Hillsborough County rent burden by ZIP area (2020-2024)
The 52 selected ZIP Code Tabulation Areas assigned to Hillsborough County with usable estimates, ranked by the share of renter households paying 30% or more of income on gross rent. Figures are Census Bureau 2020-2024 five-year estimates; rows marked "small sample" have a thin renter base and should be read with their margins of error.
| ZCTA | Renters cost-burdened 30%+ | Severely burdened 50%+ | Median gross rent | Median household income | Median rent as % of income | Small sample |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 33620 | 100.0% | 100.0% | n/a | n/a | n/a | yes |
| 33613 | 72.0% | 41.5% | $1,298 | $44,032 | 35.4% | |
| 33573 | 68.2% | 51.9% | $2,230 | $72,834 | 36.7% | |
| 33612 | 67.6% | 39.1% | $1,352 | $47,199 | 34.4% | |
| 33634 | 67.5% | 36.0% | $1,866 | $74,291 | 30.1% | |
| 33569 | 67.4% | 37.5% | $2,273 | $105,275 | 25.9% | |
| 33605 | 66.8% | 35.9% | $1,135 | $36,975 | 36.8% | |
| 33617 | 66.3% | 29.6% | $1,431 | $50,948 | 33.7% | |
| 33549 | 65.7% | 24.3% | $1,661 | $89,343 | 22.3% | |
| 33534 | 65.6% | 27.2% | $1,452 | $80,484 | 21.6% | |
| 33565 | 65.4% | 29.9% | $1,454 | $73,414 | 23.8% | |
| 33604 | 64.4% | 38.9% | $1,412 | $58,766 | 28.8% | |
| 33614 | 63.9% | 33.7% | $1,458 | $50,232 | 34.8% | |
| 33624 | 63.1% | 35.9% | $1,782 | $87,760 | 24.4% | |
| 33610 | 61.0% | 31.8% | $1,384 | $54,209 | 30.6% | |
| 33578 | 59.9% | 32.1% | $1,829 | $85,921 | 25.5% | |
| 33510 | 59.5% | 28.7% | $1,483 | $74,245 | 24.0% | |
| 33511 | 59.2% | 31.4% | $1,801 | $81,301 | 26.6% | |
| 33559 | 59.2% | 22.9% | $1,561 | $80,185 | 23.4% | |
| 33594 | 57.5% | 19.5% | $1,830 | $96,628 | 22.7% | |
| 33570 | 56.9% | 24.0% | $1,253 | $72,172 | 20.8% | |
| 33572 | 56.8% | 26.2% | $2,251 | $122,130 | 22.1% | |
| 33625 | 56.8% | 29.6% | $1,894 | $93,133 | 24.4% | |
| 33647 | 56.5% | 26.1% | $1,904 | $109,285 | 20.9% | |
| 33584 | 55.5% | 15.8% | $1,502 | $72,267 | 24.9% | |
| 33607 | 55.5% | 27.1% | $1,927 | $69,694 | 33.2% | |
| 33527 | 55.3% | 37.8% | $968 | $80,464 | 14.4% | |
| 33619 | 54.9% | 28.4% | $1,746 | $66,134 | 31.7% | |
| 33618 | 54.6% | 31.6% | $1,574 | $84,788 | 22.3% | |
| 33621 | 53.6% | 21.0% | $2,703 | $107,188 | 30.3% | |
| 33596 | 53.1% | 28.1% | $2,452 | $116,465 | 25.3% | |
| 33611 | 53.1% | 21.7% | $1,778 | $90,910 | 23.5% | |
| 33567 | 53.0% | 33.2% | $1,319 | $85,643 | 18.5% | |
| 33615 | 52.1% | 25.6% | $1,656 | $69,274 | 28.7% | |
| 33566 | 52.0% | 17.9% | $1,398 | $72,393 | 23.2% | |
| 33603 | 52.0% | 23.0% | $1,518 | $74,081 | 24.6% | |
| 33592 | 51.3% | 21.1% | $1,150 | $68,802 | 20.1% | |
| 33563 | 50.9% | 27.1% | $1,351 | $60,131 | 27.0% | |
| 33616 | 50.5% | 21.2% | $2,054 | $93,210 | 26.4% | |
| 33637 | 49.8% | 31.9% | $1,648 | $63,323 | 31.2% | |
| 33609 | 49.3% | 22.7% | $1,861 | $115,844 | 19.3% | |
| 33556 | 49.1% | 15.2% | $1,841 | $149,722 | 14.8% | |
| 33606 | 48.1% | 20.2% | $2,100 | $120,729 | 20.9% | |
| 33547 | 47.8% | 25.3% | $2,218 | $123,258 | 21.6% | |
| 33558 | 46.6% | 20.2% | $1,672 | $116,090 | 17.3% | |
| 33602 | 46.5% | 23.4% | $2,270 | $97,320 | 28.0% | |
| 33626 | 45.2% | 28.8% | $2,204 | $127,118 | 20.8% | |
| 33635 | 44.6% | 18.0% | $1,809 | $86,894 | 25.0% | |
| 33548 | 44.1% | 23.1% | $1,975 | $129,857 | 18.3% | |
| 33629 | 42.6% | 16.5% | $1,891 | $164,355 | 13.8% | |
| 33598 | 41.6% | 12.7% | $1,458 | $97,520 | 17.9% | |
| 33579 | 37.0% | 10.9% | $2,165 | $116,134 | 22.4% |
Region-wide context: all four counties ranked by rent burden. Methods: rent burden study. Archived data: DOI 10.5281/zenodo.22940611.
Included rows can still have small bases, as the flags show. Usable does not mean precise. This county-assigned ZCTA selection is not a complete countywide estimate; read the values with their sampling limits.