Safeguard Properties
  • Property Inspections
  • Insurance Policy Inspections
  • Property Data Collection
  • Single-Family Rental
  • Insurance Loss Inspections
  • Property Preservation
  • FHA Conveyance
  • Real Estate Owned (REO)
  • Resources
Skip to content

<- Return To Industry Updates

Zombie Foreclosure Rates by State – Q1 2026

Industry Update
February 20, 2026

Source: ATTOM

What Is the Current Percentage of Zombie Foreclosures in the U.S.?

In the first quarter of 2026, the share of zombie foreclosures across the United States remained relatively stable compared to recent quarters.

Residential Properties Nationwide in the Process of Foreclosure: 230,401

Percentage of Zombie Foreclosures: 3.27 percent of residential properties in the foreclosure process were considered “zombie” properties — homes that sit vacant while in pre-foreclosure status.

What’s Driving Q1 2026 Zombie Foreclosure Trends?

Zombie foreclosure rates remain historically low in the first quarter of 2026, reflecting continued housing demand and homeowner equity strength. While foreclosure volumes have shifted modestly, most properties entering the foreclosure pipeline are not being abandoned during the pre-foreclosure process.

Zombie Foreclosure Rates by State – Q1 2026

Below is the complete state-by-state ranking for the first quarter of 2026, listing each state’s share of zombie foreclosure properties and the top four counties leading in percentage of total vacant properties.

  1. South Dakota

17.9 percent of residential properties in the process of foreclosure during the first quarter were vacant or zombie foreclosures (5 zombie foreclosures)

Counties: Minnehaha

  1. Kansas

10.6 percent of residential properties in the process of foreclosure during the first quarter were vacant or zombie foreclosures (62 zombie foreclosures)

Counties: Wyandotte, Shawnee, Sedgwick, Johnson

  1. Iowa

7.0 percent of residential properties in the process of foreclosure during the first quarter were vacant or zombie foreclosures (93 zombie foreclosures)

Counties: Black Hawk, Scott, Linn, Polk

  1. Missouri

6.9 percent of residential properties in the process of foreclosure during the first quarter were vacant or zombie foreclosures (54 zombie foreclosures)

Counties: Saint Louis City, Saint Louis, Jackson, Greene

  1. Oregon

6.7 percent of residential properties in the process of foreclosure during the first quarter were vacant or zombie foreclosures (44 zombie foreclosures)

Counties: Multnomah, Jackson, Marion, Lane

  1. New Mexico

6.5 percent of residential properties in the process of foreclosure during the first quarter were vacant or zombie foreclosures (41 zombie foreclosures)

Counties: Santa Fe, Bernalillo, Dona Ana, Sandoval

  1. Indiana

6.3 percent of residential properties in the process of foreclosure during the first quarter were vacant or zombie foreclosures (207 zombie foreclosures)

Counties: Lake, Marion, St Joseph, Vanderburgh

  1. Ohio

6.2 percent of residential properties in the process of foreclosure during the first quarter were vacant or zombie foreclosures (589 zombie foreclosures)

Counties: Mahoning, Lucas, Cuyahoga, Montgomery

  1. Oklahoma

6 percent of residential properties in the process of foreclosure during the first quarter were vacant or zombie foreclosures (72 zombie foreclosures)

Counties: Oklahoma, Tulsa, Cleveland, Canadian

  1. Maryland

5.8 percent of residential properties in the process of foreclosure during the first quarter were vacant or zombie foreclosures (115 zombie foreclosures)

Counties: Baltimore City, Baltimore, Prince George’s County, Worcester

  1. Alaska

5.5 percent of residential properties in the process of foreclosure during the first quarter were vacant or zombie foreclosures (7 zombie foreclosures)

Counties: Anchorage

  1. Nebraska

5.1 percent of residential properties in the process of foreclosure during the first quarter were vacant or zombie foreclosures (12 zombie foreclosures)

Counties: Douglas, Lancaster, Sarpy

  1. Wyoming

5.1 percent of residential properties in the process of foreclosure during the first quarter were vacant or zombie foreclosures (4 zombie foreclosures)

Counties: No data available

  1. North Dakota

4.9 percent of residential properties in the process of foreclosure during the first quarter were vacant or zombie foreclosures (6 zombie foreclosures)

Counties: No data available

  1. Illinois

4.4 percent of residential properties in the process of foreclosure during the first quarter were vacant or zombie foreclosures (676 zombie foreclosures)

Counties: Saint Clair, Peoria, Madison, Rock Island

  1. Alabama

4.4 percent of residential properties in the process of foreclosure during the first quarter were vacant or zombie foreclosures (34 zombie foreclosures)

Counties: Montgomery, Jefferson, Mobile, Tuscaloosa

  1. Nevada

4.0 percent of residential properties in the process of foreclosure during the first quarter were vacant or zombie foreclosures (66 zombie foreclosures)

Counties: Clark, Washoe

  1. Hawaii

4.0 percent of residential properties in the process of foreclosure during the first quarter were vacant or zombie foreclosures (68 zombie foreclosures)

Counties: Hawaii, Honolulu, Maui

  1. Montana

3.9 percent of residential properties in the process of foreclosure during the first quarter were vacant or zombie foreclosures (4 zombie foreclosures)

Counties: Yellowstone

  1. Pennsylvania

3.9 percent of residential properties in the process of foreclosure during the first quarter were vacant or zombie foreclosures (219 zombie foreclosures)

Counties: Schuylkill, Beaver, Allegheny, Luzerne

  1. Washington

3.8 percent of residential properties in the process of foreclosure during the first quarter were vacant or zombie foreclosures (61 zombie foreclosures)

Counties: Spokane, Pierce, Yakima, Kitsap

  1. Maine

3.8 percent of residential properties in the process of foreclosure during the first quarter were vacant or zombie foreclosures (24 zombie foreclosures)

Counties: Penobscot, York, Cumberland

  1. Arkansas

3.7 percent of residential properties in the process of foreclosure during the first quarter were vacant or zombie foreclosures (6 zombie foreclosures)

Counties: Pulaski, Washington, Benton

  1. Idaho

3.6 percent of residential properties in the process of foreclosure during the first quarter were vacant or zombie foreclosures (16 zombie foreclosures)

Counties: Ada, Kootenai, Canyon

  1. Florida

3.5 percent of residential properties in the process of foreclosure during the first quarter were vacant or zombie foreclosures (2300 zombie foreclosures)

Counties: Pinellas, Sarasota, Collier, Volusia

  1. Michigan

3.4 percent of residential properties in the process of foreclosure during the first quarter were vacant or zombie foreclosures (60 zombie foreclosures)

Counties: Wayne, Genesee, Saginaw, Berrien

  1. Arizona

3.4 percent of residential properties in the process of foreclosure during the first quarter were vacant or zombie foreclosures (72 zombie foreclosures)

Counties: Pima, Mohave, Maricopa, Yuma

  1. New York

3.3 percent of residential properties in the process of foreclosure during the first quarter were vacant or zombie foreclosures (1382 zombie foreclosures)

Counties: Broome, Niagara, Oneida, Schenectady

  1. Mississippi

3.0 percent of residential properties in the process of foreclosure during the first quarter were vacant or zombie foreclosures (4 zombie foreclosures)

Counties: Hinds, Harrison, De Soto

  1. Texas

2.9 percent of residential properties in the process of foreclosure during the first quarter were vacant or zombie foreclosures (177 zombie foreclosures)

Counties: Jefferson, Lubbock, Galveston, Nueces

  1. Kentucky

2.8 percent of residential properties in the process of foreclosure during the first quarter were vacant or zombie foreclosures (23 zombie foreclosures)

Counties: Jefferson, Kenton, Fayette

  1. Colorado

2.8 percent of residential properties in the process of foreclosure during the first quarter were vacant or zombie foreclosures (47 zombie foreclosures)

Counties: Pueblo, Denver, Arapahoe, Boulder

  1. Virginia

2.6 percent of residential properties in the process of foreclosure during the first quarter were vacant or zombie foreclosures (29 zombie foreclosures)

Counties: Richmond City, Norfolk City, Virginia Beach City, Arlington

  1. Minnesota

2.6 percent of residential properties in the process of foreclosure during the first quarter were vacant or zombie foreclosures (25 zombie foreclosures)

Counties: Saint Louis, Hennepin, Ramsey, Olmsted

  1. Wisconsin

2.5 percent of residential properties in the process of foreclosure during the first quarter were vacant or zombie foreclosures (34 zombie foreclosures)

Counties: Milwaukee, Winnebago, Rock, Racine

  1. North Carolina

2.4 percent of residential properties in the process of foreclosure during the first quarter were vacant or zombie foreclosures (61 zombie foreclosures)

Counties: Forsyth, Gaston, Cumberland, New Hanover

  1. Delaware

2.4 percent of residential properties in the process of foreclosure during the first quarter were vacant or zombie foreclosures (13 zombie foreclosures)

Counties: New Castle, Kent, Sussex

  1. Georgia

2.3 percent of residential properties in the process of foreclosure during the first quarter were vacant or zombie foreclosures (51 zombie foreclosures)

Counties: Bibb, Richmond, Muscogee, Clayton

  1. Tennessee

2.3 percent of residential properties in the process of foreclosure during the first quarter were vacant or zombie foreclosures (15 zombie foreclosures)

Counties: Shelby, Hamilton, Sullivan, Montgomery

  1. Louisiana

2.2 percent of residential properties in the process of foreclosure during the first quarter were vacant or zombie foreclosures (27 zombie foreclosures)

Counties: Caddo, Calcasieu, East Baton Rouge, Orleans

  1. South Carolina

2.2 percent of residential properties in the process of foreclosure during the first quarter were vacant or zombie foreclosures (130 zombie foreclosures)

Counties: Beaufort, Horry, Anderson, Aiken

  1. California

2.1 percent of residential properties in the process of foreclosure during the first quarter were vacant or zombie foreclosures (313 zombie foreclosures)

Counties: Riverside, Los Angeles, San Luis Obispo, San Diego

  1. Utah

1.7 percent of residential properties in the process of foreclosure during the first quarter were vacant or zombie foreclosures (26 zombie foreclosures)

Counties: Washington, Salt Lake, Weber, Utah

  1. Massachusetts

1.7 percent of residential properties in the process of foreclosure during the first quarter were vacant or zombie foreclosures (48 zombie foreclosures)

Counties: Barnstable, Berkshire, Suffolk, Essex

  1. Connecticut

1.3 percent of residential properties in the process of foreclosure during the first quarter were vacant or zombie foreclosures (9 zombie foreclosures)

Counties: Southeastern Connecticut, South Central Connecticut, Naugatuck Valley, Greater Bridgeport

  1. New Jersey

0.9 percent of residential properties in the process of foreclosure during the first quarter were vacant or zombie foreclosures (199 zombie foreclosures)

Counties: Cape May, Middlesex, Atlantic, Essex

  1. Rhode Island

0.8 percent of residential properties in the process of foreclosure during the first quarter were vacant or zombie foreclosures (1 zombie foreclosures)

Counties: Washington, Kent, Providence

  1. New Hampshire

0.0 percent of residential properties in the process of foreclosure during the first quarter were vacant or zombie foreclosures (0 zombie foreclosures)

Counties: Rockingham, Hillsborough

  1. Vermont

0.0 percent of residential properties in the process of foreclosure during the first quarter were vacant or zombie foreclosures (0 zombie foreclosures)

Counties: Chittenden

  1. West Virginia

0.0 percent of residential properties in the process of foreclosure during the first quarter were vacant or zombie foreclosures (0 zombie foreclosures)

Counties: Kanawha

Zombie foreclosures remain a small share of overall foreclosure activity nationwide in Q1 2026. States at the top of the ranking continue to post higher zombie foreclosure rates relative to others, though overall levels remain low by historical standards.

 

For full report, please click the source link above.

 

Related Posts

Zombie Foreclosure Rates by State – Q1 2026

ATTOM released the complete state-by-state ranking of zombie foreclosures for Q1 of 2026, including the top ranked counties in each state.

Read More

Vacancy and Zombie Home Rates Low Across the Country

ATTOM released the Q1 2026 Vacant Property and Zombie Foreclosure Report showing only 1.33% of residential properties were vacant at the beginning of the year.

Read More

  • + Event
    • NPPC
    • Vendor Events
    • Industry Conferences
    • Community Events
  • + Featured Resources
    • Disaster Updates
    • FEMA Alerts
    • Industry Updates
    • Investor and Regulatory Updates
  • Conferences and Events
  • + Newsroom
    • Safeguard in the News
    • Editorials
    • News Releases
<- Back To Newsroom Next Article ->

Contact Us

Reach out to us via phone, email, or the form below.

Fields marked with an * are required

Our Information

Safeguard Properties

7887 Hub Parkway

Valley View, OH 44125

216.739.2900

Media Inquiries: safeguard.communication@safeguardproperties.com

24-Hour Complaint Hotline:

855.563.9154

Transparency in Coverage Information - Click Here

Connect

  • Connect with us on Facebook
  • Tweet us on Twitter
  • Connect with us on LinkedIn
  • Watch us on Youtube

Our Partners

© Copyright Safeguard Properties 2025

Privacy
Legal Information

Cookies enable us to provide the best experience possible and help us understand how visitors use our website. By browsing our website, you agree to our use of cookies.

x

CEO

Alan Jaffa

Alan Jaffa is the Chief Executive Officer for Safeguard Properties, steering the company as the mortgage field services industry leader. He also serves on the board of advisors for SCG Partners, a middle-market private equity fund focused on diversifying and expanding Safeguard Properties’ business model into complimentary markets.

Alan joined Safeguard in 1995, learning the business from the ground up. He was promoted to Chief Operating Officer in 2002, and was named CEO in May 2010. His hands-on experience has given him unique insights as a leader to innovate, improve and strengthen Safeguard’s processes to assure that the company adheres to the highest standards of quality and customer service.

Under Alan’s leadership, Safeguard has grown significantly with strategies that have included new and expanded services, technology investments that deliver higher quality and greater efficiency to clients, and strategic acquisitions. He takes a team approach to process improvement, involving staff at all levels of the organization to address issues, brainstorm solutions, and identify new and better ways to serve clients.

In 2008, Alan was recognized by Crain’s Cleveland Business in its annual “40-Under-40” profile of young leaders. He also was named a NEO Ernst & Young Entrepreneur Of The Year® Award finalist in 2013.

x

Esq., General Counsel and EVP

Linda Erkkila

Linda Erkkila is the General Counsel and Executive Vice President for Safeguard Properties, with oversight of legal, human resources, training, and compliance. Linda’s broad scope of oversight covers regulatory issues that impact Safeguard’s operations, risk mitigation, strategic planning, human resources and training initiatives, compliance, insurance, litigation and claims management, and counsel related to mergers, acquisition and joint ventures.

Linda assures that Safeguard’s strategic initiatives align with its resources, leverage opportunities across the company, and contemplate compliance mandates. She has practiced law for 25 years and her experience, both as outside and in-house counsel, covers a wide range of corporate matters, including regulatory disclosure, corporate governance compliance, risk assessment, compensation and benefits, litigation management, and mergers and acquisitions.

Linda earned her JD at Cleveland-Marshall College of Law. She holds a degree in economics from Miami University and an MBA. Linda was previously named as both a “Woman of Influence” by HousingWire and as a “Leading Lady” by MReport.

x

COO

Michael Greenbaum

Michael Greenbaum is the Chief Operating Officer of Safeguard Properties, where he has played a pivotal role since joining the company in July 2010. Initially brought on as Vice President of REO, Mike’s exceptional leadership and strategic vision quickly propelled him to Vice President of Operations in 2013, and ultimately to COO in 2015. Over his 14-year tenure at Safeguard, Mike has been instrumental in driving change and fostering innovation within the Property Preservation sector, consistently delivering excellence and becoming a trusted partner to clients and investors.

A distinguished graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point, Mike earned a degree in Quantitative Economics. Following his graduation, he served in the U.S. Army’s Ordnance Branch, where he specialized in supply chain management. Before his tenure at Safeguard, Mike honed his expertise by managing global supply chains for 13 years, leveraging his military and civilian experience to lead with precision and efficacy.

x

CFO

Joe Iafigliola

Joe Iafigliola is the Chief Financial Officer for Safeguard Properties. Joe is responsible for the Control, Quality Assurance, Business Development, Marketing, Accounting, and Information Security departments. At the core of his responsibilities is the drive to ensure that Safeguard’s focus remains rooted in Customer Service = Resolution. Through his executive leadership role, he actively supports SGPNOW.com, an on-demand service geared towards real estate and property management professionals as well as individual home owners in need of inspection and property preservation services. Joe is also an integral force behind Compliance Connections, a branch of Safeguard Properties that allows code enforcement professionals to report violations at properties that can then be addressed by the Safeguard vendor network. Compliance Connections also researches and shares vacant property ordinance information with Safeguard clients.

Joe has an MBA from The Weatherhead School of Management at Case Western Reserve University, is a Certified Management Accountant (CMA), and holds a bachelor’s degree from The Ohio State University’s Honors Accounting program.

x

Business Development

Carrie Tackett

Business Development Safeguard Properties