ZIP code
92691
in Mission Viejo, CaliforniaPopulation 45,841
62.91/ 100
Ranked #3,027 of 32,066 US ZIPs (top 9.5%)
Ranked #367 of 1,719 California ZIPs (top 21%)
Ranked #122 of 371 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA ZIPs (top 33%)
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.
Loud transportation noise
4.0%
in the top 2.1% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST86thUS98thDefinition & source ›
The modeled share of residents exposed to average road, rail, and aviation noise at or above 65 decibels — around the volume of normal conversation.
Full methodology ›Obesity
24.4%
in the bottom 4.7% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST24thUS5thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with obesity, defined as a body-mass index of 30 or higher.
Full methodology ›Median household income
$141,045
in the top 5.0% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST84thUS95thDefinition & source ›
The middle household income in this ZIP — half of households earn more, half earn less — in dollars per year.
Full methodology ›Dental provider access
1.3 per 1,000 residents
in the top 4.0% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST90thUS96thDefinition & source ›
The number of dental offices located inside this ZIP’s boundary, per 1,000 residents.
Counted from establishments located inside this ZIP’s boundary, so one just across the line is not counted. Where a ZIP has too few residents for the density to be reliable, no value is published rather than an unreliable one.
Full methodology ›Physician access
2.6 per 1,000 residents
in the top 4.6% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST93rdUS95thDefinition & source ›
The number of physicians’ offices located inside this ZIP’s boundary, per 1,000 residents.
Counted from establishments located inside this ZIP’s boundary, so one just across the line is not counted. Where a ZIP has too few residents for the density to be reliable, no value is published rather than an unreliable one.
Full methodology ›Mental-health provider access
0.17 per 1,000 residents
in the top 5.7% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST92ndUS94thDefinition & source ›
The number of mental-health clinics located inside this ZIP’s boundary, per 1,000 residents.
Counted from establishments located inside this ZIP’s boundary, so one just across the line is not counted. Where a ZIP has too few residents for the density to be reliable, no value is published rather than an unreliable one.
Full methodology ›Outpatient-care access
0.58 per 1,000 residents
in the top 5.8% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST91stUS94thDefinition & source ›
The number of outpatient clinics located inside this ZIP’s boundary, per 1,000 residents.
Counted from establishments located inside this ZIP’s boundary, so one just across the line is not counted. Where a ZIP has too few residents for the density to be reliable, no value is published rather than an unreliable one.
Full methodology ›Walkability
130 intersections/sq mi
in the top 6.9% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST81stUS93rdDefinition & source ›
The number of street intersections per square mile — a standard street-connectivity measure; denser networks correlate with more walkable neighborhoods.
Full methodology ›Energy-cost burden
1.5%
in the bottom 4.5% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST20thUS4thDefinition & 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 ›Transportation noise
10.4%
in the top 8.0% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST76thUS92ndDefinition & 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 ›The read
In overall standing, ZIP 92691, one of several in Mission Viejo, California comes out in the top 9.5% healthiest ZIPs nationally (3,027th) and the top 21% of California (367th).
The measures fall on both sides of the ledger for this area: modeled obesity stands in the bottom 4.7% nationally, household income lands in the top 5.0% nationally, and dental providers is in the top 4.0% nationally. Physicians resides in the top 4.6% nationally. Distance to an emergency room rests at the national minimum, shared with about 11% of ZIPs. Mental-health providers lies in the top 5.7% nationally, and outpatient sits in the top 5.8% nationally. Walkability settles in the top 6.9% nationally, and modeled energy burden registers in the bottom 4.5% nationally. Set against that, modeled loud transportation noise stands in the top 2.1% nationally.
Relative to the ZIPs around it, park land runs far lower than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. In plain terms, loud transportation noise is the modeled share of an area exposed to road, rail, and air noise at or above 65 decibels, near conversation volume. Energy burden is the share of household income that goes to home energy bills. The nearest healthier ZIP overall is ZIP 92630, just across the boundary. This ZIP further sits on the healthier half of the national range on at least seven of the ten good-life measures tracked here, from quiet and green space to nearby care, a combination reached by about one in twenty-five US ZIP codes.
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 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA 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 86%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 92%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 63%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 87%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 71%
8%
Disability
healthier than 78%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 89%
5%
Healthcare Access
in the top 0.00%
5%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 38%
14%
Lifting this score
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 89%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 66%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 80%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 72%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 67%
8%
Disability
healthier than 74%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 75%
5%
Healthcare Access
in the top 0.00%
5%
About typical
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 58%
21%
Nothing measured is holding this score back.
Lifting this score
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 88%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 86%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 85%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 68%
11%
Disability
healthier than 62%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 63%
5%
Healthcare Access
in the top 0.00%
5%
About typical
Mental Health
healthier than 40%
8%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 21%
21%
“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 ›
Nearby & similar ZIPs
Editorially selected — see how this ZIP compares to nearby and similar places.
Nearby
92630
Californiashares a border
Score 63.33
Closest healthier
92653
Californiashares a border
Score 65.69
Similar health profile
55128
Minnesota99% similar profile
Score 61.39
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 | 22.1% | 19.9–24.3 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 30.5% | 27.7–33.3 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 8.9% | 8.1–9.7 |
| Current asthma among adults | 9.7% | 8.6–10.8 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 6.0% | 5.4–6.6 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 5.2% | 4.6–5.8 |
| Depression among adults | 20.8% | 18.4–23.5 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 10.6% | 9.3–11.9 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 37.5% | 34.4–40.5 |
| Obesity among adults | 24.4% | 20.9–28.1 |
| Stroke among adults | 3.1% | 2.8–3.3 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 7.3% | 5.9–8.9 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 6.6% | 5.7–7.5 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 74.9% | 72.0–77.6 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 75.0% | 72.2–77.7 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 88.9% | 87.6–90.1 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 65.1% | 61.1–68.9 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 69.0% | 66.3–71.6 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 79.2% | 73.5–84.1 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 15.9% | 13.7–18.2 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 9.1% | 7.8–10.4 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 21.1% | 18.6–23.8 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 33.1% | 29.5–36.8 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 18.8% | 16.9–20.8 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 16.1% | 14.5–17.8 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 12.5% | 11.2–13.9 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 12.5% | 11.2–13.9 |
| Any disability among adults | 27.7% | 24.9–30.5 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 6.1% | 5.5–6.9 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 7.0% | 6.3–7.8 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 12.8% | 11.4–14.3 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 3.2% | 2.9–3.5 |
| Vision disability among adults | 4.3% | 3.9–4.7 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 24.9% | 22.1–27.7 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 11.4% | 9.9–13.0 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 9.8% | 8.5–11.1 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 10.0% | 8.7–11.3 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 6.5% | 5.7–7.2 |
| Loneliness among adults | 32.9% | 29.5–36.4 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 5.2% | 4.5–5.9 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | CA median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 5.1% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 10.6% (4.1–24.9%) n=1,714 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 5.4% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 7.7% (1.7–17.9%) n=1,704 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 7.0% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 9.8% (1.4–30.9%) n=1,729 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 47.9% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 31.3% (9.9–68.2%) n=1,729 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 4.8% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 6.1% (0.8–12.0%) n=1,714 |
| Households without a vehicle | 3.7% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 4.5% (0.0–12.2%) n=1,708 |
| Broadband subscription | 96.4% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 93.4% (82.1–98.4%) n=1,708 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 34.9% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 38.6% (24.4–50.5%) n=1,708 |
| Homeownership rate | 77.3% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 64.1% (31.9–86.4%) n=1,708 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 3.4% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 4.8% (0.0–15.9%) n=1,708 |
| Foreign-born population | 22.2% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 18.9% (3.0–40.4%) n=1,730 |
| Single-parent households | 55.0% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 48.4% (35.1–72.3%) n=1,692 |
| Population 65+ | 21.2% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 17.0% (9.7–35.7%) n=1,730 |
| Median age | 44.3 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 40.1 yr (31.8–57.0) n=1,712 |
| Median household income | $141,045 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $93,448 ($54,188–$159,562) n=1,584 |
| Median home value | $985,100 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $659,800 ($300,520–$1,493,340) n=1,593 |
| Median gross rent | $2,692 | $1,021 ($677–$1,912) n=25,670 | $1,912 ($1,113–$2,923) n=1,461 |
Life expectancyNCHS / RWJF USALEEP · model-based
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | CA median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Life expectancy at birth | 81.7 yr ± 0.58 | 78.9 yr (74.7–82.8) n=31,308 | 80.5 yr (76.7–83.8) n=1,665 |
About the ± — it’s this estimate’s give-or-take (statisticians call it the standard error). The true life expectancy for this ZIP most likely falls within 0.58 years of 81.7, and it’s very unlikely to be off by more than twice that.
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