A report estimates that 86% of high-risk properties lacked NFIP coverage, underscoring why mapped flood zones don’t tell the whole story.
For real estate professionals, a property’s mapped flood zone is only part of the insurance picture. A report released October 1, 2026, says millions of properties outside FEMA-designated Special Flood Hazard Areas may still face significant flood exposure—and most properties identified as high risk lacked National Flood Insurance Program coverage.
The report, titled Flood Insurance: Congressional Action Could Help Increase Coverage for At-Risk Properties (GAO-27-108012), puts numbers to a gap that can matter during a property transaction. As of April 2026, approximately 86% of properties considered at high risk for flooding did not have NFIP coverage. The report identifies about 13 million high-risk properties outside the designated areas.
Mapped status and flood exposure aren’t the same
Flood maps help determine whether flood insurance is required for many mortgages backed by federal programs. But a map designation is not a complete measure of every way water can reach a property. The report points in particular to heavy-rainfall flooding, which traditional maps may not adequately reflect.
That distinction can be easy to miss in a transaction. A property outside a Special Flood Hazard Area may not trigger a mandatory insurance requirement tied to its mortgage. That status doesn’t establish that the property has no flood exposure, or that voluntary coverage would be unnecessary. The report’s findings suggest that buyers and their advisers may need to consider more than the mapped designation when discussing a property’s risks.
The figures also show why coverage and exposure deserve separate attention. A property may be identified as high risk while lacking NFIP coverage; meanwhile, a location outside a mapped high-risk area may still be vulnerable to flooding. A map can inform due diligence, but by itself it doesn’t resolve whether a particular owner has protection or whether a given policy would meet their needs.
Four proposals focus on information and coverage
The report describes four possible actions for consideration. They are recommendations, not changes that have taken effect. Each addresses a different part of the gap between flood exposure, insurance requirements and a buyer’s access to information.
Broaden the risk criteria behind insurance requirements. The report suggests including all sources of flood risk, including flooding caused by heavy rainfall, when setting criteria for mandatory purchase requirements.
Make property-level risk information easier to find. It proposes that FEMA collect and publicly share flood risk information for individual properties, which could give consumers more detail than a broad zone designation alone.
Present insurance options during the purchase process. For mortgages backed by federal programs, one proposal would require lenders to provide flood insurance quotes before closing. Buyers who declined voluntary coverage could also be asked to sign a risk disclosure.
Review NFIP coverage limits. The report proposes raising those limits and creating a way to adjust them periodically.
Together, these ideas address both whether coverage is required and whether buyers have useful information before deciding about optional coverage. The report does not say that these proposals have been adopted. For now, its significance lies in the attention it brings to the limits of existing mapping and coverage practices.
What professionals can bring into due diligence
Real estate professionals are often asked what a flood zone designation means for a transaction. The report’s findings reinforce a practical point: explain what the designation indicates, and avoid treating it as a complete account of flood exposure. Buyers may want to distinguish between an insurance requirement attached to a mortgage and their own decision about voluntary coverage.
Property research can include checking the mapped status, seeking available information about other flood exposures, and asking an insurance agent about coverage options. Buyers can also discuss what a quote covers and what it excludes. Those steps help clarify what is known about the property and what questions remain, without assuming that a map or quote guarantees a particular outcome.
For sellers and their advisers, clear property information can help answer questions as they arise. For buyers, it can make the difference between understanding that a policy is not required by a mortgage and understanding the separate choice of whether to purchase coverage. The report does not prescribe a specific decision for any individual property; the relevant exposure and coverage options depend on the circumstances.
Keep the distinction in view
The report’s central takeaway is straightforward: being outside a designated flood zone does not, on its own, establish that a property is free from flood risk. Its figures—approximately 13 million high-risk properties outside the designated areas and an estimated 86% of high-risk properties without NFIP coverage as of April 2026—make the issue concrete.
As property-level information and possible coverage changes receive attention, professionals can help clients by treating mapped status as one part of due diligence and encouraging them to ask about flood exposure and insurance choices. Read the report.
