BizGapMap

Home / Full-service restaurants / Utah / Salt Lake County, UT

Salt Lake County, UT — Restaurants Saturation

How many restaurants exist per person present — residents plus daytime workers — by ZIP code, compared with the U.S. average. Establishment data: Census ZBP 2023. Population: ACS 2024 5-year. 61 ZIP codes analyzed.

Includes: Sit-down restaurants with table service. Counted together because official statistics use one 722511 code.

Measured density: Below average — 0.78× the U.S. rate (between 0.78× and 0.79× once withheld ZIP cells are counted)

Why a range: Census does not publish a ZIP-by-industry count when that ZIP has 0–2 businesses. 28 ZIP cells in this county are withheld, 6 of them with residents. Each could hold 0, 1, or 2 businesses: counting them all as 0 gives the low end, counting them all as 2 gives the high end — the data cannot say where the truth sits. The density range uses only the populated cells, since ZIPs without residents are excluded from per-person rates. How ranges work

Below the U.S. rate   Salt Lake County restaurants — 78–79% of the U.S. rate

758 restaurants are counted in Salt Lake County — 5.0 per 10,000 people present (residents + daytime workers), 78% of the U.S. rate of 6.4.

On the comparable ZIP set (ZIPs with a published count in every year), the total has risen 13% between 2015 and 2023 (659 → 743). That set is smaller than today's county total. 2020–2021 were pandemic-distorted, and Census rounds counts, so small moves are within noise.

Measured supply density is highest in 84115 (Salt Lake City), 84102 (Salt Lake City), 84047 (Midvale) — well above the national rate. On measured density alone, the lowest-density residential ZIPs with a published count are 84081 (West Jordan), 84044 (Magna), 84093 (Sandy).

BLS QCEW puts the latest county-wide count (2026 Q1) at 794 establishments, the freshest available signal.

Measured density: Salt Lake County sits at 78% of the U.S. rate for restaurants. 6 ZIPs with population have no published count (each 0–2 businesses), so the true per-capita rate is between 78% and 79% of the U.S. rate. Why. The highest measured density is in 84115 and 84102; the lowest measured density is in 84081 and 84044.

This is a supply-side read: it counts existing restaurants and the people present, not foot traffic, income, rent, or whether locals want more. Treat low density as a question to check, not an answer.

Restaurants
758–814
published count; upper bound counts each withheld ZIP cell as 2 (28 cells) (2023)
Per 10,000 present
5.0
residents + daytime workers
U.S. average
6.4
per 10,000 present
County index
0.78×
vs. U.S.
Latest quarter (QCEW)
794
2026 Q1 — county total
Residents
1,199,921
39 ZIPs with data
Workers
634,804
jobs located in county

Is the area growing?

Population
1,216,274
Census PEP, July 1 2024
Change since 2020
+2.5%
+29,246 people
Net migration 2024
+8,990
international +18,992, domestic −10,002
Jobs located here
756,897
LODES 2022, +5.4% since 2019

Salt Lake County had an estimated 1,216,274 residents on July 1, 2024 — 2.5% more than in 2020 (+29,246). In the latest year it gained 15,730 people: births minus deaths +6,795, international migration +18,992, domestic migration −10,002. Components are published separately and may not sum exactly.

756,897 jobs were located in the county in 2022 (+5.4% since 2019), and 605,063 employed residents lived there (+3.8% since 2019). LODES counts wage and salary jobs covered by unemployment insurance plus federal jobs; it excludes the self-employed and military, and counts jobs rather than unique people. 2019→2022 spans the pandemic, so read it as one change, not a trend.

Population and migration say whether the customer base is growing. They do not say whether people want another business of this type. Definitions and limits →  ·  Full county detail →

ZIP gaining residents
2015–19 → 2020–24
Change
84101 Salt Lake City
+103.7%
84096 Herriman
+43.9%
84112 Salt Lake City
+29.7%
ZIP losing residents
2015–19 → 2020–24
Change
84095 South Jordan
−46.1%
84118 Salt Lake City
−39.9%
84084 West Jordan
−17.3%

ACS 5-year estimates for 2015–2019 and 2020–2024. Only ZIPs with at least 2,000 residents in both windows and a change larger than the survey margin of error (90%) are listed — small ZIPs move a lot on paper without a real signal.

Nonemployer businesses (no paid employees)

Nonemployer businesses
208
no paid employees (2024)
Receipts
$16.3M
published gross receipts
Receipts per business
$79K
gross, not profit

Census Nonemployer Statistics counts businesses with no paid employees — a separate universe from the employer establishments counted above; a business is in one or the other, never both. They are not storefronts by definition: many are home-based, mobile, or part-time.

We show them beside the density index, not inside it. In categories such as nail and beauty salons, child care, and pet care, one-person businesses can outnumber employer establishments, so the employer-only count understates how many businesses exist. That is not evidence of higher demand.

Receipts are gross revenue reported for these businesses — not profit, and not the size of the local market. Census publishes this only at county level, so it is not shown on the ZIP map. See methodology.

Saturation map

Each ZIP area is shaded by its density of this business type per person present (residents + workers) vs. the U.S. average. Click any ZIP to zoom to its boundary, see its numbers, and switch to aerial imagery. Individual mapped shops appear as dots at street level — Show locations zooms you in to them (scroll or double-click to zoom).

Basemap:
Under 50% 50–100% 100–150% 150–250% 250%+ 0–2 (not published) / no data ZIP total (dot size) Mapped shop (OpenStreetMap, street level)

Map data © OpenStreetMap contributors, tiles by OpenFreeMap.

White dots are ZIP totals from the official Census count — the bigger the dot, the more restaurants in that ZIP. They are aggregated, not individual shops. Turquoise dots are individual locations mapped in OpenStreetMap, shown only at street level; they are crowd-sourced and indicative, may be incomplete, and do not equal the official counts. Only the official ZIP totals feed the saturation index.

Market trend — up 13% since 2015

Number of restaurants in Salt Lake County across 2015–2023, on a consistent set of ZIP codes present in every year — so changes are real, not ZIP-boundary artifacts. 2015/2018 are pre-pandemic baselines; 2020/2021 are COVID-distorted.

659
2015
717
2018
702
2020
708
2021
710
2022
743
2023

Highest measured density

ZIP
vs. U.S. average
Index
84115 Salt Lake City
226%
84102 Salt Lake City
159%
84047 Midvale
135%
84070 Sandy
127%
84109 Salt Lake City
120%
84106 Salt Lake City
119%
84094 Sandy
113%
84117 Salt Lake City
112%
84119 West Valley City
101%
84105 Salt Lake City
98%
84121 Salt Lake City
93%
84095 South Jordan
89%
84107 Salt Lake City
85%
84084 West Jordan
78%
84020 Draper
72%

Lowest measured density

ZIP
vs. U.S. average
Index
84081 West Jordan
11%
84044 Magna
15%
84093 Sandy
25%
84096 Herriman
26%
84009 South Jordan
27%
84124 Salt Lake City
30%
84118 Salt Lake City
37%
84108 Salt Lake City
38%
84065 Riverton
40%
84120 West Valley City
53%
84123 Salt Lake City
54%
84116 Salt Lake City
55%
84103 Salt Lake City
59%
84129 Salt Lake City
60%
84088 West Jordan
70%
Low measured density is not evidence of opportunity. A ZIP with few restaurants may simply lack foot traffic, retail space, or demand. We rank only residential and mixed ZIPs here; employment hubs and visitor destinations are listed separately below. ZIPs where Census did not publish a count (0–2 businesses) are not ranked: they may be the least served of all, but the data cannot tell 0 from 1 or 2. Verify those locally.

Employment hubs & destinations

These ZIPs have far more workers (or visitors) than residents, so their counts are driven by daytime and visitor demand — not a place to read "shortage" from resident numbers alone.

ZIPNeighborhoodType ResidentsWorkersRestaurantsIndex
84101Salt Lake City Employment hub 9,38132,789 54 328%
84111Salt Lake City Employment hub 12,78229,371 51 291%
84104Salt Lake City Employment hub 23,42053,265 8 25%
84006Bingham Canyon Employment hub 1,0602,270 0–2 —
84113Salt Lake City Destination 2643,507 0–2 —
84150Salt Lake City Destination 6774 0–2 —

Scroll the table sideways to see all columns.

All ZIP codes

Click a column header to sort. Index = restaurants per 10,000 people present (residents + 0.5×workers) ÷ the U.S. average. 100% = exactly average.

ZIPNeighborhood ResidentsWorkersRestaurants Per 10kIndexStatus
84101Salt Lake City 9,38132,789 54 21.0 328% Very high density
84111Salt Lake City 12,78229,371 51 18.6 291% Very high density
84115Salt Lake City 28,88229,461 63 14.4 226% High density
84102Salt Lake City 18,7779,650 24 10.2 159% High density
84047Midvale 37,41122,549 42 8.6 135% Above average
84070Sandy 30,47235,291 39 8.1 127% Above average
84109Salt Lake City 25,5446,102 22 7.7 120% Above average
84106Salt Lake City 35,21313,687 32 7.6 119% Above average
84094Sandy 27,5076,127 22 7.2 113% Above average
84117Salt Lake City 24,9808,853 21 7.1 112% Above average
84119West Valley City 50,07042,396 46 6.5 101% Above average
84105Salt Lake City 23,4913,993 16 6.3 98% Below average
84121Salt Lake City 38,91222,785 30 6.0 93% Below average
84095South Jordan 38,53232,070 31 5.7 89% Below average
84107Salt Lake City 38,25737,038 31 5.5 85% Below average
84084West Jordan 31,5429,052 18 5.0 78% Below average
84020Draper 50,27842,194 33 4.6 72% Below average
84088West Jordan 39,22815,012 21 4.5 70% Below average
84129Salt Lake City 37,4424,008 15 3.8 60% Below average
84103Salt Lake City 23,7495,431 10 3.8 59% Below average
84116Salt Lake City 38,62536,792 20 3.5 55% Below average
84123Salt Lake City 37,05424,877 17 3.4 54% Below average
84120West Valley City 50,79929,348 22 3.4 53% Below average
84065Riverton 50,76815,164 15 2.6 40% Far below average
84108Salt Lake City 22,39012,941 7 2.4 38% Far below average
84118Salt Lake City 42,8537,731 11 2.4 37% Far below average
84124Salt Lake City 22,6096,698 5 1.9 30% Far below average
84009South Jordan 44,1863,673 8 1.7 27% Far below average
84096Herriman 74,6037,061 13 1.7 26% Far below average
84104Salt Lake City 23,42053,265 8 1.6 25% Far below average
84093Sandy 23,8713,362 4 1.6 25% Far below average
84044Magna 30,0313,658 3 0.9 15% Far below average
84081West Jordan 52,3147,366 4 0.7 11% Far below average
84006Bingham Canyon 1,0602,270 0–2 — — Not published
84090Sandy —15 0–2 — — Not published
84091Sandy —826 0–2 — — Not published
84092Sandy 27,6515,329 0–2 — — Not published
84110Salt Lake City —882 0–2 — — Not published
84112Salt Lake City 2,841522 0–2 — — Not published
84113Salt Lake City 2643,507 0–2 — — Not published
84114Salt Lake City 0209 0–2 — — Not published
84122Salt Lake City —10,377 0–2 — — Not published
84125Salt Lake City —413 0–2 — — Not published
84126Salt Lake City —37 0–2 — — Not published
84127Salt Lake City —209 0–2 — — Not published
84128West Valley City 32,1262,607 0–2 — — Not published
84130Salt Lake City —87 0–2 — — Not published
84133Salt Lake City —1,240 0–2 — — Not published
84138Salt Lake City 041 0–2 — — Not published
84143Salt Lake City —72 0–2 — — Not published
84148Salt Lake City —2,640 0–2 — — Not published
84150Salt Lake City 6774 0–2 — — Not published
84152Salt Lake City —19,848 0–2 — — Not published
84157Salt Lake City —5,682 0–2 — — Not published
84158Salt Lake City —16 0–2 — — Not published
84165Salt Lake City —350 0–2 — — Not published
84170Salt Lake City —26 0–2 — — Not published
84171Salt Lake City —11 0–2 — — Not published
84180Salt Lake City 0267 0–2 — — Not published
84184Salt Lake City —111 0–2 — — Not published
84190Salt Lake City —32 0–2 — — Not published

Scroll the table sideways to see all columns.

Find an actual space in Salt Lake City

The numbers above tell you how the market looks. To find a specific storefront, these marketplaces list available retail space for lease.

LoopNet
Largest commercial marketplace
Browse Salt Lake City retail space →
Crexi
Free listings + market data
Browse Salt Lake City retail space →
CityFeet
Retail space for lease
Browse Salt Lake City retail space →

Open vacancy data (actual empty units) is only published by some cities; where it exists we show it directly. Listings above are third-party.

Census withholds some ZIP-by-industry cells to protect small businesses. 0–2 means the cell was not published (Census publishes industry counts only at 3+ per ZIP), so the ZIP is left unranked rather than counted as zero. ~ means the count is estimated from the broader industry group and can be off by a business or two.

Follow Salt Lake County and restaurants

When a data vintage changes or a section of this report is revised, we post it to a public update feed. No email address, no account, no tracking — and nothing is sent unless something actually changed.

Subscribe to updates (RSS) How these numbers are built →

Methodology & sources

Establishments. U.S. Census ZIP Code Business Patterns (ZBP 2023), NAICS 722511 — full-service restaurants. Counts establishments with paid employees. ZBP is published annually with a ~2-year lag.

Fresh county signal. BLS QCEW (quarterly) is newer than ZBP — 2026 Q1 shows 794 establishments county-wide for this industry. It cannot be broken down by ZIP.

Population. U.S. Census American Community Survey 2024 5-year ZCTA population (table B01003). Workers are the ZIP's total employment from the same 2023 ZBP file.

Demand ("people present"). Demand comes from residents and daytime workers: residents + 0.5 × workers. This is the single documented assumption in the model and can be tuned.

Index. index = (ZIP establishments ÷ ZIP demand × 10,000) ÷ the U.S. average for this industry (6.39 per 10,000 present). It is a supply-side density measure; it does not capture income, rent, tourism, or whether locals actually want more.

Read the full methodology →  ·  Data sources & vintages →

BizGapMap — free, no-login small-business saturation reports for major U.S. counties. Built entirely from public U.S. Census, BLS, and IRS data (ZBP 2023, ACS 2024 5-year, PEP 2024, LODES, QCEW, IRS SOI). No forecasts, no revenue guesses — withheld cells are marked, and the few derived counts are labelled as estimates.