If you’ve spent any time house-hunting in South Lake Tahoe, you’ve probably heard people talk about “City” versus “County” like it’s a totally different world. And honestly? It can feel that way. But instead of relying on vibes, let’s look at what actually happened in 2025 sold residential listings and translate it into practical takeaways you can use as a buyer or seller.
For this breakdown, I used two MLS export datasets:
-
City of South Lake Tahoe solds (Status = S)
-
County S. Lake Tahoe solds (Status = S)
Closing date is based on Selling Date, price per square foot is Selling_Price_Per_Sqft, and original list price is Original Price.
The headline: City had more sales, County had higher prices, City had higher $/sqft
Here’s the cleanest summary of 2025:
Total homes sold (Status “S” only)
-
City: 271 sales
-
County: 200 sales
That’s 471 total sales in these two datasets, with the City representing 57.5% of the sold activity and the County at 42.5%.
What that suggests: In 2025, within this dataset, the City side had more turnover and more closed sales volume.
Median sale price
-
City: $660,000
-
County: $749,500
What that suggests: The typical County sale closed at a higher price point.
Median selling price per square foot
-
City: $482.51/sqft
-
County: $446.62/sqft
What that suggests: Even though County homes sold for more overall, the City commanded a higher “per-foot” value.
This is one of those Tahoe-specific realities: two homes can be a few minutes apart and still trade differently because the buyer pool, property types, and lifestyle proximity aren’t identical.
Why County sells higher… but City wins on $/sqft
The simplest explanation is home size and lot size.
Median home size
-
City: 1,472 sqft
-
County: 1,845 sqft
Median lot size
-
City: 0.15 acres
-
County: 0.23 acres
When the County has larger homes on larger lots, that tends to lift the median sale price. But larger homes often trade at a lower $/sqft than smaller homes, especially when buyers are comparing “total budget” rather than “cost per foot.”
The inventory mix reinforces this:
-
Homes under 1,000 sqft
-
City: 20.3%
-
County: 4.5%
-
Homes 2,500+ sqft
-
City: 11.1%
-
County: 24.5%
Translation: The City includes a much larger share of smaller homes (which often push $/sqft up), while the County has a much heavier concentration of larger homes (which often pull $/sqft down).
If you’re a buyer, this is why you can look at a $750k City home and a $750k County home and feel like you’re shopping in two different markets.
How fast did homes move? It’s closer than people think
A common assumption is that one side is “hot” and the other is “slow.” The data says: not exactly.
Because these exports don’t include a dedicated DOM field, I used a clean timing proxy:
-
List → Pending: Pending Date – On_Market_Date
-
List → Close: Selling Date – On_Market_Date
-
Pending → Close: Selling Date – Pending Date
Median timing (List → Pending)
-
City: 37 days
-
County: 32.5 days
Median timing (List → Close)
-
City: 68 days
-
County: 69 days
Median timing (Pending → Close)
-
City: 30 days
-
County: 30 days
Translation: County listings went pending slightly faster on median, but overall time-to-close was essentially the same.
What’s even more useful is the distribution:
-
Went pending within 14 days
-
City: 30.6%
-
County: 33.5%
-
Took 90+ days to go pending
-
City: 21.4%
-
County: 23.5%
Translation: In both City and County, about one-third of homes were “fast movers,” and about one-fifth to one-quarter sat longer than three months before getting into contract. That’s a big reminder that price, condition, presentation, and location within the micro-pocket still matter massively—regardless of City or County.
Did homes sell above asking? County slightly edged City
Using Selling Price vs Original Price:
-
Sold at or above original list
-
City: 18.45%
-
County: 21.0%
-
Median sale-to-original ratio
-
City: 95.28%
-
County: 96.23%
Translation: County had a slightly higher share of at/above-original-list outcomes, and both markets saw typical negotiation off the original list price. If you’re selling, that’s your cue that initial pricing strategy matters—and if you’re buying, it’s a reminder that not everything is a bidding war, but the best homes still move quickly and can get competed for.
The “premium ceiling” is higher in the City
One of the most interesting differences shows up at the high end of $/sqft:
90th percentile Selling_Price_Per_Sqft
-
City: ~$675.58/sqft
-
County: ~$537.20/sqft
Translation: The City has a higher “premium ceiling” on $/sqft. In plain English: there were more City sales that reached that upper tier of per-foot pricing.
This is often where proximity, convenience, and certain micro-locations show up in pricing behavior—even when total home size is smaller.
Seasonality: City peaked in late summer, County peaked later
Based on Selling Date (closing month):
-
City top closing months: Sep (36), Aug (35), Jun (32), Oct (30)
-
County top closing months: Oct (25), Sep (20), Nov (20), Feb (19)
Translation: City closings surged in the classic summer-to-early-fall cycle, while County closings were steadier and peaked a bit later into fall.
What this means for buyers and sellers
If you’re buying
-
If you want more house and more lot (and you’re less focused on $/sqft), the County inventory mix tends to match that.
-
If you value higher per-foot pricing zones and you’re okay with smaller footprints, the City side tends to show more of that behavior.
-
Don’t assume one market is “fast” and the other is “slow”—both had plenty of quick wins and plenty of longer sits.
If you’re selling
-
Your biggest lever is still pricing + condition + presentation, because both City and County have meaningful long-tail inventory.
There’s a clear premium tier in the City (higher $/sqft ceiling), but you have to earn it with positioning and buyer perception.\
Thinking about buying or selling in South Lake Tahoe and not sure whether City or County makes more sense for your goals?
I’m happy to walk through your situation, the current data, and what strategy actually fits—no pressure, just clarity.
Ryan Smith
Compass
CA 2095506 | NV 0188892
