence

North Dakota rental market data

A source-traced view across 8 metro markets and 53 counties. State figures below are labelled medians and totals—not a made-up statewide investment score.

8/8 metros scored53/53 counties with FEMA risk14 sources used in this analysis
Median scored metro64.5out of 100 · 8 measured metros
North Dakota identity diorama showing regional landscape, cities, housing, and infrastructure
Median metro home value$305kmedian across published metro values
Median metro rent$1,147monthly · published metro values
Median gross yield4.8%annual rent ÷ price · before costs
Median job trend▲ 0.3%trailing 12-month metro employment
Direct monthly rental evidence

North Dakota rent market dynamics

Apartment List measures recent leases, rental vacancy and listing time separately. These figures do not replace Zillow, Census or Realtor measures elsewhere on this page.

Recent-lease rent$1,2122026-07 · ▲ 1.9% year over year
Rental Vacancy Index6.5%2026-07 · +1.0 pp in 12 months
Time on marketn/anot published for this state
US recent-lease rent$1,3882026-07 · ▼ 1.1% year over year
Rent and rental vacancy through timesolid state series · dashed national series · no interpolation across missing observations
Recent-lease rent$1,515$1,138$760Rental Vacancy Index12.2%7.5%2.9%2017-012021-102026-07North DakotaUnited States
State research brief

Recent-lease rents rose 1.9% even as rental vacancy climbed 1.0 percentage point, making occupancy validation the central North Dakota screen.

Updated 2026-08-08 · evidence current to the releases listed below.

North Dakota presents a mixed rental signal: Apartment List’s July 2026 recent-lease rent increased to $1,212, while its separate Vacancy Index rose from 5.5% to 6.5%. The counter-signal is that measured vacancy remained 0.7 percentage point below the national rate, and state rent growth exceeded national growth by 3.0 percentage points.

Local evidence argues against treating that state result as uniform. Home values generally rose faster than asking rents across the eight measured metros, demand indicators were subdued at the center of their distributions, and resale timelines varied materially. Screening should connect property-level occupancy and lease comparables with local employment, supply, exit liquidity, taxes and hazard due diligence. The packet cannot establish net operating income, tenant quality, unit condition, insurance cost or parcel exposure; county rent coverage reaches only 11 of 53 counties, county listing coverage reaches 21, and no state Apartment List time-on-market figure is supplied.

01

Recent-lease rent growth of 1.9% alongside a 1.0 percentage-point vacancy increase → test occupancy and lease-up sensitivity even when headline rent growth is positive.

02

Median price growth of 5.6% versus 4.1% rent growth across eight metros → screen acquisition basis and expense-adjusted returns rather than assuming rents will match appreciation.

03

Median job growth of 0.3% and net migration of 100 across 47 counties → require local employer and tenant-demand evidence instead of relying on a broad demand tailwind.

04

Wahpeton at 79 resale days and 4.8 months of supply, and Dickinson at 71 days and 3.4 months → allow for materially different exit liquidity by metro.

05

Median county housing vacancy of 20.2% with a 79.1% single-family share → distinguish usable rental inventory from broad vacant housing stock.

01
Direct state rental dynamics

Rising rents did not prevent a one-point vacancy increase

In July 2026, Apartment List’s recent-lease rent was $1,212, up 1.9% from $1,189. Its separate Vacancy Index rose from 5.5% to 6.5%, an increase of 1.0 percentage point. Positive rent growth therefore did not coincide with tighter measured occupancy.

The counter-signal is that state vacancy remained 0.7 percentage point below the national rate of 7.2%, while national rent declined 1.1%. State rent growth was 3.0 percentage points higher. Current property occupancy and lease-up assumptions deserve more weight than rent growth alone. The packet supplies only national time on market, which increased from 28 to 30 days, so it cannot establish state listing speed.

Evidence: Apartment List Rent Estimates — recent-lease rent index · Apartment List Time on Market — listing liquidity · Apartment List Vacancy Index — rental vacancy

02
Price and rent momentum

Minot and Grand Forks reverse the broader price-over-rent pattern

Across eight measured metros, median home-value growth was 5.6%, compared with 4.1% median asking-rent growth, a 1.5 percentage-point rent shortfall. The distributions were broad: the 10th-to-90th percentile range was negative 1.6% to 6.9% for rent growth and 3.6% to 7.6% for price growth. These medians describe measured metros, not every locality.

Among named markets, Minot’s rent rose 6.5% while its price increased 3.7%, and Grand Forks recorded 7.9% rent growth against 7.3% price growth. Wahpeton moved the other way, with rent up 4.6% and price up 5.6%. Their indicated gross yields were close—5.0% in Minot and 4.9% in both Grand Forks and Wahpeton—so operating costs, vacancy and acquisition basis could determine whether the momentum differences matter to actual returns.

Evidence: Zillow ZHVI — metro home values · Zillow ZORI — metro market rents

03
Employment and household movement

Near-flat migration tempers positive employment pockets

Job growth across eight measured metros had a median of 0.3%, with a 10th-to-90th percentile range from negative 1.1% to 1.5%. Dickinson and Jamestown were stronger named pockets at 1.6% and 1.5%, respectively, while Bismarck was close to the measured median at 0.3%.

The migration series covering 47 counties reports net migration of 100 people, or 0.127 per 1,000 residents, alongside an aggregate mover-income gap of negative $331,603. That combination does not confirm broad household or income expansion. It also cannot identify how many movers were renters, and the 2022–2023 migration period is older than the current employment and rental readings.

Evidence: Census ACS 5-year — population · BLS CES — payroll employment · BLS LAUS — resident employment · IRS SOI — county migration and mover income

04
Supply and resale conditions

Wahpeton and Dickinson carry the longest measured resale timelines

Across six measured metros, median resale time was 37.5 days and median supply was 2.8 months. Wahpeton stood at 79 days and 4.8 months of supply, with price drops on 24.2% of listings and a 96.6% sale-to-list ratio. Dickinson recorded 71 days, 3.4 months, a 23.8% price-drop share and a 99.7% sale-to-list ratio. Minot was less extended at 41 days and 2.1 months.

Permitting also varies. Fargo recorded 1,118 permitted units, or 4.31 per 1,000 residents; Grand Forks had 314, or 3.03 per 1,000; and Bismarck had 366, or 2.69 per 1,000. Bismarck simultaneously showed 2.4 months of supply, 30 median days on market and a 26.1% price-drop share. Permits are not completed units, and price cuts are not rental concessions, but both warrant local pipeline and exit-liquidity checks.

Evidence: Census Building Permits Survey — permitted units · Redfin Data Center — inventory, days on market, and price cuts

05
Housing stock and tenant conditions

High county vacancy coexists with renter burden in older, single-family stock

Across 53 county ACS records, the median overall housing vacancy rate was 20.2%, with a 10th-to-90th percentile range from 9.0% to 28.1%. The median renter share was 23.9%, single-family homes represented a median 79.1% of stock, and large multifamily buildings represented only 2.1%. The median of reported county median years built was 1971. These are ACS housing-stock measures, not Apartment List rental vacancy.

Grant County combined 35.2% overall housing vacancy with a 16.6% renter share and a 62.0% rent-burden rate among renters. Emmons County had 25.5% vacancy and 57.2% renter burden; Mercer County had 23.0% vacancy and 55.4% renter burden. Broad vacancy and renter stress can therefore coexist. The data cannot show whether vacant units are habitable, available for rent or suitable for local tenants.

Evidence: Census ACS 5-year — county housing value, tenure and stock

06
Physical risk and property tax

Inland flood dominates leading-hazard labels while tax burdens vary

FEMA assigns inland flood as the mutually exclusive leading-hazard label for 47 counties, followed by hail for three, strong wind for two and wildfire for one. These counts cover all 53 counties without overlap, but a county’s leading label does not establish exposure for a particular parcel.

Across 53 counties, effective property-tax rates ran from 0.54% at the 10th percentile to 1.12% at the 90th. Cavalier County was 1.34% with a $1,686 median tax, Cass County was 1.20% with $3,564, and Foster County was 1.19% with $1,991. The highest named climate-loss ratios were 0.31% in Oliver County, 0.24% in Burleigh County and 0.22% in Griggs County. Property-specific tax records and insurance terms remain necessary because these county measures do not determine an individual asset’s cost.

Evidence: FEMA National Risk Index — hazard loss ratios · Census ACS 5-year — effective property tax

Evidence selected for North Dakota

The ranges behind the analysis

Each row keeps its own unit and shows the measured 10th percentile, median and 90th percentile. A single-value row is labelled directly.

Price and rent momentumAre home values and asking rents moving together or separating?
10th pct.median90th pct.Home-value change3.6%5.6%7.6%Asking-rent change-1.6%4.1%6.9%Rent minus price-1.5%
Employment and household movementDo jobs, household movement and mover income point in the same direction?
10th pct.median90th pct.Job change-1.1%0.3%1.5%Net migration / 1k0.1Net household movement100
Supply and resale conditionsWhat do permits, inventory, marketing time and price cuts say about pressure?
10th pct.median90th pct.Permits / 1k1.52.23.4Months of supply2.3×2.8×4.1×Days on market19 days38 days75 daysListings with cuts14.8%24.0%26.6%
Shape of the state

Distribution before conclusion

A statewide median can hide a wide spread. These SVG charts render at build time and carry no chart library or browser-side data request.

Metro score distribution8 scored metros · median 64.5
00–19020–39240–59560–79180–100
County evidence coverageEvery gap stays visible as missing—not estimated
21%11/53Rent100%53/53Climate89%47/53Migration
Highest measured metro gross yieldsscreening metric only · before expenses and financing
Jamestown5.8%Minot5.0%Wahpeton4.9%Grand Forks4.9%Dickinson4.7%Bismarck4.6%Williston4.2%
Metro leaderboard

Markets touching North Dakota

Multi-state CBSAs appear in every member state. Score is still a metro score; no value is reweighted into a statewide ranking.

#MetroScorePriceRentYieldJobs
1Minot, ND80$274k$1,1465.0%▲ 0.2%
2Wahpeton, ND67$231k$9434.9%▲ 0.3%
3Grand Forks, ND65$282k$1,1484.9%▲ 0.3%
4Jamestown, ND65$233k$1,1175.8%▲ 1.5%
5Dickinson, ND64$328k$1,2974.7%▲ 1.6%
6Bismarck, ND61$360k$1,3714.6%▲ 0.3%
7Williston, ND45$356k$1,2564.2%▼ 1.2%
8Fargo, ND40$329k$1,1314.1%▼ 1.1%
Below the metro line

Largest counties in North Dakota

County figures join on the five-digit FIPS code. The table uses measured local values and prints “n/a” wherever a publisher has no record.

CountyPopulationPriceRentYieldHazard
Cass County, ND193,400$340k$1,1173.9%inland flooding
Burleigh County, ND100,600$374k$1,3794.4%inland flooding
Grand Forks County, ND72,923$297k$1,1694.7%inland flooding
Ward County, ND68,973$287k$1,1464.8%inland flooding
Williams County, ND39,555$356k$1,2564.2%inland flooding
Morton County, ND33,777$327k$1,4105.2%inland flooding
Stark County, ND33,302$324k$1,2974.8%inland flooding
Stutsman County, ND21,549$233k$1,1175.7%inland flooding
Richland County, ND16,584$234k$9034.6%inland flooding
McKenzie County, ND14,321$377k$1,3224.2%inland flooding
Rolette County, ND11,924n/an/an/awildfire
Ramsey County, ND11,556$232kn/an/ainland flooding
County yield sample11/53counties have the rent needed to compute yield
Statewide net migration+100IRS tax-return households summed across counties
Median investor share6.7%among counties with HMDA purchase records
Bear case

What can break the thesis

  1. The state Apartment List series can mask metro and property-level occupancy differences, and no state time-on-market measure is supplied.
  2. Coverage is uneven: Zillow county rent reaches 11 of 53 counties, Realtor.com listing measures reach 21, and migration reaches 47.
  3. Source periods are not synchronized; 2022–2023 migration cannot be treated as a contemporaneous explanation for 2026 rents, employment or listings.
  4. ACS overall housing vacancy includes more than available rental units and cannot be blended with Apartment List’s rental Vacancy Index.
  5. Gross yields exclude vacancy, maintenance, capital work, financing, taxes and insurance, while county hazard labels cannot establish parcel exposure.
Investor questions

Before underwriting a property

Does positive state rent growth mean rental conditions tightened?

No. Recent-lease rent rose 1.9%, but the separate Vacancy Index increased from 5.5% to 6.5%. Vacancy was still 0.7 percentage point below the national reading, so the evidence is mixed rather than uniformly weak.

Where did rent growth outpace home-value growth among the named metros?

Minot recorded 6.5% rent growth versus 3.7% price growth, and Grand Forks recorded 7.9% versus 7.3%. Wahpeton’s rent growth of 4.6% trailed its 5.6% price growth.

Do jobs and migration support broad rental-demand expansion?

Only weakly. Median job growth across eight metros was 0.3%, while migration across 47 counties was net positive by 100 people and the aggregate mover-income gap was negative $331,603. Dickinson and Jamestown were stronger employment pockets.

Which named metros show the greatest measured resale friction?

Wahpeton had 79 median days on market and 4.8 months of supply; Dickinson had 71 days and 3.4 months. Those readings were above the six-metro medians of 37.5 days and 2.8 months.

Should the 47 inland-flood leading-hazard labels be treated as property exposure?

No. Each FEMA label identifies only the county’s mutually exclusive leading hazard. It does not show whether a specific parcel is exposed or what insurance will cost.