Zoning › South Carolina › Richland County › Columbia

Columbia, SC Zoning

Euclidean-zoning. 26 districts · 11 overlays · 4 applicable state preemptions.

Overview

Code type
euclidean
Naming convention
use-type-index

Columbia UDO districts are use-type-index naming (descriptive functional codes — RSF-1/2/3 indicate intensity rank, not encoded lot size in 1,000s sf; T/C/LL-R/RD-MV are functional prefixes). Per §17-3.2 dim tables: RSF-1 is 15,000 sf min, RSF-2 is 8,500 sf min, RSF-3 is 5,000 sf min — numbering is intensity-ordered (smaller number = larger lot), but not lot-size-encoded. The 5 INS- districts are purpose-built (INS-U/M, INS-ZOO, INS-FJ, INS-T/U, INS-GEN). DAC, MC, GC, LI, HI list most dimensional standards as N/A — heights and densities effectively unbounded at the base-district level on those districts, with form/intensity governed by overlays (OV-HSV view corridors, OV-DC downtown, OV-A airport surfaces). Article 17 is the zoning chapter (not Chapter 14 as v1 implied). Overlay section is §17-3.7 (NOT §17-3.3 as v1 cited — v1 confused §17-3.3 'Mixed-Use, Activity Center, and Corridor Base Zoning Districts' with §17-3.7 'Overlay Districts').

Worth knowing
  • District naming is descriptive/use-type-index, NOT lot-size-encoded. RSF-1 is 15,000 sf min, RSF-2 is 8,500 sf, RSF-3 is 5,000 sf — numbering indicates intensity rank only. Always check §17-3.2 table before inferring lot size.
  • Overlay districts live in §17-3.7, NOT §17-3.3 (which is the Mixed-Use/Activity Center/Corridor BASE district section). v1 record cited §17-3.3 for every overlay — this is corrected to §17-3.7 throughout v2.
  • OV-A Airport Safety Overlay is specific to Jim Hamilton — L.B. Owens Field Airport (CUB) only. It does NOT cover Columbia Metropolitan Airport (CAE, which is in West Columbia outside city limits and uses FAA Part 77 federal surfaces only) and does NOT cover Fort Jackson airfield (federal military AICUZ governs Fort Jackson directly). v1 record incorrectly stated OV-A covered Columbia Metro + Fort Jackson — corrected.

+ 10 more in Quirks & notes

Districts

res_sf 5com 5spec 5ind 3res_th 2res_mf 2mu 2cbd 1off 1
CodeNameCategory Min lotHeight CoverageFAR Du/acParking Setbacks F/S/R
T/CTransitional / Conservation Districtres_sf217,800 sf[4]40 ft[5]0.1[6]—[7]0.3[8]—45[1] / 15[2] / 30[3]
LL-RLarge Lot — Reserve Districtres_sf40,000 sf[12]40 ft[13]0.25[14]—[15]1.1[16]—35[9] / 10[10] / 15[11]
RSF-1Residential Single Family — Large Lotres_sf15,000 sf[20]40 ft[21]0.4[22]—[23]—[24]—25[17] / 8[18] / 15[19]
RSF-2Residential Single Family — Medium Lotres_sf8,500 sf[28]40 ft[29]0.4[30]—[31]—[32]—20[25] / 5[26] / 10[27]
RSF-3Residential Single Family — Small Lotres_sf5,000 sf[36]40 ft[37]0.4[38]—[39]—[40]—15[33] / 5[34] / 10[35]
RDTwo-Family Residential Districtres_th[{'variant': 'two_family', 'value': 7500, 'citation': '§17-3.2(g)'}, {'variant': 'other', 'value': 5000, 'citation': '§17-3.2(g)'}] sf[44]40 ft[45]0.5[46]—[47]8[48]—20[41] / 5[42] / 10[43]
RD-MVTwo-Family — Mill Village Districtres_th3,300 sf[52]35 ft[53]0.5[54]—[55]13.2[56]—5[49] / 10[50] / 5[51]
RM-1Residential Mixed District (Low)res_mf[{'variant': 'townhouse_development', 'value': 8000, 'citation': '§17-3.2(j)/§17-3.2(k) [1] applies to development lot whole'}, {'variant': 'townhouse_per_unit', 'value': 1500, 'citation': '§17-3.2(j)/§17-3.2(k) [2] applies to individual unit lots'}, {'variant': 'other', 'value': 5000, 'citation': '§17-3.2(j)'}] sf[60]40 ft[61]0.5[62]—[63]8.7[64]—15[57] / 5[58] / 10[59]
RM-2Residential Mixed District (Medium/High)res_mf[{'variant': 'townhouse_development', 'value': 8000, 'citation': '§17-3.2(j)/§17-3.2(k) [1] applies to development lot whole'}, {'variant': 'townhouse_per_unit', 'value': 1500, 'citation': '§17-3.2(j)/§17-3.2(k) [2] applies to individual unit lots'}, {'variant': 'other', 'value': 3000, 'citation': '§17-3.2(k)'}] sf[68]50 ft[69]0.5[70]—[71]17.2[72]—15[65] / 5[66] / 10[67]
MU-1Mixed-Use — Low Districtmu[{'variant': 'sf_two_family', 'value': 8000}, {'variant': 'townhouse_per_unit', 'value': 1500}, {'variant': 'mf_mixed_use', 'value': 10000}, {'variant': 'other', 'value': 5000}] sf[76]40 ft[77]0.5[78]—[79]—[80]——[73] / 5[74] / 10[75]
MU-2Mixed-Use — High Districtmu[{'variant': 'sf_two_family', 'value': 8000}, {'variant': 'townhouse_per_unit', 'value': 1500}, {'variant': 'mf_mixed_use', 'value': 10000}, {'variant': 'other', 'value': 5000}] sf[84]60 ft[85]0.5[86]—[87]—[88]——[81] / 5[82] / 10[83]
NACNeighborhood Activity Centercom[{'variant': 'mf_mixed_use', 'value': 10000}, {'variant': 'other', 'value': 5000}] sf[92]50 ft[93]—[94]—[95]—[96]——[89] / 3[90] / 15[91]
CACCommunity Activity Centercom[{'variant': 'mf_mixed_use', 'value': 10000}, {'variant': 'other', 'value': 5000}] sf[100]75 ft[101]—[102]—[103]—[104]——[97] / 5[98] / 20[99]
RACRegional Activity Centercom[{'variant': 'mf_mixed_use', 'value': 10000}, {'variant': 'other', 'value': 5000}] sf[108]100 ft[109]—[110]—[111]—[112]—5[105] / 5[106] / 15[107]
DACDowntown Activity Centercbd—[116]—[117]—[118]—[119]—[120]——[113] / —[114] / —[115]
O-IOffice and Institutional Districtoff[{'variant': 'mf_mixed_use', 'value': 7500}, {'variant': 'other', 'value': 5000}] sf[124]50 ft[125]—[126]—[127]16.4[128]—10[121] / —[122] / 10[123]
GCGeneral Commercial Districtcom—[132]75 ft[133]—[134]—[135]—[136]—20[129] / —[130] / 10[131]
MCMixed Commercial Districtcom—[140]—[141]—[142]—[143]—[144]——[137] / —[138] / —[139]
INS-GENInstitutional — General Districtspec217,800 sf[148]75 ft[149]—[150]—[151]—[152]——[145] / 10[146] / 10[147]
INS-U/MInstitutional — University and Medical Districtspec—[156]100 ft[157]—[158]—[159]—[160]——[153] / —[154] / —[155]
INS-ZOOInstitutional — Zoo Districtspec—[164]100 ft[165]—[166]—[167]—[168]—25[161] / 10[162] / 10[163]
INS-FJInstitutional — Fort Jackson Districtspec—[172]—[173]—[174]—[175]—[176]——[169] / —[170] / —[171]
INS-T/UInstitutional — Transportation and Utility Districtspec—[180]75 ft[181]—[182]—[183]—[184]—25[177] / 10[178] / 10[179]
LILight Industrial Districtind—[188]75 ft[189]—[190]—[191]—[192]—25[185] / —[186] / —[187]
HIHeavy Industrial Districtind—[196]75 ft[197]—[198]—[199]—[200]—25[193] / —[194] / —[195]
ECEmployment Campus Districtind[{'variant': 'mf_mixed_use', 'value': 10000}, {'variant': 'other'}] sf[204]75 ft[205]0.75[206]—[207]—[208]—15[201] / 5[202] / 10[203]

Confidence: confirmed partial under review not found

Overlays

OV-A
Airport Safety Overlay District
AP
§17-3.7(c)

Lands in the immediate vicinity of Jim Hamilton - L.B. Owens Field Airport (CUB), as mapped on the Official Zoning Map per §17-3.1. The OV-A is specific to L.B. Owens Field — it does not implement FAA Part 77 surfaces for Columbia Metropolitan Airport (CAE; located in West Columbia, outside Columbia city limits) nor the Fort Jackson airfield (federal AICUZ governs Fort Jackson).

max_structure_or_tree_height_ft35
prohibited_usesConversion of non-residential uses to residential use; Group Living uses (Table 17-4.2(B)(4)); Household Living uses outside Residential Base Zoning Districts
public_notification_requiredTrue
deed_disclosure_statement_required_on_residential_subdivision_lotsTrue
interaction_priorityOV-A standards control where they conflict with base district
OV-FW
Floodway Overlay District
FP
§17-3.7(d)

Lands mapped as floodway on FEMA FIRM panels covering Columbia, primarily within the floodway of the Congaree River, Broad River, Saluda River, and tributary streams. Overlay boundaries defined on Official Zoning Map.

compliance_authorityCity Engineer
applicable_regulationsArticle III, Chapter 21 (Floodways) of Columbia Code of Ordinances + FEMA regulations
purposeProtect people and property from risks of flooding in floodway areas; limit vulnerable uses
interaction_priorityOV-FW standards control where they conflict with any other UDO standard including base district
OV-FP
Floodplain Overlay District
FP
§17-3.7(e)

FEMA Special Flood Hazard Areas (100-year floodplain) as mapped on effective Columbia/Richland County FIRM panels; primarily Congaree, Broad, Saluda river floodplains and tributaries.

compliance_authorityCity Engineer
applicable_regulationsArticle III, Chapter 21 (Special Flood Hazard Areas) of Columbia Code of Ordinances + FEMA regulations
purposeProtect people and property from flooding risks; require flood-resistant construction; limit vulnerable uses
interaction_priorityOV-FP supersedes conflicting base district standards
OV-5P
Five Points Design Overlay District
DT
§17-3.7(f)

Five Points neighborhood commercial core — Upper Five Points and Lower Five Points sub-districts as defined in the Future Five Design/Development Guidelines, incorporated by reference.

sub_districtsUpper Five Points; Lower Five Points
design_guidelines_incorporated_by_referenceFuture Five Design/Development Guidelines
max_building_height_ft_base50
max_building_height_ft_within_35ft_of_residential30
max_building_height_ft_upper_five_with_bonus75
structured_parking_allowedTrue
ground_floor_streetwall_commercial_min_pct50
interaction_priorityOV-5P standards control where they conflict with base district
OV-NMC
North Main Corridor Design Overlay District
COR
§17-3.7(h)

Lands within the North Main Street corridor as mapped on the Official Zoning Map; transition corridor from low-intensity commercial to walkable mixed-use.

design_guidelines_incorporated_by_referenceNorth Main Corridor Design Guidelines
max_building_height_ft_within_30ft_of_residential35
max_building_height_ft_residential_60pct_plus60
off_street_parking_reduction_pct20
nonconforming_manufacturing_or_wholesale_one_time_expansion_pct20
interaction_priorityOV-NMC standards control where they conflict with base district
OV-HP
Historic Preservation Overlay District
HP
§17-3.7(j)

16 mapped historic sub-districts + individual Type 1 / Type 2 / Type 3 landmarks listed in UDO Appendices A, B, C. Sub-districts include Robert Mills Historic District, Elmwood Park Architectural Conservation, Governor's Mansion Protection Area, and others per Table 17-3.7(j)(3).

sub_district_count16
landmark_typesType 1 (Appendix A); Type 2 (Appendix B); Type 3 (Appendix C)
review_authorityDesign/Development Review Commission (DDRC) and/or Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) per sub-district
certificate_of_design_approval_requiredTrue
design_guidelines_table_referenceTable 17-3.7(j)(3): Established Historic Sub-districts and Applicable Standards and Design Guidelines
interaction_priorityOV-HP standards control where they conflict with base district
OV-GATE
Gateway Design Overlay District
COR
§17-3.7(k)

Specific OV-GATE-# sub-districts established by Council ordinance following adoption of a gateway/corridor plan; each is mapped individually on the Official Zoning Map. Code envisions framework only — specific district standards are established as gateway plans are adopted.

framework_onlyTrue
individual_sub_districts_appended_viaSub-district list expanded by amendment as gateways are established
corridor_plan_prerequisite_reviewPlanning Commission
corridor_plan_prerequisite_adoptionCity Council
interaction_priorityOV-GATE-# standards control where they conflict with base district
OV-CCP
Community Character Protection Overlay District
CON
§17-3.7(l)

New construction or subdivision on lands within OV-CCP-mapped residential neighborhoods. Applies only within Residential base districts or residentially-used parcels. Exemptions: parcels ≥5 acres being subdivided; subdivision within PD Districts; lots existing on 1999 Richland County Tax Maps.

applies_inResidential base zoning districts or residentially-used parcels
applies_toNew construction (including moved structures) and subdivision
exempt_parcel_min_acres_subdivision5
exempt_pd_districtsTrue
exempt_lots_existing_pre_1999True
purposeMinimize possibility of construction activity drastically negatively affecting existing community character
design_standards_supplemental_to_baseTrue
interaction_priorityOV-CCP standards supplement and modify base district per §17-3.7(l)(2)
OV-OAS
Outdoor Advertising Sign Overlay District
LQ
§17-3.7(m)

Lands along designated collector streets, arterial streets, and interstate/freeway-class highways, mapped on the Official Zoning Map. Per §17-3.7(m)(2)(b), the OV-OAS SHALL NOT be applied over a residential base zoning district.

outdoor_advertising_billboard_signs_permittedTrue
sign_standards_reference§17-5.10(c)(6)(b)(4) — Outdoor Advertising (Billboard) Sign Standards
prohibition_over_residential_baseTrue
interaction_priorityOV-OAS standards control where they conflict with base district
OV-HSV
Height and Setback View Corridor Protection Overlay District
DT
§17-3.7(n)

Two sub-district types — Height Districts and Setback Districts — established to support area plans for compatible height/setback. Mapped on Official Zoning Map; standards established per Height District based on contextual area-plan study.

sub_district_typesHeight District (max height in stories or feet); Setback District
height_measurement_methodHighest curb elevation adjacent to site to highest point (feet); main floor finished elevation to top (stories)
ddrc_adjustment_authorityDesign Development Review Commission may adjust heights in defined Height Districts based on architectural merit
underbuilding_void_over_6ft_counted_as_storyTrue
interaction_priorityOV-HSV standards control where they conflict with base district
OV-DC
Downtown Columbia Overlay District
DT
§17-3.7 (added by Ord. O-2025-047, eff. 2026-01-05)

Downtown Columbia core area as defined on Official Zoning Map per Ord. O-2025-047 (adopted 2025-12-16, effective 2026-01-05). Replaces former OV-CC (City Center) and OV-ID (Innovista) Design Overlays.

supersedes_overlaysOV-CC (City Center); OV-ID (Innovista)
effective_date2026-01-05
adoption_ordinanceO-2025-047
design_guidelines_incorporated_by_referenceDowntown Columbia Design Guidelines (April 2025 revision)
scopeReplaces City Center + Innovista with unified downtown overlay covering Main Street corridor and downtown core blocks
interaction_priorityOV-DC standards control where they conflict with base district
retrieval_statusSubstantive numeric parameters (height bonuses, build-to-lines, transparency thresholds, parking reductions) pending direct retrieval — adoption ordinance PDF (/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/O_2025_047-Amending_1998_Code-of-Ordinances_Chapter-17.pdf) returned image-scanned content not extractable via pdftotext.

State preemptions

S.C. Act 108 of 2023 (S.C. Code Ann. §6-29-510)applies
Qualifying condition
S.C. Act 108 of 2023 adds 'resiliency' as the 11th mandatory element under §6-29-510 of the SC Local Government Comprehensive Planning Enabling Act (Chapter 29). Procedural floor: applies to every SC municipality with a Chapter 29 comp plan, including Columbia. Columbia's most recent comprehensive plan is 'Columbia Compass: Envision 2036' (adopted 2019, in effect during current UDO regime). On the next required 10-year comp-plan update (or earlier), Columbia must adopt a resiliency element to maintain a valid plan and, downstream, a valid zoning ordinance per §6-29-720(A).
Source
S.C. Code Ann. §6-29-510 (codified by Act 108 of 2023, eff. 2023-11-01); confirmed via /zoning/us/south-carolina/preemptions.json (sc-act-108-resiliency-element)
Effect
Procedural mandate — does not preempt any specific Columbia UDO standard. Failure to adopt a resiliency element on next comp-plan update would invalidate the plan and indirectly the zoning ordinance.
S.C. Code Ann. §6-29-1145 — Manufactured housing parityapplies
Qualifying condition
SC §6-29-1145 prohibits local governments from prohibiting manufactured homes meeting HUD-Code in any residential district where site-built homes are allowed, except as differentiated by lot size, density, setbacks, etc. Columbia has 7 residential base districts (T/C, LL-R, RSF-1, RSF-2, RSF-3, RD, RD-MV, RM-1, RM-2) — statute applies in all of them.
Source
S.C. Code Ann. §6-29-1145 — Local Government Comprehensive Planning Enabling Act provisions
Effect
Columbia may not exclude HUD-Code manufactured homes from its residential districts; appearance standards must apply uniformly to site-built and manufactured housing.
S.C. Code Ann. §27-1-60 — Modular housing parityapplies
Qualifying condition
SC §27-1-60 requires modular homes meeting SC modular standards to be treated as residential structures in any zone where SF homes are permitted. Columbia's residential districts permit SF detached — modular parity applies.
Source
S.C. Code Ann. §27-1-60
Effect
Modular housing must be permitted on parity with site-built single-family in all Columbia residential base districts.
S.C. Code Ann. §6-1-910 — Short-term rental local tax preemptionapplies
Qualifying condition
SC §6-1-910 governs the 2% local accommodations tax structure on STRs (assessment, distribution, scope). Tax-preemption only — does NOT preempt zoning of STRs. Columbia's UDO retains full authority to zone STR as permitted/conditional/prohibited use by district.
Source
S.C. Code Ann. §6-1-910 — local accommodations tax
Effect
Columbia retains full STR zoning authority; tax structure follows §6-1-910 statewide.
Non-applicable laws (5)
S.C. Code Ann. §48-39 — Beachfront Management Actdoes_not_apply
Qualifying condition
BMA applies only to coastal beachfront counties (Horry, Georgetown, Charleston, Beaufort, Colleton, Jasper). Columbia is in Richland County (inland Midlands), ~120 miles from the coast — not subject to BMA jurisdiction.
Source
S.C. Code Ann. §48-39 — Beachfront Management Act jurisdictional scope; Richland County is non-coastal per SCDES Bureau of Coastal Management jurisdictional map (formerly OCRM)
Effect
Not applicable — Columbia is inland.
H 3469 (2026 session — ADU property-tax exemption, pending)does_not_apply
Qualifying condition
Status per zoning/us/south-carolina/preemptions.json (sc-h-3469-adu-tax-exemption-pending) as of 2026-05-18: pending in 2026 SC legislative session, not enacted. If enacted, would be a tax incentive (ADUs to ≤80% AMI tenants with 10-yr covenant) — not zoning preemption. Columbia ADU zoning authority remains intact regardless.
Source
zoning/us/south-carolina/preemptions.json sc-h-3469-adu-tax-exemption-pending
Effect
No effect on UDO standards even if enacted — pure tax incentive.
H 3861 (2026 session — STR preemption, pending)does_not_apply
Qualifying condition
Status pending in 2026 SC legislative session per zoning/us/south-carolina/preemptions.json sc-h-3861-str-preemption-pending. If enacted, would prohibit local STR bans on rentals <29 days. Columbia's current STR zoning posture survives until enactment.
Source
zoning/us/south-carolina/preemptions.json sc-h-3861-str-preemption-pending
Effect
No current effect; potential future restriction on STR zoning if enacted.
S 227 (2026 session — concurrency framework, pending)does_not_apply
Qualifying condition
Status pending per zoning/us/south-carolina/preemptions.json sc-s-227-concurrency-pending. If enacted, would amend Chapter 29 to add concurrency-program framework — procedural, not preemptive.
Source
zoning/us/south-carolina/preemptions.json sc-s-227-concurrency-pending
Effect
No current effect.
SB 612 (2026 session — Missing Middle Housing, pending, opt-in)does_not_apply
Qualifying condition
Status pending per zoning/us/south-carolina/preemptions.json sc-sb-612-missing-middle-pending. Would be opt-in only — not a mandate. Columbia would retain authority not to opt in.
Source
zoning/us/south-carolina/preemptions.json sc-sb-612-missing-middle-pending
Effect
No effect — opt-in framework.

Adopted building codes

Statewide

IBC
2021
IRC
2021
NEC
2020
IFC
2021
IECC (Residential)
2009
IECC (Commercial)
2009

Click a code label to open its state-by-state adoption atlas.

Amendment history

DateKindCitation
2026-05-22retrieved atPer-district + overlay PDF retrieval session
2026-01-05amendment effectiveOrd. O-2025-047 adopted OV-DC Downtown Columbia Overlay, replacing OV-CC and OV-ID — effective Jan 5, 2026
2025-04-01supplement effectiveApril 2025 codification published as 'UDO_CityofColumbia_Apr_25.pdf'
2021-08-30effectiveUDO became effective August 30, 2021 — superseded prior Title 17 zoning code
2019-08-20adoptionUDO adopted by City Council Aug 20, 2019 (Ord. O-2019-053); confirmed via PDF footer 'August 20, 2019' on every per-district section

Quirks & notes

  • District naming is descriptive/use-type-index, NOT lot-size-encoded. RSF-1 is 15,000 sf min, RSF-2 is 8,500 sf, RSF-3 is 5,000 sf — numbering indicates intensity rank only. Always check §17-3.2 table before inferring lot size.
  • Overlay districts live in §17-3.7, NOT §17-3.3 (which is the Mixed-Use/Activity Center/Corridor BASE district section). v1 record cited §17-3.3 for every overlay — this is corrected to §17-3.7 throughout v2.
  • OV-A Airport Safety Overlay is specific to Jim Hamilton — L.B. Owens Field Airport (CUB) only. It does NOT cover Columbia Metropolitan Airport (CAE, which is in West Columbia outside city limits and uses FAA Part 77 federal surfaces only) and does NOT cover Fort Jackson airfield (federal military AICUZ governs Fort Jackson directly). v1 record incorrectly stated OV-A covered Columbia Metro + Fort Jackson — corrected.
  • OV-DC Downtown Columbia Overlay (eff. 2026-01-05 via Ord. O-2025-047) REPLACES the former OV-CC (City Center) and OV-ID (Innovista) Design Overlays. Both OV-CC and OV-ID are discontinued. v1 record omitted OV-DC and treated OV-CC ('OV-DC' under wrong name) and OV-ID as separate active overlays.
  • OV-CCP Community Character Protection Overlay applies only to NEW construction or subdivision within Residential base districts; exempts parcels ≥5 acres, subdivisions within PD districts, and lots existing on 1999 Richland County Tax Maps (§17-3.7(l)(2)(c)). Verify lot vintage before assuming OV-CCP applies.
  • INS-FJ Fort Jackson district has explicit 'no dimensional/intensity standards apply' (§17-3.4(f)(2)) because Fort Jackson is federally owned and not subject to UDO. Surplus/conveyed parcels revert to T/C dimensional standards until rezoned — a hard-coded fallback unique among Columbia institutional districts.
  • RM-1 and RM-2 use building-type-varying dimensional standards: townhouse development uses 8,000 sf development lot + 1,500 sf per-unit lot; all-other uses use a single lot-area number with max density (8.7 du/ac in RM-1, 17.2 du/ac in RM-2). Do not flatten — array-form per-variant standards retained per FM-5.
  • MU-1, MU-2, NAC, CAC have build-to/build-front front-yard setbacks expressed as min/max ranges (e.g., MU-1: 0 ft min / 20 ft max; NAC/CAC: 5 ft min / 15 ft max). These are conditional dimensional standards — captured via the `conditional` field on the kpi value, not as a single number.
  • DAC, MC, GC, and (partially) LI/HI list most or all dimensional standards as N/A in their §17-3 tables. This is deliberate — height/density/coverage are effectively unbounded at the base district level on those districts, with constraints supplied by overlays (OV-HSV view corridors, OV-DC downtown form-based standards, OV-A airport surfaces, federal Part 77 surfaces for CAE airspace).
  • Floodway (OV-FW) and Floodplain (OV-FP) overlays per §17-3.7(d)/(e) defer substantive construction standards to Article III of Chapter 21 (Stormwater Management) of the Columbia Code of Ordinances — not within Chapter 17 itself. BFE+freeboard, V-zone, substantial-improvement thresholds live in Ch. 21, not the UDO.
  • OV-DC adoption ordinance (O-2025-047, eff. 2026-01-05) is published only as an image-scanned PDF that does not extract via pdftotext; substantive OV-DC parameters (height bonuses, build-to-lines, transparency, parking reductions) are PARTIAL until the OCR'd version becomes available or a direct text version is published.
  • INS-U/M dimensional table cells use heavy footnoting — most numeric values render as '[1]' references pointing to 'All Other Standards' footnote sections. Per-district PDF retrieval captured the structure but not all cell values; numeric setbacks for INS-U/M are PARTIAL until full UDO PDF can be sliced to §17-3.4(d).
  • Columbia is in Richland County (Midlands), ~120 miles inland from the coast. South Carolina Beachfront Management Act (§48-39) does NOT apply. Columbia retains full local zoning authority under SC home-rule; SC's substantive zoning-preemption surface is narrow (HUD-Code MH parity, modular parity, STR tax structure). Four 2026-session bills (H 3469 ADU tax exemption, H 3861 STR preemption, S 227 concurrency, SB 612 missing middle) are PENDING and would not become operative until enacted.

Formulas

Definitions

height
Grade to highest point of structure (§17-9 definitions).
lot_coverage
Building footprint / lot area.
far
Gross floor area / lot area — UDO does NOT use FAR for base districts; field included for cross-city schema consistency only.
du_ac
Dwelling units per gross acre.
impervious_cover
Not used at base-district level in Columbia UDO; floodplain/stormwater handled by Ch. 21.
setback_front
Front property line to nearest building face.
setback_side
Side property line to nearest building face.
setback_rear
Rear property line to nearest building face.
parking
Spaces per dwelling unit unless noted; see §17-5.2.

Capacity calculations

max_footprint_sf
lot_area_sf * lot_coverage
max_units_from_density
lot_area_sf * du_ac / 43560
buildable_width_ft
lot_width_ft - setback_side_ft * 2
buildable_depth_ft
lot_depth_ft - setback_front_ft - setback_rear_ft
max_stories_approx
max_height_ft / 10

Massing explorer

Interactive 3D comparison across every district. Drag to orbit, scroll to zoom, use the slider to walk districts, and toggle applicable overlays in the right-side panel.

—
—
Sort by —
LOW
HIGH
drag to orbit · scroll to zoom
Max height
— ft
——
Floor area ratio
—
——
Lot coverage
—%
——
Setbacks (F / S / R)
— ft
——
Parking
— /unit
——
Max density
— du/ac
——
Min lot size
— sf
——
◄
prev
►
next
Copy zoning profile
Loading…
District Category Height FAR Coverage Setbacks Parking Density Min lot Overlays

Sources & references

Primary source
City of Columbia Unified Development Ordinance — adopted Aug 20, 2019; effective Aug 30, 2021; current Apr 2025 codified version
April 2025 codification; with OV-DC overlay added by Ord. O-2025-047 effective 2026-01-05 · retrieved 2026-05-22

Per-district PDFs (one PDF per base district at /wp-content/uploads/2021/01/<CODE>.pdf) and per-overlay PDFs (one per overlay) were fetched directly with a browser UA and processed via pdftotext. The composite April-2025 UDO PDF (5+ MB) exceeded WebFetch size limits; per-district PDFs were the practical primary-extraction route. Municode mirror (library.municode.com/sc/columbia) returned HTTP 403 to scripted access (Cloudflare). OV-DC adoption ordinance PDF was retrieved but is image-scanned and cannot be parsed via pdftotext — OV-DC parameters are partial.

Citations
  1. [1] §17-3.2(a)
  2. [2] §17-3.2(a)
  3. [3] §17-3.2(a)
  4. [4] §17-3.2(a)
  5. [5] §17-3.2(a)
  6. [6] §17-3.2(a)
  7. [7] n
  8. [8] §17-3.2(a)
  9. [9] §17-3.2(b)
  10. [10] §17-3.2(b)
  11. [11] §17-3.2(b)
  12. [12] §17-3.2(b)
  13. [13] §17-3.2(b)
  14. [14] §17-3.2(b)
  15. [15] n
  16. [16] §17-3.2(b)
  17. [17] §17-3.2(c)
  18. [18] §17-3.2(c)
  19. [19] §17-3.2(c)
  20. [20] §17-3.2(c)
  21. [21] §17-3.2(c)
  22. [22] §17-3.2(c)
  23. [23] n
  24. [24] n
  25. [25] §17-3.2(d)
  26. [26] §17-3.2(d)
  27. [27] §17-3.2(d)
  28. [28] §17-3.2(d)
  29. [29] §17-3.2(d)
  30. [30] §17-3.2(d)
  31. [31] n
  32. [32] n
  33. [33] §17-3.2(e)
  34. [34] §17-3.2(e)
  35. [35] §17-3.2(e)
  36. [36] §17-3.2(e)
  37. [37] §17-3.2(e)
  38. [38] §17-3.2(e)
  39. [39] n
  40. [40] n
  41. [41] §17-3.2(g)
  42. [42] §17-3.2(g)
  43. [43] §17-3.2(g)
  44. [44] §17-3.2(g)
  45. [45] §17-3.2(g)
  46. [46] §17-3.2(g)
  47. [47] n
  48. [48] §17-3.2(g)
  49. [49] §17-3.2(h)
  50. [50] §17-3.2(h)
  51. [51] §17-3.2(h)
  52. [52] §17-3.2(h)
  53. [53] §17-3.2(h)
  54. [54] §17-3.2(h)
  55. [55] n
  56. [56] §17-3.2(h)
  57. [57] §17-3.2(j)
  58. [58] §17-3.2(j)
  59. [59] §17-3.2(j)
  60. [60] §17-3.2(j)
  61. [61] §17-3.2(j)
  62. [62] §17-3.2(j)
  63. [63] n
  64. [64] §17-3.2(j)
  65. [65] §17-3.2(k)
  66. [66] §17-3.2(k)
  67. [67] §17-3.2(k)
  68. [68] §17-3.2(k)
  69. [69] §17-3.2(k)
  70. [70] §17-3.2(k)
  71. [71] n
  72. [72] §17-3.2(k)
  73. [73] §17-3.3(c)
  74. [74] §17-3.3(c)
  75. [75] §17-3.3(c)
  76. [76] §17-3.3(c)
  77. [77] §17-3.3(c)
  78. [78] §17-3.3(c)
  79. [79] n
  80. [80] n
  81. [81] §17-3.3(d)
  82. [82] §17-3.3(d)
  83. [83] §17-3.3(d)
  84. [84] §17-3.3(d)
  85. [85] §17-3.3(d)
  86. [86] §17-3.3(d)
  87. [87] n
  88. [88] n
  89. [89] §17-3.3(e)
  90. [90] §17-3.3(e)
  91. [91] §17-3.3(e)
  92. [92] §17-3.3(e)
  93. [93] §17-3.3(e)
  94. [94] n
  95. [95] n
  96. [96] n
  97. [97] §17-3.3(f)
  98. [98] §17-3.3(f)
  99. [99] §17-3.3(f)
  100. [100] §17-3.3(f)
  101. [101] §17-3.3(f)
  102. [102] n
  103. [103] n
  104. [104] n
  105. [105] §17-3.3(g)
  106. [106] §17-3.3(g)
  107. [107] §17-3.3(g)
  108. [108] §17-3.3(g)
  109. [109] §17-3.3(g)
  110. [110] n
  111. [111] n
  112. [112] n
  113. [113] n
  114. [114] n
  115. [115] n
  116. [116] n
  117. [117] n
  118. [118] n
  119. [119] n
  120. [120] n
  121. [121] §17-3.3(i)
  122. [122] n
  123. [123] §17-3.3(i)
  124. [124] §17-3.3(i)
  125. [125] §17-3.3(i)
  126. [126] n
  127. [127] n
  128. [128] §17-3.3(i)
  129. [129] §17-3.3(j)
  130. [130] n
  131. [131] §17-3.3(j)
  132. [132] n
  133. [133] §17-3.3(j)
  134. [134] n
  135. [135] n
  136. [136] n
  137. [137] §17-3.3(k)
  138. [138] n
  139. [139] n
  140. [140] n
  141. [141] n
  142. [142] n
  143. [143] n
  144. [144] n
  145. [145] §17-3.4(c)
  146. [146] §17-3.4(c)
  147. [147] §17-3.4(c)
  148. [148] §17-3.4(c)
  149. [149] §17-3.4(c)
  150. [150] n
  151. [151] n
  152. [152] n
  153. [153] §17-3.4(d)
  154. [154] §17-3.4(d)
  155. [155] §17-3.4(d)
  156. [156] n
  157. [157] §17-3.4(d)
  158. [158] n
  159. [159] n
  160. [160] n
  161. [161] §17-3.4(e)
  162. [162] §17-3.4(e)
  163. [163] §17-3.4(e)
  164. [164] n
  165. [165] §17-3.4(e)
  166. [166] n
  167. [167] n
  168. [168] n
  169. [169] §17-3.4(f)
  170. [170] §17-3.4(f)
  171. [171] §17-3.4(f)
  172. [172] §17-3.4(f)
  173. [173] §17-3.4(f)
  174. [174] §17-3.4(f)
  175. [175] n
  176. [176] §17-3.4(f)
  177. [177] §17-3.4(g)
  178. [178] §17-3.4(g)
  179. [179] §17-3.4(g)
  180. [180] n
  181. [181] §17-3.4(g)
  182. [182] n
  183. [183] n
  184. [184] n
  185. [185] §17-3.5(b)
  186. [186] n
  187. [187] n
  188. [188] n
  189. [189] §17-3.5(b)
  190. [190] n
  191. [191] n
  192. [192] n
  193. [193] §17-3.5(c)
  194. [194] n
  195. [195] n
  196. [196] n
  197. [197] §17-3.5(c)
  198. [198] n
  199. [199] n
  200. [200] n
  201. [201] §17-3.5(d)
  202. [202] §17-3.5(d)
  203. [203] §17-3.5(d)
  204. [204] §17-3.5(d)
  205. [205] §17-3.5(d)
  206. [206] §17-3.5(d)
  207. [207] n
  208. [208] n

Research status

Publication gates

primary url presentpassedsource.primary_url = https://planninganddevelopment.columbiasc.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/UDO_CityofColumbia_Apr_25.pdf — city-hosted, https, not an aggregator. Fallback Municode mirror is also non-aggregator.
no aggregator citedpassedScan clean — all citations point to Columbia UDO §17-* sections, S.C. Code Ann. §6-29-* and §27-1-60 / §48-39 / §6-1-910 sections, FEMA, and Census. No Zoneomics, Steadily, SitePlanGuide, SitePlanCreator, Propwire, Zonara, or Unzoned citations anywhere in record.
confidence tags full formpassedAll confirmed numeric standards carry c§17-3.X(y) form (e.g., c§17-3.2(c), c§17-3.3(g), c§17-3.7(j)). Partial values carry p§17-3.X(y) with paired what_is_confirmed / what_is_missing / retrieval_failure_reason. NA values carry 'na' code with paired reason. ~70 confirmed-with-citation field-values verified across 26 districts and 11 overlays.
overlays have parameters trigger confidencepassedAll 11 overlays (OV-A, OV-FW, OV-FP, OV-5P, OV-NMC, OV-HP, OV-GATE, OV-CCP, OV-OAS, OV-HSV, OV-DC) carry non-empty params{}, explicit trigger, ordinance citation, base_interaction, and confidence code. OV-DC carries partial-confidence (p§17-3.7) due to image-scanned adoption ordinance; framework parameters confirmed but substantive numeric thresholds pending.
preempt section city specificpassedstate_preemptions_applicable[] contains 9 SC-specific entries: Act 108 of 2023 (resiliency element, applies), §6-29-1145 (MH parity, applies), §27-1-60 (modular parity, applies), §48-39 BMA (does_not_apply — Columbia inland in Richland County), §6-1-910 (STR tax, applies tax-only), H 3469 (does_not_apply, pending), H 3861 (does_not_apply, pending), S 227 (does_not_apply, pending), SB 612 (does_not_apply, pending opt-in). Each carries Columbia-specific qualifying_condition_checked narrative tied to primary SC Code citations — not link-stubs. SC is documented as a low-activity-level home-rule state in preemptions.json; the 5 enacted entries cover the in-force substantive surface.

Data quality

78%completeness70 confirmed8 partial
Documented gaps
  • OV-DC substantive parameters (height bonuses, build-to-lines, transparency, parking) — adoption ordinance is image-scanned, not extractable via pdftotext
  • INS-U/M numeric setback cells — §17-3.4(d) table footnotes reference 'All Other Standards' not extracted from per-district PDF
  • OV-CCP enumerated design-element controls — only applicability/exemption framework captured
  • DAC and MC max heights — listed as N/A in dimensional table; effective ceiling supplied by OV-HSV and federal airspace surfaces, not enumerated here
  • INS-FJ — district is by definition non-regulated (military lands); no gap, but worth noting that any data here for INS-FJ is by reference only

Known issues

data:gaps-present

Verification

last_verified_at2026-05-22T00:00:00Z
verifier_specialist09-verification-pass
verifier_version1.0
verification_resultpassed
atomic_claims_checked52
atomic_claims_passed47
atomic_claims_partial5
atomic_claims_failed0
partial_claimsOV-DC substantive numeric parameters (height bonuses, build-to-lines, transparency thresholds, parking reductions) — image-scanned adoption ordinance blocks pdftotext extraction; INS-U/M setback numeric values — §17-3.4(d) per-district PDF table cells are footnote-referenced ('[1]') to All Other Standards; pdftotext extraction captured structure but not footnoted numbers; DAC max_height_ft 'N/A' interpretation — N/A in dimensional table is read as 'no limit at base district' but cross-confirmation against OV-HSV view-corridor caps + federal Part 77 surfaces would strengthen; GC, MC, LI, HI side and rear setback N/A interpretation — similar to DAC, N/A is read as 'no minimum at base district level' but a primary-source confirmation of the absence (rather than missing data) would strengthen; OV-CCP design-element specific standards — substantive design controls within §17-3.7(l)(3)+ were not exhaustively enumerated from the per-overlay PDF, only the applicability/exemption framework
narrative_refnarratives/columbia-sc/fleet-20260522T230000-columbia-sc.json

Other cities in this state

Nearest-alphabetical profiles. Click through to compare zoning patterns side-by-side.

CharlestonGreenville