Hillsborough County vacancy composition by ZIP area (2020-2024)
The 53 selected ZIP Code Tabulation Areas assigned to Hillsborough County with usable estimates, ranked by overall vacancy rate, with the split between homes vacant for rent and homes held for seasonal or occasional use. Census Bureau 2020-2024 five-year estimates.
| ZCTA | Vacancy rate | Vacant units | For-rent share of vacant | Seasonal share of vacant | Small base |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 33570 | 17.5% | 2,605 | 20.5% | 54.6% | |
| 33605 | 17.2% | 1,536 | 19.2% | 17.4% | |
| 33606 | 13.3% | 1,521 | 27.2% | 47.8% | |
| 33621 | 12.0% | 68 | 100.0% | 0.0% | yes |
| 33565 | 11.9% | 851 | 2.4% | 17.5% | |
| 33592 | 11.5% | 579 | 16.1% | 16.9% | |
| 33612 | 11.5% | 2,469 | 54.3% | 9.0% | |
| 33607 | 11.2% | 1,521 | 15.6% | 33.9% | |
| 33613 | 10.2% | 1,884 | 56.3% | 5.5% | |
| 33527 | 10.0% | 602 | 15.3% | 16.8% | |
| 33567 | 9.9% | 426 | 12.0% | 2.8% | |
| 33573 | 9.9% | 1,810 | 16.4% | 51.7% | |
| 33609 | 9.1% | 860 | 17.3% | 28.4% | |
| 33603 | 9.0% | 860 | 25.2% | 14.3% | |
| 33604 | 9.0% | 1,570 | 23.5% | 20.6% | |
| 33563 | 8.8% | 932 | 17.7% | 32.8% | |
| 33615 | 8.8% | 1,775 | 32.9% | 22.4% | |
| 33578 | 8.7% | 2,268 | 53.8% | 11.2% | |
| 33602 | 8.5% | 1,110 | 38.5% | 25.5% | |
| 33614 | 8.5% | 1,714 | 40.1% | 8.4% | |
| 33534 | 8.1% | 504 | 29.0% | 0.0% | |
| 33617 | 8.1% | 1,789 | 53.0% | 11.1% | |
| 33610 | 7.9% | 1,438 | 30.8% | 16.7% | |
| 33572 | 7.8% | 858 | 6.8% | 64.5% | |
| 33616 | 7.8% | 578 | 38.4% | 35.5% | |
| 33569 | 7.4% | 810 | 20.4% | 15.1% | |
| 33611 | 6.7% | 1,287 | 16.1% | 29.2% | |
| 33511 | 6.6% | 1,636 | 51.6% | 12.3% | |
| 33619 | 6.5% | 1,038 | 35.5% | 18.0% | |
| 33635 | 6.5% | 536 | 11.2% | 23.3% | |
| 33549 | 6.2% | 476 | 32.8% | 0.0% | |
| 33584 | 5.9% | 661 | 23.9% | 18.9% | |
| 33634 | 5.7% | 471 | 67.3% | 8.1% | |
| 33637 | 5.7% | 473 | 38.3% | 0.0% | |
| 33556 | 5.6% | 732 | 20.9% | 34.4% | |
| 33594 | 5.4% | 765 | 51.9% | 16.7% | |
| 33559 | 5.3% | 400 | 49.8% | 0.0% | |
| 33629 | 5.2% | 584 | 9.6% | 2.9% | |
| 33547 | 5.1% | 526 | 19.2% | 30.2% | |
| 33618 | 4.8% | 593 | 54.5% | 15.9% | |
| 33625 | 4.6% | 550 | 57.1% | 0.0% | |
| 33510 | 4.3% | 518 | 36.5% | 8.7% | |
| 33647 | 4.1% | 1,147 | 51.8% | 14.5% | |
| 33579 | 4.0% | 644 | 48.9% | 16.3% | |
| 33626 | 3.7% | 463 | 70.6% | 0.0% | |
| 33558 | 3.5% | 432 | 25.7% | 33.6% | |
| 33566 | 3.3% | 279 | 9.0% | 7.5% | yes |
| 33598 | 3.1% | 323 | 0.0% | 45.5% | |
| 33596 | 2.9% | 307 | 19.5% | 11.4% | |
| 33624 | 2.2% | 347 | 38.3% | 15.9% | |
| 33548 | 1.9% | 58 | 0.0% | 0.0% | yes |
| 33503 | 0.0% | 0 | n/a | n/a | yes |
| 33620 | 0.0% | 0 | n/a | n/a | yes |
Region-wide context: all four counties ranked by vacancy. Methods: vacancy study. Archived data: DOI 10.5281/zenodo.23114340.
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.