ZIP code
92780
in Tustin, CaliforniaPopulation 54,374
55.36/ 100
Ranked #9,025 of 32,066 US ZIPs (top 28%)
Ranked #754 of 1,719 California ZIPs (top 44%)
Ranked #228 of 371 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA ZIPs (bottom 39%)
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
6.0%
in the top 1.0% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST95thUS99thDefinition & 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 ›Outer-floodplain exposure
44.7%
in the top 1.0% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST97thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The share of this ZIP’s land area inside FEMA’s 0.2%-annual-chance flood band — the “500-year” zone, a lower but real 1-in-500 yearly chance.
Measured from FEMA’s mapped flood panels. Where a panel has not been mapped, no value is published for that ZIP — those ZIPs are absent from this comparison rather than counted as unexposed.
Full methodology ›Dental provider access
2.1 per 1,000 residents
in the top 1.1% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST97thUS99thDefinition & 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 ›Crowded housing
15.4%
in the top 2.1% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST89thUS98thDefinition & source ›
The share of occupied homes with more than one person per room, the Census definition of crowded housing.
Full methodology ›Transportation noise
20.9%
in the top 2.4% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST94thUS98thDefinition & 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 ›Expected annual disaster loss
$0
in the top 2.5% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST85thUS98thDefinition & source ›
FEMA’s modeled estimate, in dollars per year, of the average harm to people expected from natural hazards — an annualized average, not a forecast for any single year.
Full methodology ›Walkability
160 intersections/sq mi
in the top 4.3% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST89thUS96thDefinition & source ›
The number of street intersections per square mile — a standard street-connectivity measure; denser networks correlate with more walkable neighborhoods.
Full methodology ›Air-toxics cancer risk
40 per million
in the top 4.5% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST73rdUS96thDefinition & 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 ›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 ›Tree cover
0.00%
at the national minimum
Higher is healthier
ST1stUS1stDefinition & source ›
The share of this ZIP’s land area covered by forest.
Full methodology ›The read
On the composite measure, ZIP 92780, one of several in Tustin, California stands in the top 28% healthiest ZIPs nationally (9,025th) and the top 44% of California (754th).
Several signals sit on each side of the ledger here: dental providers registers in the top 1.1% nationally, and walkability lies in the top 4.3% nationally. Lead in tap water is at the national minimum. Working the other way, modeled loud transportation noise registers in the top 1.0% nationally, outer-floodplain exposure lies in the top 1.0% nationally, and crowded housing is in the top 2.1% nationally. Modeled transportation noise registers in the top 2.4% nationally, expected annual loss lies in the top 2.5% nationally, and air-toxics cancer risk is in the top 4.5% nationally. Modeled tree cover registers at the national minimum.
Set beside the wider area around it, outer-floodplain exposure runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. For clarity, expected annual loss is FEMA's modeled estimate, in dollars, of average yearly harm to people from natural hazards. 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. ZIP 92606, just across the boundary, ranks better overall among the ZIPs nearby.
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 94%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 60%
16%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 67%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 64%
8%
Disability
healthier than 63%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 91%
5%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 94%
5%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
in the bottom 0.7%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 14%
13%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 83%
21%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 80%
5%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 89%
5%
About typical
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 57%
16%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 42%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 59%
8%
Disability
healthier than 59%
7%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 5%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 36%
13%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 68%
21%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 73%
5%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 86%
5%
About typical
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 52%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 43%
13%
Disability
healthier than 45%
7%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 18%
14%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 40%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 32%
8%
“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
3 of our published findings list 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.
Above what income predicts
The ZIP codes that outlive their incomes
Estimated life expectancy is 81.3 ± 1.1 years. A median household income of $101,017 predicts 80.1 years — 1.2 years above.
Ranked #1,407 of the 5,842 ZIP codes this finding names, ordered by years above what income predicts, highest first.
Heavy environment, light chronic burden
Where the environment and chronic illness point in opposite directions
Environmental-hazard standing 0.8 (bottom 1%); chronic-disease standing 94.2 (top 10%) — 93 points apart, heavier on the environment than it is on chronic illness.
Ranked #18,057 of the 18,187 ZIP codes this finding names, ordered by the gap from cleanest environment to heaviest chronic burden, highest first.
Highest-risk tenth
Air toxics and the years between the two ends of the risk scale
Modeled air-toxics cancer risk is 40.0 cases per million — among the tenth of compared ZIP codes with the most. Estimated life expectancy is 81.3 ± 1.1 years.
Ranked #504 of the 4,173 ZIP codes this finding names, ordered by modeled air-toxics risk, highest first.
Nearby & similar ZIPs
Editorially selected — see how this ZIP compares to nearby and similar places.
Nearby
92606
Californiashares a border
Score 66.93
Closest healthier
92705
Californiashares a border
Score 59.97
Similar health profile
91210
California98% similar profile
Score 54.39
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 | 17.4% | 15.6–19.2 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 27.2% | 24.7–29.7 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 5.7% | 5.2–6.2 |
| Current asthma among adults | 9.2% | 8.3–10.3 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 4.9% | 4.5–5.5 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 4.4% | 4.0–4.9 |
| Depression among adults | 19.8% | 17.5–22.3 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 11.1% | 9.8–12.4 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 34.3% | 31.4–37.1 |
| Obesity among adults | 26.5% | 22.9–30.3 |
| Stroke among adults | 2.7% | 2.5–2.9 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 9.3% | 7.5–11.2 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 13.2% | 11.4–15.1 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 69.8% | 66.7–72.7 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 71.0% | 67.9–74.0 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 84.8% | 83.1–86.4 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 57.2% | 53.0–61.2 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 62.0% | 59.1–64.9 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 78.0% | 72.1–83.1 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 16.0% | 13.8–18.4 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 10.1% | 8.8–11.5 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 26.6% | 23.7–29.7 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 36.2% | 32.4–40.0 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 23.4% | 21.2–25.7 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 17.6% | 15.9–19.4 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 13.3% | 11.9–14.7 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 15.4% | 13.9–16.9 |
| Any disability among adults | 29.8% | 27.0–32.7 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 5.3% | 4.7–5.9 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 8.0% | 7.2–8.9 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 13.0% | 11.5–14.4 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 3.7% | 3.4–4.1 |
| Vision disability among adults | 5.9% | 5.4–6.4 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 29.4% | 26.2–32.4 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 20.3% | 18.0–22.6 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 16.6% | 14.7–18.6 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 16.9% | 14.9–19.0 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 10.1% | 9.0–11.3 |
| Loneliness among adults | 36.4% | 32.8–40.0 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 8.2% | 7.1–9.3 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | CA median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 10.4% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 10.6% (4.1–24.9%) n=1,714 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 11.8% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 7.7% (1.7–17.9%) n=1,704 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 15.5% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 9.8% (1.4–30.9%) n=1,729 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 37.7% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 31.3% (9.9–68.2%) n=1,729 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 6.2% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 6.1% (0.8–12.0%) n=1,714 |
| Households without a vehicle | 5.0% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 4.5% (0.0–12.2%) n=1,708 |
| Broadband subscription | 95.8% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 93.4% (82.1–98.4%) n=1,708 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 44.0% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 38.6% (24.4–50.5%) n=1,708 |
| Homeownership rate | 44.1% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 64.1% (31.9–86.4%) n=1,708 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 15.4% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 4.8% (0.0–15.9%) n=1,708 |
| Foreign-born population | 33.5% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 18.9% (3.0–40.4%) n=1,730 |
| Single-parent households | 43.1% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 48.4% (35.1–72.3%) n=1,692 |
| Population 65+ | 12.6% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 17.0% (9.7–35.7%) n=1,730 |
| Median age | 36.2 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 40.1 yr (31.8–57.0) n=1,712 |
| Median household income | $101,017 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $93,448 ($54,188–$159,562) n=1,584 |
| Median home value | $861,700 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $659,800 ($300,520–$1,493,340) n=1,593 |
| Median gross rent | $2,310 | $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 | 81.3 yr ± 0.55 | 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 0.55 years of 81.3, 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