ZIP code
28273
in Charlotte, North CarolinaPopulation 50,966
55.71/ 100
Ranked #8,619 of 32,066 US ZIPs (top 27%)
Ranked #196 of 793 North Carolina ZIPs (top 25%)
Ranked #36 of 113 Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia, NC-SC ZIPs (top 32%)
Ranks are modeled estimates — ZIPs a few hundred places apart are effectively tied.
What defines this ZIP
Metrics where this ZIP sits in the tails of the national distribution — the ones that most set it apart. Select any tile for its definition and methodology.
Industrial-pollution burden
in the top 0.8% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The EPA’s modeled screening score for industrial chemical releases, weighting the amounts released by their toxicity and how many people live nearby — a relative comparison score, not a measured exposure.
Full methodology ›Air-toxics cancer risk
41.1 per million
in the top 1.9% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST99thUS98thDefinition & source ›
The EPA’s modeled estimate of added lifetime cancer risk from breathing outdoor air toxics, in cases per million people exposed over a lifetime.
Full methodology ›Subsidized affordable housing
726 units
in the top 2.6% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST97thUS97thDefinition & source ›
The number of affordable rental units in this ZIP supported by the federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program.
Full methodology ›Transportation noise
16.5%
in the top 3.6% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST98thUS96thDefinition & source ›
The modeled share of residents exposed to average road, rail, and aviation noise at or above 55 decibels — a noticeable background presence.
Full methodology ›High cholesterol
30.1%
in the bottom 3.5% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST5thUS3rdDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with high cholesterol, among those who have ever been screened for it.
Full methodology ›Lead in tap water
0 ppb
at the national minimum
Lower is healthier
US1stDefinition & source ›
The lead level at the 90th percentile of tap-water samples reported by the public water systems serving this ZIP, in parts per billion — the EPA requires action above 15 ppb.
Measured from EPA records for the public water systems that serve this ZIP. Households on private wells — roughly 30% of the US population — are not covered by this measure, and this figure says nothing about their water.
Full methodology ›Coronary heart disease
4.2%
in the bottom 4.1% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST5thUS4thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have been told by a health professional that they have coronary heart disease or angina.
Full methodology ›Hearing disability
4.7%
in the bottom 4.5% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST4thUS4thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who are deaf or have serious difficulty hearing.
Full methodology ›Energy-cost burden
1.6%
in the bottom 6.0% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST7thUS6thDefinition & source ›
The modeled share of household income spent on home energy bills — electricity, gas, and heating fuels.
A modeled share of household income spent on home energy. Estimates that hit the model’s 100% ceiling are suppressed rather than published, because at that point the figure reflects the model’s limit rather than a measured burden.
Full methodology ›Homeownership rate
50.3%
in the bottom 9.2% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST9thUS9thDefinition & source ›
The share of occupied homes that are owned, rather than rented, by the people living in them.
Full methodology ›The read
ZIP 28273, one of several in Charlotte, North Carolina, in overall standing, comes out in the top 27% healthiest ZIPs nationally (8,619th) and the top 25% of North Carolina (196th).
An even profile, with readings pulling both ways: subsidized affordable housing sits in the top 2.6% nationally, modeled high cholesterol stands in the bottom 3.5% nationally, and lead in tap water resides at the national minimum. Modeled coronary heart disease sits in the bottom 4.1% nationally, hearing disability stands in the bottom 4.5% nationally, and energy burden resides in the bottom 6.0% nationally. Against that, modeled industrial-pollution burden sits in the top 0.8% nationally, and air-toxics cancer risk stands in the top 1.9% nationally. Modeled transportation noise resides in the top 3.6% nationally, and homeownership sits in the bottom 9.2% nationally.
Set within its surrounding area, industrial-pollution burden runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. Defined simply, for reference, industrial-pollution burden is the EPA's modeled screening score weighting industrial chemical releases by their toxicity and how many people live nearby. Air-toxics cancer risk is a modeled EPA estimate of added lifetime cancer risk from breathing outdoor air, per million people. Lead in tap water is the EPA trigger, 15 parts per billion in tap samples, above which a water system must act on lead. The closest healthier ZIP overall is ZIP 28210, just across the boundary.
What’s driving this score
Nine domains make up the ZipVitals Score — here is how this ZIP does on each, and how much each one counts. Compare it against the US, this state and the Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia, NC-SC metro area.
Compared with the ZIP codes measured across all nine scoring domains — not with all US ZIP codes.
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 92%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 73%
16%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 61%
11%
Disability
healthier than 75%
7%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 75%
5%
About typical
Mental Health
healthier than 55%
8%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 41%
5%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
in the bottom 0.9%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 34%
13%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 95%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 74%
16%
Mental Health
healthier than 78%
8%
Disability
healthier than 86%
7%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 72%
5%
About typical
Risk Behavior
healthier than 43%
11%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 51%
5%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
in the bottom 0.00%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 14%
13%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 89%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 64%
16%
Mental Health
healthier than 77%
8%
Disability
healthier than 72%
7%
About typical
Risk Behavior
healthier than 42%
11%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 59%
5%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 56%
5%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
in the bottom 0.00%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 18%
13%
“Share” is how much of this ZIP’s score the domain accounts for. Percentages are rounded; higher is healthier in every domain. How the score works, and who it compares you with ›
Findings that name this ZIP
One of our published findings lists this ZIP code. Each finding compares one published measure against a stated benchmark, and names only the ZIP codes whose estimates are reliable enough to rank. See all surprising findings.
Heavy environment, light chronic burden
Where the environment and chronic illness point in opposite directions
Environmental-hazard standing 0.9 (bottom 1%); chronic-disease standing 92.1 (top 10%) — 91 points apart, heavier on the environment than it is on chronic illness.
Ranked #17,945 of the 18,187 ZIP codes this finding names, ordered by the gap from cleanest environment to heaviest chronic burden, highest first.
Nearby & similar ZIPs
Editorially selected — see how this ZIP compares to nearby and similar places.
Nearby
28134
North Carolinashares a border
Score 54.23
Closest healthier
28210
North Carolinashares a border
Score 62.73
Similar health profile
92865
California96% similar profile
Score 58.95
How these were chosen: only ZIPs with a published Score appear — a nearby ZIP with too little data to score won’t. Nearby means closest by distance between ZIP boundaries, which can cross state lines. A similar health profile is a close match across the nine Score domains, not similar demographics. Distances are measured between ZIP boundaries — ZIPs that touch share a border. How distance is measured
Evidence
Every measure this page draws on, by source. Collapsed by default — the full data stays in the page for search engines either way.
Health OutcomesCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Arthritis among adults | 19.8% | 17.3–22.3 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 29.9% | 26.5–33.3 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 4.7% | 4.2–5.2 |
| Current asthma among adults | 10.6% | 9.3–11.9 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 4.2% | 3.8–4.7 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 4.8% | 4.2–5.3 |
| Depression among adults | 22.4% | 19.2–25.6 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 10.4% | 9.0–11.8 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 30.1% | 26.5–33.6 |
| Obesity among adults | 31.4% | 26.2–36.5 |
| Stroke among adults | 2.7% | 2.5–3.0 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 11.0% | 8.8–13.4 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 12.9% | 11.2–14.6 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 71.3% | 67.8–74.4 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 77.4% | 73.7–80.5 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 86.3% | 84.5–88.1 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 62.5% | 57.5–67.0 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 62.2% | 58.6–65.4 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 79.3% | 72.4–84.8 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 15.2% | 12.5–17.9 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 11.9% | 10.3–13.7 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 23.3% | 19.8–26.8 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 39.9% | 35.0–44.8 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 17.6% | 15.5–19.9 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 16.7% | 14.8–18.8 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 11.1% | 9.8–12.5 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 14.7% | 13.0–16.4 |
| Any disability among adults | 28.3% | 24.8–31.8 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 4.7% | 4.1–5.3 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 7.5% | 6.7–8.3 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 11.2% | 9.8–12.7 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 3.6% | 3.3–3.9 |
| Vision disability among adults | 5.2% | 4.8–5.7 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 26.0% | 22.5–29.8 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 18.8% | 16.5–21.3 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 14.2% | 12.3–16.3 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 16.0% | 14.0–18.3 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 9.8% | 8.7–11.1 |
| Loneliness among adults | 34.3% | 29.8–39.2 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 10.3% | 9.0–11.7 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | NC median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 9.8% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 13.0% (4.4–25.0%) n=793 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 17.6% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 14.5% (5.7–24.9%) n=794 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 11.1% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 10.4% (3.1–19.8%) n=798 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 38.1% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 22.8% (10.7–53.4%) n=798 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 5.7% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 4.2% (0.0–9.1%) n=796 |
| Households without a vehicle | 3.9% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 3.9% (0.0–10.2%) n=793 |
| Broadband subscription | 95.5% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 87.6% (76.2–96.3%) n=793 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 32.2% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 24.7% (14.1–36.5%) n=793 |
| Homeownership rate | 50.3% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 75.0% (52.7–89.7%) n=793 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 3.8% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 1.4% (0.0–4.5%) n=793 |
| Foreign-born population | 23.4% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 4.2% (0.0–12.9%) n=799 |
| Single-parent households | 41.1% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 51.8% (39.2–70.1%) n=790 |
| Population 65+ | 8.0% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 19.7% (11.1–31.9%) n=799 |
| Median age | 33.3 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 42.5 yr (33.3–55.7) n=797 |
| Median household income | $87,350 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $65,030 ($44,419–$97,111) n=749 |
| Median home value | $340,600 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $223,850 ($113,970–$452,990) n=758 |
| Median gross rent | $1,729 | $1,021 ($677–$1,912) n=25,670 | $957 ($715–$1,575) n=687 |
Life expectancyNCHS / RWJF USALEEP · model-based
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | NC median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Life expectancy unavailable for this ZIP — fewer than 80% of the census tracts that make it up could be matched across the 2010→2020 tract-boundary revision, so no value is published rather than an unreliable one. See how coverage gaps are handled. | |||
More ZIPs to explore ▾More ZIPs to explore ▴
How these lists were built: they draw only from ZIPs that have a published Score, so ZIPs with too little data to score are not listed. Distance-based lists use distance between ZIP boundaries with no state filter, so an out-of-state ZIP can appear. Statistically similar means a close match across the nine Score domains, not a demographic match: the measure is the cosine similarity between two ZIPs’ domain scores, taken over the domains both ZIPs have data for and only where that overlap covers at least six of the nine — and where no ZIP clears that minimum-overlap floor, that list is left out rather than filled with a weak match. How distance is measured