Self-storage and multifamily zoning in unincorporated Maricopa County AZ — all 21 districts

Known limitations of this transcription

Published in full, because a dataset that hides its own caveats is worth less than one that doesn't have any.

1. far is blank for all 21 districts by design, not by omission. A search of the full 272-page ordinance for "floor area ratio" and "FAR" returns zero hits — MCZO has no such concept. Intensity is governed by lot coverage + height + (residential only) minimum lot area per dwelling unit. This differs from the starter tables, where a blank far means "not transcribed here, enter manually".
2. Self-storage is allowed in 5 of 21 districts and by right in none of them — C-2, C-3, IND-1, IND-2, IND-3, every one requiring a Plan of Development (§305).
3. max_du_per_acre_derived is computed, not quoted (43,560 ÷ minimum lot area per dwelling unit). The ordinance states the per-unit minimum; it never prints a units-per-acre figure. The derived number ignores streets, easements and setbacks and will overstate achievable density. Do not underwrite a unit count on it.
4. Multifamily in commercial and industrial districts has no stated density cap. Neither the §504 nor the §506 standards table has a per-dwelling-unit lot area row, so nothing limits unit count there but coverage, height and parking. Those rows are marked medium confidence. Multifamily reading as conditional in all three industrial districts is unusual and worth a call to the county before anyone relies on it.
5. mixed is a derived category, not an MCZO category. §601 has no mixed-use listing. Every mixed row is inferred from stacking separately-listed uses, except R-5, which rests on the express §501.3.2 clause importing the C-1 use list. All medium or low.
6. The "outdoor storage / storage rental yards" use row was deliberately omitted rather than guessed — its label and cells straddled the row grouping during extraction. It matters for outdoor RV/boat yards; extract it properly before the first paid study.
7. §811 (additional height regulations), §901 (hillside) and §905 (drainage) are not extracted. §811 in particular can modify the height maximums in rules.csv.
8. Staleness risk here is annexation, not amendment. The ordinance text is fresh (effective 2026-01-09), but MCZO covers only unincorporated land and Phoenix-metro fringe parcels are annexed continuously. On annexation this dataset stops applying to that parcel. There is no amendment or annexation feed wired up.