Coverage · Christchurch
What PropertyKete checks in Christchurch
Six checks return data for a Christchurch address today. PropertyKete does not check liquefaction — anywhere, for any address. In Christchurch that gap is significant enough that it belongs at the top of the page rather than in a footnote.
How to read the table below
- Checked — data held — the check runs for Christchurch and your report shows a result.
- Checked — no data for this city — the check exists but we hold nothing here, and the report says so. Not a clean result.
- Not checked anywhere — not part of a PropertyKete report for any address, in any city.
Reading “not checked” as “not found” is the mistake that costs people money. The full explanation, including what “not detected” means on your own report.
The Christchurch coverage matrix
6 checks with data held · 6 with no data for Christchurch · 5 not checked anywhere. Territorial authority: Christchurch City.
| Check | Status | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Active fault proximityRuns for every New Zealand address and is always shown in the free preview. It reports whether a mapped active fault trace lies within 500 metres, from GNS Science mapping compiled at 1:250,000 — a national screening scale, not a site survey. It does not give a distance in metres, because the dataset is not precise enough to place a fault within an individual property. | Checked — data held | GNS Science, New Zealand Active Faults Database (NZAFD-AF250) |
| Flood plainPropertyKete holds Auckland Council flood plains only. For a Christchurch address the report states that this check has not run — it does not return a clean flood result. | Checked — no data for this city | No Christchurch flood hazard layer held |
| Overland flow pathAuckland Council overland flow paths only. No result is produced here. | Checked — no data for this city | No Christchurch overland flow path layer held |
| Coastal inundation (current and +1 m sea-level rise)Both coastal checks are Auckland-only. Neither runs here, for coastal addresses or any other. | Checked — no data for this city | No Christchurch coastal inundation layer held |
| Landslide susceptibility (shallow and large-scale)Both landslide checks map Auckland Council susceptibility only, and neither produces a result here. | Checked — no data for this city | No Christchurch landslide susceptibility layer held |
| Local authorityNames the council responsible for consents, the district plan and property records. This is context, not a risk finding — it is never treated as a concern. | Checked — data held | Stats NZ territorial authority boundaries (TA2025) |
| Zoning and planning overlaysAuckland Unitary Plan zones and overlays are live; Christchurch is deferred pending review of the council’s GIS licence terms. The report links you to the council’s own planning maps instead of guessing. | Checked — no data for this city | Christchurch City Council district plan GIS — not licensed |
| School enrolment zonesChecks which enrolment zones the address falls inside, and lists schools within 5 km that it is outside. Schools are not a risk check — in-zone results are shown expanded, nearby out-of-zone schools collapsed. Zones change; the school is the authority on its own zone. | Checked — data held | Ministry of Education (2025) |
| Area deprivation (NZDep2023)An area-level measure for the statistical area around the address, not a measure of the property or the people in it. Around 400 of New Zealand’s 32,817 SA1 areas have no published decile; those render as unavailable rather than as a good score. | Checked — data held | University of Otago / Stats NZ 2023 Census |
| Nearby amenitiesA walkability proxy across eight daily-needs categories. OpenStreetMap is crowd-sourced, so it is uneven: a shop that exists but was never mapped will not appear, and a closed one may linger. | Checked — data held | OpenStreetMap |
| Public transport accessDistance to the nearest mapped stops. Same crowd-sourced caveat as amenities — it reflects what has been mapped, not a timetable, a service frequency, or whether a route still runs. | Checked — data held | OpenStreetMap |
| Rental market contextThe check is built, but no bond data is loaded, so no rental finding appears on any report anywhere in New Zealand today. Do not read its absence as a statement about rents. | Checked — no data for this city | MBIE / Tenancy Services rental bond data (not loaded) |
| LiquefactionPropertyKete does not check liquefaction anywhere in New Zealand. No liquefaction dataset is held and no liquefaction finding appears on any report, for any address. | Not checked anywhere | — |
| Tsunami evacuation and exposure zonesNo tsunami dataset is held and no tsunami check runs, including for coastal addresses. | Not checked anywhere | — |
| Contaminated land / HAILLand-use history and potentially contaminating past activities are not checked. Councils hold this information and a LIM is the usual way to get it. | Not checked anywhere | — |
| Easements, covenants and consent historyTitle type is shown as a property fact, but easements, covenants, interests and building or resource consent history are not assessed. These are among the most common sources of an unwelcome surprise, and none of them is in a PropertyKete report. | Not checked anywhere | — |
| Terrain, slope and wind exposure as a findingSome hazard layers use terrain internally, but there is no user-facing terrain, slope or wind finding. | Not checked anywhere | — |
Liquefaction is not checked
PropertyKete holds no liquefaction dataset and runs no liquefaction check, in Christchurch or anywhere else. No report on this site mentions liquefaction for any address. Given how directly liquefaction shaped which Christchurch land could be rebuilt on, a PropertyKete report is not a sufficient basis for a decision about ground conditions here. Christchurch City Council, Environment Canterbury and a geotechnical engineer are the people who can answer it, and a LIM is the usual starting point.
What else we do not hold for Christchurch
No Christchurch City Council or Environment Canterbury hazard layers are ingested — no council flood hazard modelling, no coastal inundation or erosion layer, and no slope or landslide susceptibility mapping. The Christchurch District Plan is not held either, so zoning and heritage overlays are not checked.
The active fault check does run here
Active fault proximity is national and always appears in the free preview. It uses GNS Science mapping compiled at 1:250,000, which locates mapped fault traces approximately — so the check reports whether a trace is mapped within 500 metres rather than a distance in metres. It is not a check for liquefaction, ground shaking, or land damage — those are different questions and PropertyKete does not answer them.
What “not checked” means, when the thing not checked is liquefaction
Across the site we draw a line between three states: a check that ran and found nothing, a check that has no data for a city, and a check that does not exist. Liquefaction is the third. There is no liquefaction dataset in PropertyKete, no liquefaction indicator, and no address anywhere in New Zealand whose report mentions it. The word will never appear on a finding, whatever the ground beneath the property is.
That distinction matters more here than anywhere else we operate. In a city where ground conditions determined which land could be rebuilt on, a report that is silent about liquefaction is silent because we never look — and a reader who takes our quiet Christchurch report as a short risk list has drawn exactly the wrong conclusion from it.
It also cannot be repaired by reading our other results carefully. The active fault check is about surface rupture on a mapped trace; it is not a proxy for ground behaviour, shaking or land damage. Nothing else we run touches soil conditions. There is no combination of PropertyKete findings from which liquefaction vulnerability can be inferred.
Where a Christchurch buyer can actually investigate it
Christchurch City Council publishes liquefaction vulnerability mapping for the district and puts it in front of the public in an interactive viewer. That mapping is not held by PropertyKete and is not part of any report we produce — this is a pointer to the council’s work, not a description of ours.
It carries a limitation worth understanding before you open it, and the council states it plainly: the mapping describes how liquefaction vulnerability varies across areas, not what will happen at one address. Soil varies over short distances, so neighbouring properties can behave differently. That is the same class of limitation as our own fault check, from a different direction — useful for understanding an area, not a substitute for someone assessing the site.
Published by others — not held by PropertyKete
These are the publishers’ own tools. Nothing below is ingested into PropertyKete or appears in a report.
Christchurch Liquefaction Information viewer · Christchurch City Council
The council’s liquefaction vulnerability mapping for Christchurch, prepared for it by Tonkin + Taylor following national liquefaction guidance, alongside observations from the 2010–2011 Canterbury earthquakes and a tool for exploring different earthquake and groundwater scenarios.
“Some properties might have severe liquefaction damage while others nearby have only moderate or even no damage. This means that we can’t predict the damage at a specific address, but we can predict the general distribution of damage across an area.” — Christchurch City Council, checked 2026-09-06
Liquefaction (council guidance page) · Christchurch City Council
The council’s own explanation of its liquefaction mapping and how it uses it in decisions about land use and building controls.
Link checked 2026-09-06.
The rest of the Christchurch picture is also outside this report
Liquefaction is the gap that matters most here, but it is not the only one, and it would be misleading to leave the impression that everything else is covered. No Christchurch City Council or Canterbury regional hazard layer is ingested, and the Christchurch District Plan is not held — so flood modelling, coastal hazard, slope stability, zoning and heritage overlays all return no result for a Christchurch address.
For a purchase decision, the route is the ordinary one and it is not us: a LIM from Christchurch City Council for what the council holds and knows about the property, and a geotechnical engineer where ground conditions bear on the decision. A PropertyKete Christchurch report is a starting point for what to ask, and it is not a sufficient basis for a conclusion about the ground.
Guides for reading a Christchurch report
With no Christchurch council hazard or planning layers held, council and regional records are the place to look for hazard information on a property. Start with what a LIM contains, then how to read flood information and the fault check.
Absence of a finding is not absence of risk
Everything on this page is about what PropertyKete has data for, not about what is true of the ground. A report is not a LIM, a valuation, a building report, or legal or engineering advice. For anything that matters to a purchase decision, the council, a solicitor and the relevant engineer are the people who can answer it.