Site Selection Data in 2026: 6 Providers by Decision

Say a two-person development team has 2,000 parcels to screen for a coffee format and needs 12 sites worth taking into field diligence. At an average of 11 minutes per parcel for opening maps and joining records, then recording a decision, the first pass consumes about 367 staff hours. Neither person has left the office.

The team can lose those hours on parcels that cannot hold its queue or require a delivery truck to cross the customer line. Demand cannot move the building. I would settle the physical operating rules before buying another report on the neighborhood.

Asset Search by PorchRocket supplies that physical review across a territory. It combines aerial and satellite imagery with property records and public datasets, using rules set with your experts. The output includes every fit and rejection. Unresolved candidates arrive with the check needed to settle them. That gives the development team a defined handoff between market research and field spending.

How we compared the site selection data stack

Asset Search ranks first for a delivered physical fit screen; the other five providers below supply demand analysis, property research or layout software for different decisions.

Start with the decision. I used the linked product pages to compare what an expanding operator receives, who must finish the work after delivery and how the purchase fits a team that already has a territory and prototype:

• Does the purchase answer a specific decision, or give someone more data to interpret?
• Can the team use its own prototype rules across the whole territory?
• Does the handoff preserve parcel identity, dated evidence and a reason for the decision?
• What staff work remains after paying the invoice?

Rank and provider	Best role in the stack	November 2026 buying basis	What I would require before purchase
1. Asset Search	Reviewed physical operating fit for expanding operators	Quoted investigations or accepted results; pilot credited toward the full order	Agreed rules, evidence fields and acceptance definition
2. Placer.ai	Visits, trade areas and demand comparisons	Customized subscription quote	Analysis of the locations and time periods relevant to your format
3. Buxton through Audiense In-Person	Customer fit and market planning	Quote-based; no public rate on the product page	Model scope and the reporting access your team needs
4. Regrid	Parcel research and recorded property attributes	Pro $10 monthly or $100 annually; Team $20 per user monthly	Required fields and export rights for the territory
5. LightBox Vision	Commercial property and zoning research	Quote-based; no public rate on the product page	Layer coverage and delivery scope for your markets
6. TestFit	Layout iteration and automated feasibility	Parking Solver $195 monthly; Site Solver starts at $15,000 annually	The plan and building presets that support your format

The linked provider sections explain those prices and product scopes. The ranking favors a development team that has a territory and prototype, but lacks a reviewed parcel shortlist. Market choice comes earlier.

Demand answers where to look. Records tell you which parcel you are discussing. Layout tools help test an arrangement. Physical screening decides which parcels deserve that design attention. Give each layer its own field in the working file.

The broader asset inventory method explains how a territory search connects visible evidence to owners. For an operator entering a new market, the companion new-city expansion plan helps set the territory before parcel work starts.

Placer.ai for visits and trade areas

Placer.ai belongs in the demand layer when your team needs to compare visitation and trade areas around candidate locations before choosing a market or corridor.

Its site selection page describes visitation comparisons and customer characteristics, including analysis around vacant boxes and pad sites. Subscription packages are customized and quoted to the buyer. The audience includes retailers and restaurant operators as well as commercial property teams.

My buying test would be a question your development meeting cannot answer today: which of two corridors reaches the customers this format is designed to serve? Specify the relevant operating hours and comparison locations before asking for a report.

Then test the layout. Before treating a favorable visitation result as a reason to visit, I would require a separate review of the proposed building arrangement and delivery path, even when the demand report contains a map of the parcel.

Date the demand score. When reviewing a candidate, the committee should be able to see which time window informed the demand decision without reopening the research project. Put that field in the export.

Pick it if your unresolved decision is customer movement around candidate locations and your team has a separate physical screening process.

Buxton and Audiense In-Person for market planning

Buxton’s current Audiense In-Person offering belongs in the customer and market-planning layer, especially when an operator needs to compare expansion areas against a customer profile.

The current product page presents Buxton within Audiense In-Person and describes SCOUT as its location analytics platform. Site scoring and market planning are part of that offer. The page routes buyers to a sales conversation without publishing a dollar rate, so budget it as quote-based.

Check the purchased scope closely. Buxton’s reporting-level documentation distinguishes users who can run reports from those who can view them. Running site scores also depends on the organization purchasing the relevant model.

For a small development group, that means asking who will run the next comparison when the principal analyst is away. A map viewer and a person authorized to produce the report are different seats in the workflow.

Set the handoff. Alongside the market score, I would put a separate physical-fit decision that tells the site designer whether the compact prototype can use the proposed entrance or whether a different arrangement needs review.

Pick it if you need customer-based market planning across a location network and can assign staff to apply the resulting scores.

Regrid for parcels and recorded property attributes

Regrid supplies parcel records for researchers who need a consistent starting file, with property attributes and ownership information attached.

The Property App documents parcel filters and exports, with notes that researchers can attach to a property. Its official plan documentation lists single-user Pro at $10 per month or $100 per year, and Team at $20 per user per month. The product page describes paid exports priced by volume and fields. Confirm the export charge at checkout rather than treating the subscription as an all-in data purchase.

For the 2,000-parcel assignment, raw record access can therefore be a small line item. The review takes the time. Someone still has to compare the prototype with the site and document why it passes or fails.

I would use the parcel identifier as the join field throughout the project. Include its county or jurisdiction. An address change should not create a second candidate that another researcher unknowingly reviews again.

An inexpensive record becomes expensive when three people each reopen it. Assign one current disposition and keep the review notes with that record. If your team wants the provider to make the physical-fit decision, put that requirement in the purchase scope instead of assuming a parcel subscription includes it.

Pick it if you have the staff to perform the review and mainly need a parcel research tool and exportable records.

LightBox Vision for property and zoning research

LightBox Vision belongs in the records layer for commercial teams that want property attributes and zoning information within a mapping workflow.

The current LightBox Vision page identifies the product as formerly LandVision. It documents parcels and building footprints, with ownership information and zoning among the available research layers. The public page uses a contact route without listing a dollar price; request a quote for the required scope.

I would make the purchasing question narrow: which fields will be available for the exact counties in the rollout? Have the team inspect a sample of the same parcels it will use in the pilot. A national product description does not answer whether your required field is populated on that sample.

For operating fit, the remaining work is the decision rule. A zoning label does not describe your entire proposed operation, and a building footprint still needs the prototype laid against it. Require the reviewer to identify the governing source for any use or access question that remains open.

Staff the review. Before buying a mapping product for a team whose analyst already has a full workload, name the person who will examine the candidate parcels and budget the hours needed to deliver decisions to the development manager.

Pick it if your commercial property team wants a mapping platform for ongoing research and will perform or commission the physical review.

TestFit for layouts and design iteration

TestFit fits the layout layer when the next decision is how a proposed arrangement works on selected sites and a team will operate the software.

The current pricing page lists Parking Solver at $195 per month, billed monthly. Site Solver starts at $15,000 per year billed annually and adds building presets and generative design. Those are different purchases; a parking subscription should not be described as the price for the full site-solving plan.

I would send a shortlist to the designer with the prototype version already attached. Then ask for the alternative that matters: can the building rotate while preserving the queue and delivery movement? Record the changes to the arrangement and which requirement each change addresses.

The scope question for an operator is who gets the territory to that stage. Buying layout software creates a tool for the assigned user. Your purchasing brief should assign responsibility for candidate preparation and operating rules, with someone named to review the resulting layouts for the business.

Use a difficult pilot parcel. Alongside the easy rectangle, give the designer an irregular site with a retained building, then time the work needed to set it up and produce an arrangement the development manager can accept or send back for revision. Budget that time. Leave rejected layouts attached to the parcel so another designer can see what was tried.

Pick it if your design team has candidates ready for layout work and needs software to test arrangements repeatedly.

When another tool is the better buy

A demand, records or layout product is the better first purchase when the development team’s unresolved decision sits in that layer and someone already owns physical review.

• Choose demand analytics first when leadership still has to select the market and customer catchment.
• Choose a records tool first when an existing analyst can do the screening but needs parcel data.
• Choose layout software first when an architect already has controlled sites and a defined design question.
• Use Census Business Builder’s free business research when your immediate task is comparing demographic and business conditions across areas.

For a development team facing thousands of unreviewed candidates, I would buy the physical screen first and add the other products where the decision calls for them. That order is about the team’s workload. If market selection is still open, finish that decision before commissioning a territory-wide parcel review.

Ask every provider for the same sample output: one accepted site, one rejection and one candidate needing another check. Then assign the work that remains after each delivery. The commercial property data comparison covers the broader records market if that is the missing input.

Physical operating fit starts with your prototype

Asset Search tests visible site conditions against the buyer’s operating rules, so the screen starts with a versioned prototype and explicit rejection criteria.

For the coffee example, set operator-supplied targets of a 620-square-foot building, a 10-car queue, a bypass route and 28 parking spaces. Add the delivery vehicle and the entrance arrangement the operator will accept. Those targets belong to this format’s brief. The local design team supplies the applicable code requirements beside them.

Split requirements into hard gates and preferences. A hard gate stops the candidate: the required building and circulation arrangement cannot be accommodated within the agreed site area. A preference changes the order of review, such as a corner location or a favored approach direction. A failed gate stays failed.

The same method works across formats, but the screen must ask different questions:

Operating format	Put these elements in the buyer’s screen	Next specialist question for candidates that pass
Coffee or quick-service restaurant	Building position, queue, bypass and delivery path	Can the proposed access and circulation receive approval?
Express car wash	Tunnel arrangement, stacking, exit and vacuum area	Can the utility and drainage design support this format?
Childcare center	Building, outdoor area and separated pickup movement	Does the proposed layout meet the licensing review?
Self-storage	Building rows, drive aisles and gate approach	Does the design accommodate the specified vehicle movements?
Urgent care	Entry location, parking arrangement and drop-off	Can the proposed occupancy and interior plan be approved?
Convenience store	Store, forecourt and delivery circulation	What engineering and permitting remain for this site?
Grocery pickup or restaurant patio	Staging or outdoor area beside the existing operation	Can the required pedestrian route remain available?

One researched rule shows why a generic parking total is insufficient. Under the general ADA parking table, a facility with 26 to 50 spaces needs two accessible spaces, including one van space. Separate parking facilities are counted separately. The U.S. Access Board’s parking guide explains that allocation. For the example’s 28-space lot, put the two accessible spaces and their route into the design brief before accepting the arrangement.

Use the drive-thru screening guide for queue-heavy formats, the car wash site selection guide for tunnel layouts and the childcare site selection guide for center conversions. Keep the same evidence structure across them, with separate operating rules.

When a standard building list is enough

For an initial list based on existing building features, the fastest route is Ground Control by PorchRocket. Select the territory, business type and visible features such as paved parking, loading docks or rooftop HVAC. Commercial lists cost $10 to $20 per building and arrive within 48 hours after payment; report a wrong match within 30 days for credit back. Use Ground Control’s building search, properties with paved parking or buildings with rooftop HVAC when those filters answer the first question. Use Asset Search when the parcel must be investigated against your operating prototype.

What a reviewed candidate record should contain

A site record should connect parcel identifiers to dated evidence and the rule tested, with a disposition that tells the next person exactly what to do.

I would require one row per candidate site, with a linked parcel list when the site covers more than one parcel. Keep the building or operating area separate from the parcel boundary. Otherwise, an attractive area of pavement beside the building can quietly become part of the assumed site without anyone checking its ownership.

For the coffee territory, the review file should carry these fields:

• Candidate identifier, parcel identifier and jurisdiction.
• Site location, recorded owner and the area being screened.
• Prototype version, image capture date and review date as separate fields.
• Observed facts for each hard gate, including the evidence view used.
• Fits, rejects or unresolved, with the reason attached.
• The next action and the person responsible for it.

The Asset Search file includes all dispositions. Retain every rejection. When the team later changes the prototype, those rows show which candidates deserve another look.

Example candidate	Reviewed disposition	Evidence recorded	Next action
C-047	Fits the specified physical screen	Building position and circulation arrangement pass the supplied rules; dated views attached	Confirm owner interest and commission the design check
C-081	Rejects the current prototype	The required bypass conflicts with the retained building in the tested arrangement	Retain the row for a smaller-prototype review
C-106	Unresolved	Part of the rear clearance is obscured in the available views	Measure that clearance during an authorized field visit

Give owner willingness its own column. When the physically suitable property has an owner who will not discuss a transaction, the development manager needs to see that obstacle alongside the fit decision, with a contact note explaining what would justify another approach. Assign the follow-up date there.

Write the reason in plain language. A development manager can act on a rear clearance measurement request. A score of 78 does not say what to inspect. Give the field person the source view with the measurement threshold written beside the obscured area.

For the ownership handoff, use the commercial property owner research process. Record who has responded and what they are authorized to discuss beside the original ownership record.

A four-week commercial site selection process

Use a four-week working plan that takes your team from agreed search rules to a tested pilot and a shortlist, scheduling delivery and field milestones separately.

Each stage needs an exit rule. In the 2,000-parcel example, the researcher who removes a candidate must leave enough evidence for the next person to understand why it stopped, without making that person open the maps and repeat the review.

Stage in the working funnel	Candidates remaining	Evidence needed to advance
Starting territory	2,000	One deduplicated candidate register
Demand and broad location rules	460	Market gate passed and the reason recorded
Broad footprint and configuration screen	180	Enough apparent room to warrant detailed review
Detailed physical review	60 fits, 60 unresolved, 60 rejects	Dated observations against the prototype
Owner discussions from the 60 fits	18	Willingness to discuss the proposed transaction
Initial field diligence shortlist	12	A funded next check and an assigned decision owner

The arithmetic matters. The full register contains 1,540 early exclusions, 280 broad configuration rejects, 60 detailed rejects, 60 unresolved cases and 60 physical fits. That adds to 2,000. The 18 owner discussions and 12 field candidates are later stages within the 60 fits; they are not extra finds. Physical fits are 60 / 2,000 = 3% of the starting register. The field shortlist is 12 / 2,000 = 0.6%. Keep those denominators beside the counts in the development report.

In week one, have operations and development settle the rules. Resolve disagreements using candidate examples before commissioning the territory. If one person accepts a shared driveway and another forbids it, the reviewer needs an answer.

In week two, inspect the paid pilot. Review accepted and rejected candidates together. Record which disagreement comes from unclear evidence and which comes from an unclear rule; those require different fixes.

Treat the four weeks as the team’s working calendar, with pilot and production dates agreed in the quote. Assign staff time to rule-setting and pilot acceptance separately from the per-row review budget. Use week three for the agreed production handoff and owner research. Schedule the work to the delivery date in the quote. In week four, put the 12 candidates into a field queue, with the unresolved question and budget beside each one. Keep the 60 unresolved records in their own queue until the specified check resolves them.

Access deserves an explicit handoff. For driveways on Texas highway right of way, TxDOT’s driveway permit process directs applicants proposing construction or revision to the district office and Form 1058. A visible driveway does not answer the permit question for a proposed change. Put that question on the local engineer’s task list.

I would hold the development meeting around decisions due that week. Read the queue by the next action, rather than making the whole team look again at every map.

What site selection data costs after staff time

In the 2,000-parcel model, manual assembly and screening costs $24,750 in staff time; reviewing a delivered file uses $4,522.50 before the search fee.

Use a loaded staff rate of $67.50 per hour, covering wages and employer costs. The opening assumption of 11 minutes per parcel covers record assembly and physical review, including the time to document why the candidate passed or failed. Average it across fast rejects and slower cases.

Manual work is 2,000 x 11 = 22,000 minutes, or 366 2/3 hours. The cost is 22,000 / 60 x $67.50 = $24,750. Round hours only for display; calculate money from the full minutes.

For a delivered review file, budget 1.5 minutes of internal acceptance review on every row: 2,000 x 1.5 / 60 = 50 hours. Add 17 minutes of deeper internal review for each of the 60 physical fits: 60 x 17 / 60 = 17 hours. The total is 67 hours x $67.50 = $4,522.50.

The difference is 366 2/3 minus 67 = 299 2/3 staff hours, worth $20,227.50 in this budget. The search fee is quoted separately. Use the pilot to replace these timing assumptions with your team’s measured review times before approving the full scope.

Route to the same 2,000-parcel assignment	Software or service purchase	Budget needed to reach a reviewed shortlist
Asset Search	Quoted physical investigation scope	Quoted fee plus $4,522.50 of internal review in this model
Placer.ai with an internal screening team	Customized demand subscription	Subscription plus the team’s measured assembly and screening hours
Buxton with an internal screening team	Quoted market-planning and reporting scope	Quote plus the team’s measured physical review hours
Regrid Team with manual review	$20 per user monthly; two users for one month	$40 + $24,750 = $24,790, plus any export charge
LightBox Vision with an internal screening team	Quoted mapping scope	Quote plus the team’s measured review and evidence-recording hours
TestFit with an assigned design team	Site Solver starts at $15,000 annually	Annual commitment plus candidate preparation and design staff time

Price the finished assignment. Give each provider the same parcel sample and time the internal work needed after delivery, including the effort to join records and write decisions that the development manager would otherwise have to reconstruct. Hold demand analysis and final engineering budgets constant across the options.

For the Regrid path, both researchers use Team for one billing month: 2 x $20 = $40. The public plan documentation and product page describe export terms differently, so carry the download charge as a separate quoted input. One-person research can use the documented Pro price; that is a different staffing plan. For an annual layout purchase used only on these 12 finalists, the starting Site Solver license allocation is $15,000 / 12 = $1,250 per finalist before design labor. More projects change that allocation.

For an operator that needs a finished physical screen, I would choose Asset Search when the agreed fee plus internal review beats the cost of staffing that work and the pilot meets the acceptance rules.

What an accepted site is worth to the operator

Value each accepted candidate using saved screening effort and the operator’s opening economics, while keeping the 60 physical fits separate from the 12 field finalists.

First, put a value on wasted trips. Budget four staff hours at $67.50, plus $145 of travel expense, for a failed field visit. That is $270 + $145 = $415 per visit. Assume manual selection sends the team to 42 sites to identify 12 worth further diligence, while early screening sends it to those 12. These field hours are additional to desktop review; leave the 60 unresolved candidates on hold in both routes. The 30 avoided visits save 30 x $415 = $12,450.

Combine that with the $20,227.50 internal screening difference and the modeled avoidable cost is $32,677.50 before the quoted service fee. Spread across 60 accepted physical candidates, the research and travel saving is $32,677.50 / 60 = $544.63 per accepted candidate, rounded. That number describes value to the buyer; the commercial quote is a separate decision.

Then examine the opening itself. Assume the operator has capital and management capacity to open one additional coffee location from the 60 accepted candidates. Use $153,600 of annual site-level operating contribution after recurring operating expenses, including rent, a five-year horizon and $486,000 of initial tenant buildout, equipment and opening expenditure. Assume a leased site, no land purchase, the same contribution in each full operating year and no terminal proceeds. Include ramp-up losses in the opening budget.

Five-year operating contribution is 5 x $153,600 = $768,000. Subtract $486,000 of opening expenditure and the result is $282,000 before financing costs, tax and discounting. Allocated over 60 candidates, that is $4,700 of opening contribution per accepted candidate.

The conversion assumption is one opening from 60 accepted sites, or about 1.67%. One opening carries the return. Put the operator’s own contribution and capital requirements into this calculation.

For a fixed expansion schedule, use the labor case; for a team with approved capital and enough managers to open an extra location, work through the additional-opening case with the person responsible for staffing that store. Count freed staff time once.

The lead-list ROI calculator can support the cost-versus-contribution arithmetic; for this use, treat a signed, viable operating location as the conversion. Keep property acquisition terms and the operator’s business case outside the physical search acceptance test.

Low, base and high cases for the screening budget

The screening decision should survive a low case, so vary time saved and failed trips avoided before assigning value to an additional opening.

Keep the loaded staff rate at $67.50 and the failed-trip cost at $415. Vary only the internal hours released and the number of unnecessary visits removed. The base case uses the calculations above; the other columns test less and more saved work.

Planning input or result	Low case	Base case	High case
Internal screening hours released	140	299.67, rounded	340
Value of released hours	$9,450	$20,227.50	$22,950
Failed visits avoided	12	30	38
Travel and field time avoided	$4,980	$12,450	$15,770
Total avoidable work before the search fee	$14,430	$32,677.50	$38,720

My decision rule is to compare the written quote with the low-case avoided work, then require the pilot to pass the acceptance test. If the case depends entirely on opening a bonus location, have operations approve that opening capacity before buying the territory.

Measure throughput alongside money. At 11 minutes per parcel, 80 staff hours cover about 436 manual reviews. At the modeled 67 hours per 2,000 delivered records, those same 80 hours cover about 2,388 internal reviews. That is about 5.5 times the review capacity, provided the delivered evidence supports the shorter review time.

Check the next team’s capacity. If the development manager can contact six owners each week, release accepted candidates in batches matched to that capacity. A waiting list consumes staff time.

Track cost per physical fit and cost per candidate entering field diligence separately. A low cost per fit with no owner conversations points to an outreach problem. Frequent field rejection for the same visible obstruction points back to the screen. Those two failures need different corrections.

How to screen a territory, step by step

Run an eight-step process that fixes the prototype first, tests Asset Search on a paid pilot and funds field work only against a specific next decision.

1. Write the operating brief. Have development and operations sign off on one prototype version. Include the building arrangement, required vehicle movements and any retained site features. Mark each requirement as a hard gate or a preference. Use the coffee example’s queue and bypass as separate requirements so a reviewer cannot trade one away to make the other fit.

2. Set the territory and demand gate. Provide the search boundary and exclusion areas. State whether the assignment includes vacant parcels, existing buildings, conversions and adjacent-parcel combinations. Attach the demand rule or approved corridor list. Record early exclusions in the candidate register so the team can explain the difference between the original territory and the area searched in detail.

3. Commission an Asset Search pilot. Submit the prototype and territory through the site selection search request. Ask for a small paid pilot credited toward the full order, with fits, rejects and unresolved candidates returned. Agree on dated evidence, parcel and owner fields, acceptance criteria and delivery format before production. For this buyer, I would start with per-investigation pilot terms, then consider per-accepted-result terms once both sides agree what acceptance means.

4. Challenge the pilot with your experts. Let the operations lead and site designer inspect the same records independently. Include awkward shapes and conversions alongside straightforward sites. Discuss disagreements using the source view and rule, then amend the wording that caused them. Check a sample of rejects as well as fits; a screen that discards viable candidates can leave a territory understudied.

5. Freeze the rules and order the territory. Approve the revised specification and the production schedule. Request CSV or Excel for the development team, with GIS-ready files if the mapping team needs them. Preserve the rule version on each result. Name the person who can authorize changes during production so the reviewer does not receive conflicting instructions from different regions.

6. Open owner conversations from the accepted set. Assign the 60 physical fits to the person responsible for availability discussions. Ask whether the owner will consider the proposed use and transaction type. A first message can identify the site and explain that the team is assessing a coffee location with a defined circulation plan. Request the existing site plan and the appropriate property contact. Record the response beside the candidate rather than hiding it in an inbox.

7. Fund the next check on the 12 finalists. Give each field visit a question and a threshold. Measure the obscured clearance, confirm the retained building arrangement or have the engineer review the proposed entrance. Bring the dated views and the marked uncertainty to the visit. Record the result in the same candidate row so the next committee meeting can approve, reject or assign one further task.

8. Close the review loop. Compare the field findings with the screen and correct rules that produced repeated disagreements. Count accepted candidates, owner conversations and field advances separately. Keep rejected and unresolved sites available for a later prototype revision. Agree on monitoring if the expansion program needs to know when buildings change or lots are cleared.

I would give one development manager ownership of this register. The analyst can prepare records and the designer can resolve geometry, but someone must decide whether the next dollar goes to research, a visit or a different candidate. Put that decision owner beside every active row.

Re-screen the territory when the prototype changes

Asset Search can re-answer previously searched sites when your requirements change, often from retained evidence, and re-check sites as new imagery becomes available.

A smaller building or revised queue arrangement changes the decision even if the parcel itself has not changed. Retain the original reason. When the new prototype resolves the bypass conflict that stopped a candidate, the reviewer can reopen that row and test the changed requirement against the dated evidence already in the file, before ordering another field visit.

Use two separate refresh triggers. One is a rule change: the operator now accepts a different configuration. The other is a site change: a building appears, a lot is cleared or an installation is removed. The first calls for applying new rules; the second calls for comparing dated observations.

For the 2,000-parcel register, request an old and new disposition for every changed candidate, with the explanation beside it. Preserve unchanged rows in the master file. The regional manager can then work the newly eligible candidates without asking an analyst to reconstruct last quarter’s decision.

For continuing rollouts, Asset Search offers a monitoring subscription with before-and-after dates for observed changes. Specify the watched events. A coffee expansion team might prioritize cleared lots and changed building configurations; another format will have different triggers.

Record owner contact changes separately from physical changes. If the site still fits and a new decision-maker takes over, the next action belongs to outreach. If the parcel arrangement changes, it belongs to review. The register should route each update to the person who can settle it.

Put your prototype to work with Asset Search

The fastest way to build a reviewed physical shortlist is Asset Search: give PorchRocket the territory and operating rules, then approve a scoped pilot before expanding.

PorchRocket can search from one county to the contiguous United States using aerial and satellite imagery cross-referenced with property records and public datasets. Your experts define the rules; people review every candidate before delivery. Every disposition arrives with its evidence. For site selection, start with a paid investigation pilot credited toward the full order, then choose investigation or accepted-result terms that match the agreed acceptance test. The custom asset search service delivers the file in the format your team uses.

For the development manager trying to move 2,000 parcels toward 12 field candidates, the order should specify six things:

• The search territory and the exact prototype version, including the configurations your team will accept.
• Locations and parcel references, with owner information and decision-maker contact where it applies.
• Dated views and the observed facts behind each operating-fit decision.
• Every disposition, including rejection reasons and the field check that settles each unresolved case.
• CSV, Excel, GIS-ready files or an import arranged for the team’s working system.
• A refresh plan for changed requirements and, when needed, monitoring for changed sites.

Use per-investigation terms while the pilot settles edge cases. Per-accepted-result terms fit a repeatable format once acceptance is defined. A monitoring subscription fits a continuing rollout that needs fresh candidates and updated answers. Delivery timing belongs in the written scope alongside those terms.

Starting takes a two-minute form: tell us what to find and where. PorchRocket comes back with a scope and quote. Your team does not need to purchase imagery, hire analysts or learn a new mapping system to receive the pilot.

Give the next site meeting 12 candidates with evidence and assigned next decisions, and spend the field budget on parcels your operation can use.