Burke County

Burke County, North Dakota comes in at the 13th national percentile out of 1,000 counties scored, ranking 36th out of 43 counties in the state. The median home price sits at $128,086, and home values dropped 14.4% year-over-year, a significant decline that warrants serious attention before committing capital. The investment estimate data shows zeroed-out cap rate, cash-on-cash return, monthly mortgage, and expense figures, which indicates the model cannot produce a reliable cash-flow projection for this market, likely a function of insufficient rental comparables in a county of 2,184 people. What that absence tells you directly: there is no liquid rental market here to underwrite with confidence. The affordability index scores a perfect 100 and the median household income is $94,583 against a $128,086 purchase price, which looks attractive on paper, but affordability means little to a rental investor if there are not enough renters to fill units.

This market does not fit a cash-flow buyer or an appreciation buyer in any conventional sense. The cash-flow and appreciation scores both register zero, and the overall score of 45 places Burke in the bottom tier nationally. The 14.4% price decline is not a buying-opportunity signal in a market this thin; it more likely reflects structural demand contraction. A value-add operator needs an exit, and with population at 2,184 and no identifiable rental demand data, the buyer pool for any renovated asset is extremely narrow. The affordability is genuine, and the income-to-price ratio suggests that owner-occupants who live here are not financially stressed, but that dynamic does not translate into rental demand when the underlying population is this small and apparently shrinking in terms of asset values.

No economic anchors or employer data were provided for Burke County, so the local demand drivers behind rental occupancy cannot be assessed from the available information. In a rural North Dakota county of this size, that gap matters. Markets under 5,000 people with no identifiable institutional employer, healthcare anchor, or energy sector presence carry real concentration risk: one plant closure, one agricultural downturn, one employer departure can move vacancy from manageable to severe within a single leasing cycle. The data does not name any such risk here, but it also offers no demand anchor to offset it.

On carry costs, the combined monthly tax and insurance estimate is $142, based on a state-average effective property tax rate of 0.98% and an insurance rate of 0.35% on the $128,086 purchase price. That rate is flagged as normal, meaning it is neither a tailwind nor a headwind in isolation. However, the honest caveat here is that this is a state-average estimate per Tax Foundation 2024 data, and actual county or township rates in Burke may differ materially. At $142 per month, taxes and insurance alone consume a meaningful share of any gross rent in a low-price-point rural market, and that is before debt service at the 6.85% interest rate shown in the underwrite. With no reliable rent data available to complete the model, an investor would need to source local rent comps independently before this number means anything actionable.

The demographic and market structure risks here are concrete: a county of 2,184 people, a 14.4% decline in median home prices over the past year, and scores of zero on both cash-flow and appreciation leave almost no investment thesis standing. Regulatory risk is not flagged in the data and cannot be assessed, but the concentration risk is self-evident. A single-family rental in Burke County is a highly illiquid asset in a thinly traded market with a shrinking price floor.

The neighboring counties, Lamoure, Sheridan, Towner, Wells, and Nelson, all score between 44 and 47 overall, essentially identical to Burke's 45, which tells you this is a regional pattern rather than a Burke-specific outlier. Nelson County scores the highest at 47 with a median home price of $142,128, and Towner County is the cheapest entry point at $118,594 with a score of 45. None of these counties present a meaningfully differentiated investment case over Burke based on the available data. The entire cluster sits in the same low-score band, and an investor choosing among them is making a marginal distinction. If forced to choose within this group, Nelson County's slightly higher score might reflect marginally better demand conditions, but that remains speculative without county-level rental and employment data. The stronger decision for most investors is to look outside this regional cluster entirely rather than optimize within it.