A real parcel, answered by the live system.
This is not a mockup. The brief below is one object composed by the production system, and this page renders it exactly as the API serves it. Where the system cannot compute something, it says so rather than filling the space.
4000 West Silverado Ranch Boulevard, Las Vegas, Nevada 89139, United States
APN 177-19-802-029 · 13.08 ac · Clark County
Generated by the live system on 2026-09-07 for APN 177-19-802-029 · engine a40b7dd1eb5e
The parcel boundary, drawn from the county geometry this brief was computed against.
The published sample plan, drawn from its stored geometry. Generated 2026-09-01 on this parcel, reference only, PE review required before design or acquisition. The full sheet is on the demo plan page.
The parcel
Address4000 West Silverado Ranch Boulevard, Las Vegas, Nevada 89139, United States
APN177-19-802-029
Size13.08 ac568,413 sf
JurisdictionClark County
Legal descriptionPARCEL MAP FILE 131 PAGE 5 LOT 2
OwnerSILVERADO M F PROJECT OWNER L L
Assessed land$5,485,200
Last sale$19,430,0002024-10-01 · $1,485,906/ac
Sale to assessed3.54×What it traded for against what the roll carries it at
Tax district635 · ENTERPRISE FIRE ARTESIAN LIBRARY 911 MANPOWER2.9328 per $100, FY 2026-27 · verify with the Clark County Treasurer
Assessor data: Regrid, county roll vintage 6/2026 · loaded 8/2/2026 · ownership may lag recent transfers — verify before contact
What you can build
DistrictRM50Residential Multifamily, 50 du/ac
Max density50.00 du/ac
Max height75 ft
Setbacks20 / 20 / 20 ftfront / side / rear
Min lot area7,000 sfper SITE — the minimum area of the whole development, not of each lot
Capacity ceiling652 units1,141 parking stalls · a ceiling under the code, not a designed yield
Recommended lot module35 × 80 ftRM50 sets no per-lot minimum — 35x80 ft is the module recorded on 2 nearby final map(s) (read off the plats themselves).
Sourcepublished: Clark County Zoningchecked 2026-08-03
Clark County Title 30 Tables 30.02-2 / 30.02-3 (eff. 2024)
Plan records on file
Applications on this parcel10 with plan(s) the county holds, 1 index pointer(s) only · 3 document(s) across them
PW25-16409STRUCTURAL LETTER, Approved Structural Plans, STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS · Clark County Public Works · 2025-09-15Index pointer — the county holds the drawing(s), we hold the reference
Coverage is partial — absence of a row means no mined evidence yet, not absence of utilities.
What it takes to serve it
WaterLVVWD · 702-870-4194verified 2026-08-28
SewerCCWRD · 702-668-8888verified 2026-08-28
ElectricNV Energy · 702-402-5555verified 2026-08-28
GasSouthwest Gas · 877-860-6020verified 2026-08-28
TelecomVaries by street — Cox and/or CenturyLinkNo single number — confirm the franchise for this street
TrashRepublic Services · 702-735-5151verified 2026-08-28
Typical providers for this jurisdiction — a rule, not a territory lookup. Confirm with the purveyor before relying on service.
What could stop you
Flood zoneXFEMA NFHL, effective panels only
FIRM panel32003C2565D
FIRM effective2002-09-27
Road frontagePublic road adjacent9 public centreline(s) within ~30 m of the boundary. Physical frontage, not proof of legal access — that is a title question.
Platting statusCreated by recorded mapThe legal description cites a recorded map: "PARCEL MAP FILE 131 PAGE 5 LOT 2". Heuristic read of the roll, not a survey determination.
Average slope1.32%grid-cell slopes (single derivation): avg = mean, max = p99 spike-filtered, histogram = same cells
Max slope1.72%
FallEbearing 75.1°
Elevation2318.6 to 2334.3 ft15.7 ft of relief
Slope distribution100.0% in the 0 to 5% bandSame grid cells that produced the average
Grading difficultyEasyBelow the 10% average slope that triggers the hillside ordinance
Earthwork15,450 CYBasis: terraced 5-acre pads. Cut and fill come back equal because the method balances against its own grade, so this is one moved volume, not a finding that the site balances
Terrain sourceMapbox Terrain-RGB (~5 m) — planning-grade estimatePlanning-grade. A survey is what a grading plan is drawn from
SoilJean gravelly loamy fine sand, 2 to 4 percent slopesSource: NRCS Web Soil Survey (SSURGO)
TextureSandy
Drainage classExcessively drained
Hydrologic groupA
Shrink-swellLow
Corrosion riskLow
Bearing capacity1,500-2,500 psf
FoundationConventional spread footings suitablePlanning-grade indication from the soil survey, not a geotechnical report
EPA-listed facilities0Within 1 mile of the parcel centroid, checked against the EPA Facility Registry when this brief was built
A screen, not a study. Flood is the effective NFHL panel, soil is the county-scale SSURGO survey, and the contamination check is a registry search by distance. Each is the thing a consultant confirms, not the thing they replace.
What the public maps flag
Water basin212 · Las Vegas ValleyDesignated basin under State Engineer Order 833 (preferred-use Order 1054). New groundwater appropriations are closed here, so a purveyor will-serve letter is the practical water path and a water-rights attorney decides anything else. NDWR hydrographic basins and designation orders, loaded 2026-09-01.
Points of diversion0 on the parcel · 1 within a quarter mileA point of diversion on the parcel means a water right is tied to this ground and belongs in the title review; nearby points say who already pumps around it. Permit status is on the NDWR record, not here. NDWR water-rights points of diversion, loaded 2026-09-01.
Desert tortoise critical habitatOutside the designated habitatOutside the designation is not outside the tortoise's range: the whole valley is, and the MSHCP fee below is how the county covers that take. A clearance survey is still standard before grading. USFWS desert tortoise critical habitat (Mojave population, 59 FR 5820), loaded 2026-09-01.
Mapped wetlandsNone mapped on the parcelNWI is a photo-interpreted inventory, not a delineation; an unmapped wash or pond can still be jurisdictional. USFWS National Wetlands Inventory, loaded 2026-09-01.
Ephemeral washesNone mapped within 300 ftNHD under-maps small desert washes, so a clean screen here is not a clean site: walk it, and let a delineation and the Corps decide §404. USGS NHDPlus HR intermittent and ephemeral flowlines (FCodes 46003 and 46007), loaded 2026-09-01.
Quaternary faultsNo mapped fault trace within 1 mileMapped traces only; the valley's fault scarps are subtle and a geotechnical report with a fault study decides setbacks. USGS Quaternary Fault and Fold Database, loaded 2026-09-01.
State cleanup sites2 within 1 mile · 0 open · 0 tank-relatedNDEP corrective-action sites (leaking tanks, non-tank releases, brownfields, voluntary cleanups) by distance from the boundary. A registry distance, not a Phase I; the EPA row in the constraints section is the federal side of the same screen. NDEP Bureau of Corrective Actions sites, loaded 2026-09-01.
Swift Transportation Company Mobile Source3,203 ft · non-LUST Corrective Action · closedcontaminant Diesel, container Mobile Source, NDEP site 304
GS5 Targets Limited Partnership Property4,631 ft · non-LUST Corrective Action · closedcontaminant Motor Oil, container Drum, NDEP site 322
Annexation exposureUnincorporated · not contiguous to a city limitNo city boundary within 300 ft of the parcel, so annexation would need the ground between to go first. No Las Vegas or Henderson annexation ordinance within a mile. Clark County incorporated city limits; City of Las Vegas and City of Henderson annexations, loaded 2026-09-01.
MSHCP mitigation fee$550 per gross disturbed acre · about $7,200 if all 13.08 ac is disturbedPaid once, at the land-disturbance permit, on every acre or part of an acre actually disturbed, offsite improvements included; not owed where a prior permit already paid it, and federal land is outside the program. The county's MSHCP covers tortoise take on private land countywide, which is why the fee applies whether or not the habitat row above hit. Clark County Code 30.80.080, Desert Conservation Program fee schedule, rate verified 2026-08-31.
Federal patent reservationsReservation language in the section · this parcel's patent not yet isolated170 patents in T22S R61E Sec 19, SE1/4 SE1/4, Mount Diablo Meridian were searched by hand on 2026-08-31; the land descriptions sampled read "SUBJECT TO MINERAL RESERVATION RIGHTS AND R-O-W". The patent covering this exact aliquot part is the title officer's to pull; until it is read, treat the reservation as likely, not confirmed. Section 19 was patented as Small Tract Act parcels in the 1950s and 1960s (serial patents, Clark County). Sampled: SER-1180294 (Immerman, 1958-03-18, W1/2 NE NE NW SW), SER-1166080 (Marks, 1956-11-02, W1/2 NW SE NE SW), document 041963 (Nielsen, 1961-04-25, E1/2 SW SE NE SE); all carry the reservation language. The aliquot for this parcel is the SE1/4 SE1/4 (BLM PLSS CadNSDI, SECDIVID NV210220S0610E0SN190ASESE).
Screens, not studies. Each row is a public overlay read against the parcel boundary, with its source and load date. The tortoise row does not say a tortoise lives here, the wash row does not say the Corps has jurisdiction, the fault row does not say the ground will move. Each names who decides; these say where to look first.
What burdens the land
Easements found27County GIS, within roughly 0.2 miles of the parcel centroid
Touching this parcel11the other 14 intersect the search radius but not this parcel's boundary - block context, not encumbrances on this land (line features not judged)
Access8 recorded · 262,894 sfRecorded as 20020125:858, 20090710:04308 and 1 more
Unclassified (county code 15)5 recorded · 30,944 sfRecorded as 20240930:01201, 20250109:02697 and 1 more
Unclassified (county code 16)5 recorded · 15,404 sfRecorded as 20240930:01201, 20250109:02697 and 1 more
Drainage1 recorded · 12,975 sfRecorded as 20240930:01201
Unclassified (county code 17)3 recorded · 5,316 sfRecorded as 20190815:01344
Pedestrian access2 recorded · 2,185 sfRecorded as 20240930:01201
Unclassified (county code 13)1 recorded · 569 sfRecorded as 20200924:01724
Public road1 recordedNo recording reference on the county row
Unclassified1 recordedNo recording reference on the county row
Drainage easement, total12,975 sfSummed across the block, not clipped to this parcel, so it is not a share of the site
Site area, for comparison568,413 sfFrom the parcel record, not derived from acreage
Vacations on the recordVS-23-0926, VS-23-0612The county easement layer may predate these vacations. Verify current encumbrances against a title report.
A vacation case has cleared easements or rights of way across this block. The rows above may include some that no longer burden the land, and the county layer does not carry the case that vacated them, so this is a conflict to resolve rather than a total to rely on.
What has been tried here
In shortplan amendment · PC · 2023-11-07 · unknown; other · PC · 2023-11-07 · unknown; zone change · PC · 2023-11-07 · unknown; plan amendment · PC · 2023-11-21 · denied; other · PC · 2023-11-21 · approved; zone change · PC · 2023-11-21 · denied; and 3 more. Outcome not in the harvested record for 3 further case(s).Built from the case rows themselves, in date order
Cases on this parcel12Jurisdiction: Clark County
VS-23-0926other · ZC · 2024-04-03 · no published outcomeSILVER SERENE LLC · attribution unverified · 67413
VS-23-0926other · PC · 2024-03-05 · approvedSILVER SERENE LLC · 65923
VS-23-0926other · PC · 2024-02-20 · unknownSILVER SERENE LLC · 65519
PA-23-700029plan amendment · ZC · 2023-12-06 · approvedLV SILVERADO SCHUSTER, LLC; ET AL · 61768
VS-23-0612other · ZC · 2023-12-06 · no published outcomeLV SILVERADO SCHUSTER, LLC · attribution unverified · 61770
ZC-23-0611zone change · ZC · 2023-12-06 · no published outcomeLV SILVERADO SCHUSTER, LLC · attribution unverified · 61769
PA-23-700029plan amendment · PC · 2023-11-21 · deniedLV SILVERADO SCHUSTER, LLC; ET AL · 61029
VS-23-0612other · PC · 2023-11-21 · approvedLV SILVERADO SCHUSTER LLC · 61031
ZC-23-0611zone change · PC · 2023-11-21 · deniedLV SILVERADO SCHUSTER, LLC · 61030
PA-23-700029plan amendment · PC · 2023-11-07 · unknownLV SILVERADO SCHUSTER, LLC; ET AL · 59778
More2 further case(s)Not listed here; the full set is on the parcel
Case records run from 2010-01-05 to 2026-08-19. 15452 of 25371 cases held are tied to a parcel — through the county's published map points (which cover 2017-01-04 to 2026-05-20) or an APN read from the case file itself. The rest name no parcel our roll can identify, and are not attributed to any parcel.
What happens next
Path computed formultifamilyDerived from the current district, which classifies as townhome mf. A different product changes this path
Start withPre-application conferenceClark County Title 30 §30.06.03B(2)
Time to entitlement284 daysSum of typical durations for the 4 step(s) not already complete. A floor, not a schedule: it assumes no continuance, no resubmittal and no incomplete application, and 4 of them may not be required at all
Pre-application conferencemaybe · 14 days · no hearingClark County Title 30 §30.06.03B(2)
Land Use Plan amendmentcompleted · 120 days · hearing at PC_recommends_BCCClark County Title 30 §30.06.04A (Master Plan Amendment) — Required when the requested zoning is inconsistent with the adopted Land Use Plan. Clark runs quarterly amendment cycles; the Planning Commission recommends and the Board of County Commissioners decides.
Tentative mapmaybe · 90 days · hearing at PC_recommends_BCCNRS 278.330; NRS 278.349 — blocked by pre_application
Civil improvement plansmaybe · 120 days · no hearingClark County Title 30 §30.04.08C.4 (Improvement Plan Submittal, Review and Approval) — blocked by tentative_map
Final mapmaybe · 60 days · no hearingNRS 278.360 — blocked by civil_plans
Whether a variance or waiver of development standards is needed depends on a site plan's compliance results; generate a plan on this property to resolve it.
Does it pencil
Plan89 unitssubdivision - published sample plan, engine d3d8bcb86974, generated 2026-09-01 on this parcel - reference only - PE review required before design or acquisition
Plan assumptionsREZONE SCENARIO — this plan assumes approval of a rezoning to R-3; the parcel's current zoning is RM50. Yield, product, and standards shown are the proposed district's.
Development cost$33,210,502$24,622,269 to $44,384,923 band
Site cost per lot$78,132Site development only - streets, utilities, grading
All-in per unit$373,152Site work plus vertical construction
Calibration3 of 11 CSI divisionsDivisions carrying a public bid-tab calibration signal. The factor rides beside the price, never applied to it.
ProformaNo proforma has been run on the published plan
Priced from the published sample plan on this parcel. Every figure is stored engine output - plan, then cost estimate, then proforma - and none of it is recomputed here.
If the zoning changed
TodayRM50 · 50.00 du/ac · 652 unitsEvery ceiling below is the same engine on the same parcel record
H-140.00 du/ac · 521 units · -131 vs todayLimited Resort and Apartment
R-536.00 du/ac · 469 units · -183 vs todayApartment Residential
RM3232.00 du/ac · 417 units · -235 vs todayResidential Multifamily, 32 du/ac
R-T10.00 du/ac · 130 units · -522 vs todayManufactured Home Residential · closest to what the recorded neighbours built
MLZ0.00 du/ac · 0 units · -652 vs todayMLZ (Clark County)
Districts considered225 shown, chosen by how far they move the ceiling
What the neighbours builtR-T4 recorded subdivisions in this section average 11 lots/ac — R-T is the closest district that holds that product.
A ceiling under a different district, not an entitlement. Nothing here says a rezoning would be granted, and what it would take is the walk under what happens next.
Where this came from
Sections composed11Each one read from the production system when this brief was built
The gaps are published too.
Where a figure cannot be sourced, this brief names the gap instead of filling it. The coverage page reports the denominator behind every dataset, including the ones that run out.