- A local SEO audit should cover six layers: Google Business Profile, on-page signals, citations and business-data consistency, reviews, structured data, and technical/crawl factors. The relative importance of each layer varies by business, market, and failure type — classification guidance is in the Classifying Audit Failures section.
- Start with GBP when auditing Local Pack or Maps visibility — category selection, eligibility, business information, and review signals can reveal high-impact problems quickly. Local rankings also depend on relevance, distance, and prominence, so GBP should be evaluated alongside website and reputation factors.
- Citation inconsistencies can create inaccurate business information across search and directory ecosystems and make entity reconciliation harder. Audit major platforms first, prioritising discrepancies that could mislead customers or search systems about the business’s identity, location, or contact information.
- LocalBusiness schema provides explicit machine-readable business information. It is not a documented Local Pack ranking factor, and its absence does not prevent Google from understanding a business, but accurate markup can reinforce structured entity information where implemented.
- This checklist is designed for practitioners running audits on client sites or their own. Each item indicates what to check, where to find it, and what to do if it fails. Not every failure is a ranking-factor failure — the checklist notes what each item actually affects.
Methodology note: this checklist references Google-documented factors, Google-recommended practices, and practitioner-observed patterns. Items are labelled to distinguish between them. Unconfirmed signals are noted as such.
How to Use This Audit
Run each section in order. For each item, the check describes what to examine, the pass criteria describes what good looks like, and the fix describes the corrective action if the check fails. Fix priority depends on what type of problem a failure represents — eligibility blockers come before prominence gaps, which come before UX improvements. That classification is covered in the Classifying Audit Failures section.
Tools referenced throughout: Google Business Profile Manager, Google Search Console, Google’s Rich Results Test, Screaming Frog SEO Spider (free version covers up to 500 URLs), BrightLocal or Whitespark for citation auditing, and the browser’s built-in developer tools for schema inspection.
What Google Actually Says Determines Local Rankings
Google documents three primary factors that determine local ranking (Google — How Google determines local ranking). Most audit items relate to relevance, prominence, eligibility, crawl/indexation, business-data accuracy, or conversion. Distance is largely determined by the searcher and business location rather than by an optimisation tactic. For a deeper breakdown of how these factors interact in Local Pack and Maps results, see the Google Maps and Local Pack ranking guide.
| Factor | Google’s definition | What this audit can evaluate |
|---|---|---|
| Relevance | How well a business matches the search | Categories, services, website content, business information accuracy |
| Distance | How far the business is from the searcher or specified location | Physical location and service-area definition; largely not optimisable |
| Prominence | How well known the business is, online and offline | Reviews, links, mentions, offline prominence and broader web signals |
Not every item in this checklist is a direct ranking factor. Some checks affect eligibility, some improve relevance or prominence, some improve crawling and indexation, and others primarily improve conversion or data accuracy. The checklist labels these distinctions where evidence is available.
How This Checklist Labels Evidence
Four labels appear throughout:
- [Google-documented] — stated explicitly in Google’s published documentation or guidelines
- [Google-recommended] — recommended by Google in official guidance, though not documented as a direct ranking factor
- [Practitioner benchmark] — a widely-used operational threshold that is not a Google requirement; useful for competitive comparison
- [UX / operational recommendation] — improves user experience or data accuracy without a confirmed ranking mechanism
Section 1: Google Business Profile Audit
For a complete GBP optimisation walkthrough beyond audit scope, see the Google Business Profile optimisation guide.
1.1 Listing Verification Status
Check: Log into Google Business Profile Manager. Confirm the listing shows “Verified” status.
Pass: Green verified badge visible; no pending verification or suspended status.
Fix if fails: Re-initiate verification via postcard, phone, or video verification. A suspended listing requires reviewing the profile against Google’s eligibility and representation guidelines, identifying any likely policy conflicts, correcting them, and then submitting a reinstatement request through Google Business Profile support — do not submit multiple requests without first addressing the underlying issue.
1.2 Business Name
Check: Confirm the GBP business name exactly matches the real-world business name as it appears on signage, incorporation documents, and the website.
Pass: No keyword additions, no location stuffing (e.g., “Joe’s Plumbing — Chicago Best Plumber 24/7” fails), no abbreviations that differ from real-world usage.
Fix if fails: Edit GBP business name to match the real-world name. [Google-documented]: adding keywords to the business name to influence search rankings violates Google’s guidelines and can trigger listing suspension (GBP representation guidelines).
1.3 Primary Category
Check: Review the primary category. Is it the most specific category that accurately describes the business’s main service?
Pass: Specific category selected (“Italian Restaurant”, not “Restaurant”; “Family Law Attorney”, not “Lawyer”).
Fix if fails: Change primary category to the most specific accurate match. Use GBP’s category selector to find the most appropriate option. [Google-recommended]: choose the most specific category that accurately describes the business’s core activity, and use additional categories only for other genuine business activities.
1.4 Secondary Categories
Check: Review all secondary categories. Do they accurately reflect additional services the business genuinely offers?
Pass: Secondary categories are accurate and specific; no categories added to target competitor queries.
Fix if fails: Remove inaccurate secondary categories; add legitimate ones for real additional services.
1.5 Address and Phone
Check: Confirm the address and phone number match what appears on the business website, and are consistent with citations on major directories.
Pass: Business name, address, and phone consistently identify the same real-world business across GBP, website footer, and major citation sources (Yelp, Facebook, Apple Maps at minimum). Minor formatting differences such as “Street” versus “St.” are not treated as failures when the underlying information is unambiguous.
Fix if fails: Correct GBP data to match real-world information; then audit and fix citation discrepancies (see Section 3).
1.6 Business Hours
Check: Confirm hours are current and accurate including holiday hours, special hours, and “More hours” for specific services (e.g., drive-through, delivery, senior hours).
Pass: Hours match what appears on the website and what the business actually operates.
Fix if fails: Update hours in GBP. Set special and holiday hours in advance. Inaccurate or uncertain hours can create “may be closed” messaging or other ambiguity for users, which can discourage calls, visits, or direction requests.
1.7 Website Link
Check: Confirm the website URL in GBP points to the correct page. For single-location businesses: homepage or location page. For multi-location businesses: the specific location page, not the homepage.
Pass: URL is live, correct, not a redirect chain, and includes UTM parameters for GBP tracking.
Fix if fails: Update the URL. Add ?utm_source=google&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=gbp to track GBP-sourced traffic separately in GA4.
1.8 Business Description
Check: Review the business description (max 750 characters). Does it describe the business clearly and accurately, without promotional language, URLs, or keyword stuffing?
Pass: Description clearly describes services, location context, and differentiators in plain language.
Fix if fails: Rewrite the description. Focus on what the business does, where, and for whom. Avoid superlatives and calls to action — Google’s guidelines prohibit promotional language in this field.
1.9 Services and Products
Check: Review the Services section (and Products for applicable businesses). Are services listed with individual descriptions?
Pass: Primary services listed individually with short descriptions. Prices included where accurate and stable.
Fix if fails: Add individual service items. Descriptions should be specific enough to match query intent — “Emergency Boiler Repair” is more useful than “Heating Services”.
1.10 Photos
Check: Review the photos on the profile for quantity, quality, and relevance.
Pass: Profile includes recent, authentic, representative imagery of the business — exterior, interior, products/services, and team where relevant. Avoid relying primarily on generic stock imagery that does not represent the actual business. Photos are high resolution and current.
Fix if fails: Add real photos from the physical location. Set a cover photo and logo that accurately represent the brand. [Practitioner benchmark]: 10+ useful photos is a reasonable operational starting point for many businesses; Google does not publish a minimum photo count required for ranking.
1.11 Q&A Section
Check: Review the public Q&A section on the GBP listing. Are there unanswered questions? Inaccurate answers from the public?
Pass: Relevant public questions are monitored and answered accurately; misleading or outdated answers are addressed where possible.
Fix if fails: Log in as the business owner and answer unanswered questions. For inaccurate public answers, flag them for review or post a business answer that corrects the record. Adding genuinely useful common questions through the interface is optional and may be appropriate where the content clearly serves customers.
1.12 GBP Suspended or Duplicate Listings
Check: Search Google for the business name and address. Are there duplicate or unclaimed listings?
Pass: Only one verified listing for this location; no duplicates, no unclaimed listings for the same business.
Fix if fails: Claim and merge or remove duplicate listings via the GBP Manager “suggest an edit” process or by requesting ownership of the duplicate. [Google-documented / operational issue]: Google generally allows one Business Profile per eligible business/location, subject to its rules for departments, individual practitioners, and other eligible exceptions. Unintended duplicates can create ownership, data, review-splitting, and user-confusion problems and should be resolved through Google’s supported process.
Section 2: On-Page Local SEO Audit
2.1 Title Tag — Location Targeting
Check: Review the title tag of the homepage and key service pages. Does the primary city/service area appear?
Pass: Title clearly communicates the service and geographic context — e.g., “[Primary Service] in [City] | [Business Name]” or similar pattern that includes the target geographic term.
Fix if fails: Rewrite title tag to include city and service. Keep the title concise and descriptive. [Practitioner note]: Google may truncate or rewrite title links based on available display space and query context — do not treat any fixed character count as a hard limit.
2.2 H1 — Local Relevance
Check: Review the H1 on the homepage and key pages. Does it reinforce the service and location?
Pass: H1 clearly communicates the page’s primary topic and, where useful for users, geographic context.
Fix if fails: Update H1 to reflect service and, where natural, location. Avoid generic H1s like “Welcome” or the brand name only. Exact city + service syntax is useful but not required if the page clearly establishes context through other means.
2.3 NAP on Website
Check: Is the business name, address, and phone visible on the website? Is it in the footer, contact page, or both?
Pass: NAP appears in text (not image) in the site footer and/or contact page. Information matches the real-world business identity and is consistent with GBP.
Fix if fails: Add NAP as plain text to the footer. Text-based NAP is parseable by crawlers; image-based NAP is not. Minor formatting differences between website and GBP are not failures when the underlying information is accurate and unambiguous.
2.4 Contact / Location Page
Check: Does the site have a dedicated contact or location page with full address, phone, hours, and directions guidance?
Pass: Contact/location page is complete, indexed, and linked from the main navigation.
Fix if fails: Create or complete the page. Include driving or transit directions if relevant. A map embed that helps customers find the location is a [UX / operational recommendation] — see 6.5 for details.
2.5 Content Relevance — City and Service
Check: Review the homepage and primary service pages. Do they mention the target city and service area naturally in body copy, headings, and image alt text?
Pass: City and service mentioned naturally throughout copy. Page clearly describes what the business does and where.
Fix if fails: Revise copy to include geographic context where it reads naturally. Do not force keyword insertions — write for users first.
2.6 “Near Me” — Absence of Spam Patterns
Check: Search the site for “near me” in title tags, H1s, and body copy. Is it used as a keyword insertion?
Pass: “Near me” does not appear in title tags or H1s. If it appears in body copy, it is in a natural context, not as a keyword insertion.
Fix if fails: Remove “near me” from title tags and H1s. [Practitioner note]: Google can interpret local intent using the query, searcher location, business relevance, and other contextual signals — exact “near me” text in page content is not required for a page to rank for these searches. See how to rank for near-me searches for the full treatment of local intent targeting.
2.7 Internal Links to Location/Service Pages
Check: Are the key location pages and service pages linked from the homepage and relevant content pages?
Pass: Homepage links to location page, key service pages, and contact. Internal links use descriptive anchor text.
Fix if fails: Add internal links from homepage and high-authority pages to location and service pages.
2.8 Mobile Experience
Check: Test key pages on representative mobile devices and viewport sizes. Use Chrome DevTools or Lighthouse to identify layout, accessibility, viewport, and interaction problems. Review Core Web Vitals separately through PageSpeed Insights and Search Console.
Pass: Primary content is accessible on mobile; text is readable without zooming; navigation and controls work correctly; interactive elements are usable; no horizontal overflow or mobile-only content loss.
Fix if fails: Correct responsive layout, viewport configuration, navigation, tap-target, font-size, or content-parity problems. [Note]: Google retired the Mobile-Friendly Test and Search Console Mobile Usability report in December 2023 — do not use either as a current audit tool. Use Chrome DevTools, Lighthouse, and real device testing instead.
2.9 Page Speed and Core Web Vitals
Check: Run location page and homepage through Google PageSpeed Insights (pagespeed.web.dev). Review Core Web Vitals field data in GSC.
Pass: Key page types meet Core Web Vitals thresholds using field data where available. No “Poor” URLs in GSC Core Web Vitals report. Lighthouse lab diagnostics are used to identify performance opportunities, not as a standalone ranking pass/fail score.
Fix if fails: Address the specific recommendations shown in PageSpeed Insights — most commonly: image optimisation, render-blocking resources, unused JavaScript. [Google-documented]: Core Web Vitals measure real-world loading, responsiveness, and visual stability. Google recommends achieving good Core Web Vitals, and its ranking systems use multiple signals aligned with overall page experience — CWV should be treated as one part of a broader picture, not a standalone ranking lever.
Section 3: Citation and NAP Audit
Citation ecosystem note: the platforms listed in this section are primarily US examples. Substitute equivalent national, regional, and vertical directories for the target market — citation infrastructure varies significantly by country and industry.
3.1 Tier 1 Citation Accuracy
Check: Manually check the business listing on each Tier 1 platform: Google Business Profile, Apple Maps, Bing Places, Facebook Business, Yelp.
Pass: Business name, address, and phone consistently identify the same real-world business across all five platforms. Minor formatting differences (e.g., “Street” vs. “St.”, domestic vs. international phone formatting) are not failures when the underlying information is accurate and unambiguous.
Fix if fails: Correct each platform individually. Changes on Apple Maps can be submitted via Apple’s feedback form; Bing Places has a direct login; Facebook requires logging in as the page admin.
3.2 Category-Specific Directories
Check: Identify the top 3–5 directories for the business category and market. Check accuracy on each.
Pass: Listed on category-relevant directories with accurate NAP. Examples for US markets: Angi, Healthgrades, OpenTable, Avvo, Houzz, Tripadvisor — depending on category. Use equivalent platforms for other markets.
Fix if fails: Claim and correct listings on the most important category directories. Prioritise platforms that drive direct referral traffic in the category.
3.3 Data Aggregator Submissions
Check: Run a citation audit via BrightLocal Citation Tracker or Whitespark Citation Finder to identify what information major data aggregators hold for the business.
Pass: Major data aggregators (examples for US: Data Axle, Neustar Localeze) show accurate NAP for the business. Check equivalent aggregators for the relevant market.
Fix if fails: Submit corrections directly to data aggregators. Aggregator corrections can take days or weeks to propagate to downstream platforms — timing varies by provider and directory.
3.4 Closed or Moved Location Listings
Check: Search for the business on Google, Yelp, and Facebook. Are there listings for previous addresses or closed locations?
Pass: No active listings for addresses the business no longer occupies.
Fix if fails: Mark old GBP listings as “Permanently Closed” (do not delete — deleting can cause the listing to reappear from third-party data). Claim and update or close old Yelp, Facebook, and directory listings.
3.5 Duplicate GBP Listings
Check: Search Google Maps for the business name and common variations. Are there multiple GBP listings for the same physical location?
Pass: Only one active, verified listing per physical location.
Fix if fails: Report duplicates via Google Maps “Suggest an edit” → “This place is permanently closed or doesn’t exist”. If you own the duplicate, merge or remove it through GBP Manager.
Section 4: Review Audit
4.1 Review Volume vs. Competitors
Check: Search for the primary service + city on Google. How many reviews do the three businesses in the local pack have? How does the business being audited compare?
Pass: [Practitioner benchmark] — review count is competitive relative to current Local Pack competitors in the target market. Google confirms that more reviews and positive ratings can help local ranking as part of prominence, but there is no universal review-count threshold required to rank.
Fix if fails: Implement a systematic review generation process — post-transaction email, receipt prompt, staff verbal request. This is a medium-term fix that requires operational change, not just an SEO update.
4.2 Average Rating
Check: Check the average star rating on Google, Yelp, and category-relevant platforms.
Pass: [Practitioner benchmark] — rating is competitive with relevant local businesses and does not indicate a persistent customer-experience problem. Compare against the actual market rather than applying a universal star-rating threshold, which varies significantly by industry, geography, and market maturity. Note that a low rating may reduce conversion even when ranking is unaffected — this is a CRO problem as much as an SEO one.
Fix if fails: Below a competitive threshold for the market is typically a service problem, not an SEO problem. Address underlying customer experience issues before scaling review volume — more reviews on a bad experience makes the problem more visible.
4.3 Review Recency
Check: When was the most recent Google review? How many reviews were received in the last 90 days?
Pass: [Practitioner benchmark] — reviews arrive naturally and consistently over time relative to transaction volume and local competitors; there are no unexplained long-term gaps caused by a broken review-request process. Google has not published a review-recency weighting formula.
Fix if fails: Reactivate the review generation process. Gaps in review recency are practitioner-observed as a potential prominence concern, though the mechanism is not confirmed by Google documentation.
4.4 Review Response Rate
Check: What percentage of reviews have received an owner response? Are all negative reviews responded to?
Pass: All negative reviews responded to; positive reviews acknowledged where practical.
Fix if fails: Respond to all unanswered negative reviews professionally. Prioritise unanswered recent reviews and all unresolved negative reviews before working through older positive reviews.
4.5 Review Policy Compliance
Check: Review the business’s current review solicitation practices. Are they asking all customers? Or only screening for satisfied customers before requesting?
Pass: Review requests go to all recent customers, not only those screened for positive sentiment.
Fix if fails: Do not selectively solicit reviews only from customers expected to leave positive feedback, or discourage negative reviews from being submitted. Review-request processes should comply with Google’s policies against rating manipulation and fake engagement (GBP representation guidelines).
Section 5: Schema Markup Audit
5.1 LocalBusiness Schema Presence
Check: Navigate to the homepage and location page. Open browser developer tools → Elements → search for “application/ld+json”. Or use Google’s Rich Results Test (search.google.com/test/rich-results).
Pass: LocalBusiness or an appropriate specific subtype (e.g., Restaurant, MedicalBusiness, LegalService) schema is present with accurate properties such as name, address, telephone, URL, opening hours, and geo where applicable. Validate against current Google and Schema.org documentation for required and recommended properties by type.
Fix if fails: Implement LocalBusiness schema using the most specific @type for the business (see schema.org/LocalBusiness for the full hierarchy). [UX / operational recommendation]: LocalBusiness schema helps machines interpret structured business information accurately. Google does not document it as a direct Local Pack ranking factor.
5.2 Schema Accuracy
Check: Review the schema data. Does the name, address, phone, and hours match what is in GBP and on the website?
Pass: Schema data accurately represents the real-world business and is consistent with GBP data and on-page NAP.
Fix if fails: Correct schema to match. Structured data should accurately represent the visible page and real-world business. Incorrect or misleading markup may be ignored or make the page ineligible for supported search features.
5.3 Schema Validation
Check: Run the page through Google’s Rich Results Test or Schema Markup Validator (validator.schema.org).
Pass: No errors; only warnings (warnings are acceptable for properties that are recommended but not required).
Fix if fails: Address each error shown in the validator. Common errors: missing required properties, incorrect date format in openingHoursSpecification, invalid @type values.
5.4 GeoCoordinates Property
Check: Does the LocalBusiness schema include a geo property with GeoCoordinates (latitude and longitude)?
Pass: Where implemented, latitude and longitude accurately match the business’s physical location.
Fix if fails: Add the geo property with coordinates verified in Google Maps by right-clicking the business pin. [UX / operational recommendation]: the geo property can provide machine-readable location data for a physical business. Google has not documented the geo property as a direct Local Pack ranking factor or confirmed that it affects distance calculations.
5.5 FAQ Structured Data
Check: If the page contains a visible FAQ section, determine whether FAQPage structured data is implemented and whether it accurately matches the visible questions and answers.
Pass: Where implemented, structured data matches the visible questions and answers exactly and validates without errors in the Rich Results Test.
Fix if fails: Correct invalid or mismatched markup. [Important]: as of 2026, Google no longer shows FAQ rich results in Search — the feature was removed entirely (Google Search documentation updates) following earlier restrictions to government and health sites in 2023. Do not implement FAQPage schema to obtain FAQ SERP enhancements. It may still be used where semantically appropriate for other structured-data consumers, provided it accurately matches visible content. Google has not documented FAQPage markup as a requirement or confirmed ranking factor for AI Overview citations.
Section 6: Technical Local SEO Audit
6.1 Indexation Check
Check: Use Google Search Console URL Inspection as the primary indexation check for location pages. A site: search (e.g., site:yourdomain.com/locations/chicago/) can be used as a supplementary discovery check but should not be treated as definitive evidence of index status.
Pass: GSC URL Inspection shows the page is indexed with no crawl or indexation errors.
Fix if fails: Check for noindex tags in page source (search for “noindex” in the HTML). Check robots.txt for rules that might block crawling of the location folder. Request indexing via GSC URL Inspection if the page is crawlable but not yet indexed.
6.2 Canonical Tags
Check: View source on location pages. Is the canonical tag pointing to the correct URL (the location page itself)?
Pass: Self-referencing canonical on each location page; no canonical pointing to homepage or a generic template URL.
Fix if fails: Correct the canonical. A location page canonicalised to the homepage sends Google a strong consolidation signal and may reduce the likelihood that the location URL is selected as canonical or indexed independently. Use a self-referencing canonical when the location page is intended to stand as a distinct indexable page. [Note]: canonical tags are hints to Google, not absolute directives.
6.3 Hreflang (Multi-Language Businesses)
Check: For businesses with content in multiple languages or targeting different countries, are hreflang tags implemented correctly?
Pass: Valid language/region annotations are reciprocal and use correct BCP 47 codes. Add x-default where an appropriate fallback or language-selector page exists.
Fix if fails: Implement hreflang according to Google’s documentation. Errors in hreflang implementation (missing reciprocal tags, wrong language codes) cause Google to ignore the tags entirely.
6.4 Crawl Depth of Location Pages
Check: Run Screaming Frog on the site. How many clicks from the homepage does it take to reach location pages?
Pass: Important location pages are easily discoverable through logical navigation and internal links and are not unnecessarily buried in site architecture.
Fix if fails: Add the /locations/ hub to the main navigation and link individual location pages from the hub. [Practitioner benchmark]: keeping important pages within a few navigational steps of high-authority pages can simplify discovery and internal link distribution. Google does not publish a universal click-depth ranking threshold.
6.5 Google Maps Embed
Check: Does the contact or location page include an embedded Google Map for the business location?
Pass: [UX / operational recommendation] — a map embed that helps customers find the location is present, shows the correct business pin, is interactive, and loads without console errors. A map embed is not a documented local ranking requirement.
Fix if fails: Embed the map via Google Maps’ “Share” → “Embed a map” feature using the iframe option. Ensure the embed shows the correct business pin and not just a generic address.
6.6 Core Web Vitals in GSC
Check: Review the “Core Web Vitals” report in Google Search Console. Are any URLs flagged as “Poor” or “Needs Improvement”?
Pass: All key location and service pages in “Good” status for mobile and desktop using field data where available.
Fix if fails: Run failing URLs through PageSpeed Insights to get specific recommendations. [Google-documented]: Core Web Vitals measure real-world loading, responsiveness, and visual stability (Google — Core Web Vitals). Google recommends achieving good results, and its ranking systems use multiple signals aligned with overall page experience — CWV is one part of that picture, not a standalone ranking lever.
6.7 HTTPS
Check: Is the site served over HTTPS? Do all HTTP URLs redirect to HTTPS? Is the SSL certificate valid and not expiring?
Pass: All pages served over HTTPS; HTTP redirects to HTTPS correctly; no mixed content warnings in browser console.
Fix if fails: Install or renew SSL certificate. Implement server-level HTTP to HTTPS redirect. [Google-documented]: HTTPS is a confirmed (minor) ranking signal.
Audit Summary Template
Use this summary table to log findings from each section and prioritise fixes:
| Section | Item | Status | Failure type | Priority | Owner | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GBP | Primary category | Pass / Fail | Relevance | High / Med / Low | ||
| GBP | Business name (no keyword stuffing) | Eligibility | ||||
| GBP | Hours current | Accuracy | ||||
| GBP | Photos (representative, authentic) | UX / profile quality | ||||
| GBP | Services listed | Relevance | ||||
| On-page | Title tag includes city + service | Relevance | ||||
| On-page | NAP in footer (text, not image) | Accuracy | ||||
| On-page | Location page complete | Relevance | ||||
| Citations | Tier 1 NAP accuracy | Accuracy | ||||
| Citations | No duplicate GBP listings | Eligibility | ||||
| Reviews | Volume vs. competitors | Prominence | ||||
| Reviews | Negative reviews responded to | UX / conversion | ||||
| Schema | LocalBusiness schema present | Data clarity | ||||
| Schema | Schema validates (no errors) | Data clarity | ||||
| Technical | Location pages indexed | Crawl / index | ||||
| Technical | Canonical tags correct | Crawl / index | ||||
| Technical | Core Web Vitals pass | UX / page experience | ||||
| Technical | HTTPS on all pages | Ranking signal |
Classifying Audit Failures
A failed local SEO check can affect eligibility, relevance, prominence, indexation, or conversion. These are different failure modes and should not be assigned the same priority.
| Failure type | What it means | Examples from this audit |
|---|---|---|
| Eligibility blocker | The business or page cannot participate in a given search feature until fixed | Suspended or ineligible GBP listing |
| Critical accuracy / profile integrity | Incorrect or conflicting information that could mislead customers or search systems, or create entity/ownership problems | Wrong business name, address, hours, or phone; keyword-stuffed business name; unintended duplicate GBP listings |
| Relevance opportunity | Google may not fully understand what the business does or where it serves | Incorrect or insufficiently specific category; weak service/location page content |
| Prominence / reputation | The business is less well-known than competitors in the local area | Review volume deficit; missing mentions or links |
| Crawl / indexation issue | Relevant pages cannot be discovered or indexed | Noindex on location page; bad canonical; broken internal links; deep crawl architecture |
| Structured-data clarity | Schema is absent, invalid, or inaccurate | Missing LocalBusiness schema; schema-to-page mismatch; validation errors |
| UX / conversion | Visibility exists but does not convert to calls, visits, or leads | Mobile layout issues; Core Web Vitals failures; no map embed; unanswered negative reviews |
Prioritising Fixes After the Audit
Sequence fixes by failure type, working from blockers through to conversion improvements:
- Eligibility and profile-integrity issues first — suspended or ineligible GBP listings can prevent normal visibility; unintended duplicate profiles can create ownership, data, review-splitting, and user-confusion problems. Resolve these before lower-priority optimisation work
- Critical accuracy — wrong business name, address, hours, phone across GBP and Tier 1 citations; misleading information creates downstream problems across the entire ecosystem
- Relevance: category and content — incorrect primary category; weak or missing location/service page content; these affect what searches the business appears for
- Crawl and indexation — noindex, incorrect canonical, broken internal links; a page that cannot be indexed cannot rank
- Prominence / reputation — review volume and recency gaps relative to competitors; these are medium-term fixes requiring operational change. Local link building and citation signals also contribute — see the local link building guide
- Structured-data clarity — missing or invalid LocalBusiness schema; relatively low effort with data-clarity value
- UX / performance — Core Web Vitals failures; mobile experience issues; these affect conversion and carry a confirmed (but modest) ranking signal
- Tier 2/3 citations and aggregators — lower leverage than Tier 1 but accumulates over time
How Often to Run a Local SEO Audit
- Full audit: Quarterly for active clients or competitive markets; semi-annually for stable, low-competition local businesses.
- GBP check: Monthly — Google and third parties can auto-update GBP data, and catching unauthorised changes quickly matters.
- Review monitoring: Weekly or via real-time alerts — negative reviews need fast responses.
- Citation check: Quarterly — data propagation through the aggregator network means issues appear gradually, not instantly.
- Core Web Vitals: After any major site changes, and quarterly for ongoing monitoring.
Frequently Asked Questions
What tools do I need to run a local SEO audit?
The core audit can be run with free tools: Google Business Profile Manager, Google Search Console, Google’s Rich Results Test, PageSpeed Insights, and browser developer tools. Screaming Frog (free up to 500 URLs) handles crawl and technical checks. Citation auditing benefits from BrightLocal or Whitespark, both of which have paid plans — though a manual check of Tier 1 platforms costs nothing. For ongoing monitoring at scale, a local SEO platform like BrightLocal or SE Ranking reduces time per audit significantly.
How long does a local SEO audit take?
As a practical planning range, an experienced practitioner may complete a straightforward single-location audit in roughly two to four hours. Complex citation histories, suspensions, multi-location architecture, technical issues, or manual competitive analysis can extend that considerably. A multi-location audit scales roughly linearly with location count for the GBP and citation sections, but on-page and technical sections can often be handled as a template audit across the site rather than individually per location.
Should I audit GBP or the website first?
Start with GBP when the primary problem is Local Pack or Maps visibility. GBP eligibility, category selection, business information, and review signals can reveal high-impact problems quickly. GBP edits may also be processed relatively quickly. That said, local rankings depend on relevance, distance, and prominence — so website and broader reputation factors should follow. If the primary issue is organic local rankings, indexation, or a recent site migration, the website audit may take priority.
My GBP listing was suspended. What do I do?
First, review the profile carefully against Google’s eligibility and representation guidelines to identify any likely policy conflicts — common issues include a business name that doesn’t match the real-world name, an ineligible address type, or policy-violating content. Do not guess at the cause. Correct any clear violations, then submit a reinstatement request through the Google Business Profile support channels. Do not submit multiple reinstatement requests — submitting again without fixing the underlying issue can delay the process.
How do I check if my NAP is consistent across citations without a paid tool?
Manually check the five Tier 1 platforms (Google, Apple Maps, Bing Places, Facebook, Yelp) and the top 2–3 category directories for the business type. Also search Google for the phone number in quotes (“555-0100”) and the address in quotes (“123 Main Street Chicago”) to find other citations. This covers the highest-impact citations without requiring a subscription. Minor formatting differences between platforms are not failures when the underlying information is accurate.
Is a local SEO audit different for a service area business vs. a physical location?
The audit structure is the same, but some items adapt. Service area businesses do not show their address on GBP — check that the service area is correctly defined and covers the actual operating geography. Location pages become service area pages with city-specific content. NAP auditing for the phone and business name still applies; the address check focuses on ensuring no incorrect address data appears on citation sites. For businesses targeting multiple cities or regions, see the multi-location local SEO guide.
Sources
- Google — How Google determines local ranking
- Google — Guidelines for representing your business on Google
- Google — Local business structured data
- Google — Rich Results Test
- Google — PageSpeed Insights
- Google — Core Web Vitals
- Google — Service area businesses
- Google — Search Essentials
- Google — Page experience in Google Search
- Google — Changes to HowTo and FAQ rich results (2023)
- Google — Search documentation updates (FAQ rich results removed, 2026)
TL;DR A local SEO audit should cover six layers: Google Business Profile, on-page signals, citations and business-data consistency, reviews, structured data, and technical/crawl factors. The…
