Test Service Availability
Use POST /service-availability-lookup with a partner access token to check whether monitoring is available and to return compliance data for a premises address. This page helps you run your first requests and lists reference addresses that return stable shapes in development and staging so you can automate integration tests. In production, the same endpoint returns live compliance for real locations.
Getting started
- Base URL: Use your environment’s Hyperion API base URL (the request builders below and cURL examples use the portal’s configured gateway URL and versioned paths).
- Authentication: Send
Authorization: Bearer <partnerAccessToken>(the interactive builders use your portal partner token automatically). The endpoint requires a partner access token — see the main service availability guide for obtaining tokens. - Request:
POSTwithContent-Type: application/jsonand a body that matchesServiceAvailabilityRequest. - Premises checks: When
monitorableTypeisPREMISES, includepremisesType(RESIDENTIAL,COMMERCIAL_SMB, orCOMMERCIAL_LARGE) andaddresswithcity,county,state(ISO 3166-2 subdivision, e.g.US-MI),postalCode, andcountry(e.g.US).
To list past checks your integration has already recorded, use GET /service-availability/checks with the same partner auth and standard pagination query parameters. The reference tables below apply to the POST check only.
Reference addresses are intended for development and staging. Production responses follow live compliance data for the address you send.
Reference addresses by scenario
Use the exact city, county, state, and postal code from a row when you want the corresponding compliance profile. Name and description summarize what each row is for.
No permit scenarios
Addresses where the reference compliance profile has no permit requirement, with variations for ECV, familiarization, and verified response (with or without billing).
| City | County | State | Postal code | Name | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ann Arbor | Washtenaw | US-MI | 00001 | No Permit - Ann Arbor | No permit and no patrol but has ECV |
| Reno | Washoe | US-NV | 00002 | No Permit - Reno | No permit and no patrol but has ECV & familiarization |
| Celebration | Osceola | US-FL | 00003 | No Permit - Celebration | No permit and no patrol but has ECV |
| Port Gamble | Kitsap | US-WA | 00004 | No Permit - Port Gamble | No permit, verified response without billing |
| Chico | Butte | US-CA | 00005 | No Permit - Chico | No permit, verified response with billing |
Multi-permit scenarios
Addresses that return multiple permits in the reference profile (ADT vs customer responsibility, including familiarization on one row).
| City | County | State | Postal code | Name | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Syracuse | Onondaga | US-NY | 00050 | Multi Permit - Syracuse | Multi permit/ADT |
| Hopkins | Hennepin | US-MN | 00051 | Multi Permit - Hopkins | Multi permit/CUST & familiarization |
Single permit, ADT responsibility for permits
Single-permit reference profiles where ADT is responsible, covering recurring fees, free permits, proration, familiarization, verified response, and ECV combinations.
| City | County | State | Postal code | Name | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Issaquah | King | US-WA | 00020 | Single Permit ADT Responsibility - Issaquah | Single permit/ADT, verified response without billing, has ECV & familiarization |
| Tybee Island | Chatham | US-GA | 00021 | Single Permit ADT Responsibility - Tybee Island | Single permit/ADT recurring |
| West Valley | Salt Lake | US-UT | 00022 | Single Permit ADT Responsibility - West Valley | Single permit/ADT free & verified response with billing |
| Renton | King | US-WA | 00023 | Single Permit ADT Responsibility - Renton | Single permit/ADT recurring |
| Pueblo | Pueblo | US-CO | 00024 | Single Permit ADT Responsibility - Pueblo | Single permit/ADT free with ECV & familiarization |
| Tukwila | King | US-WA | 00025 | Single Permit ADT Responsibility - Tukwila | Single permit/ADT prorate with verified response & ECV |
Single permit, customer responsibility
Single-permit profiles where the customer is responsible, including Possible AHJ, familiarization, prior-to-install timing, and verified response with billing.
| City | County | State | Postal code | Name | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cheswold | Kent | US-DE | 00040 | Single Permit Customer Responsibility - Cheswold | Single permit/CUST with ECV but AHJ |
| Adelphi | Prince George's | US-MD | 00041 | Single Permit Customer Responsibility - Adelphi | Single permit/CUST with ECV & familiarization |
| Sepulveda | Los Angeles | US-CA | 00042 | Single Permit Customer Responsibility - Sepulveda | Single permit/CUST with ECV & Prior to install |
| Modesto | Stanislaus | US-CA | 00043 | Single Permit Customer Responsibility - Modesto | Single permit/CUST & verified response with billing |
Compliance edge cases (status outcomes)
Reference rows for non-success compliance lookups: possible AHJ, no ordinance, and invalid address. On 200 OK, read status on ServiceAvailabilityResponse (ComplianceFound, ComplianceNotFound, or InvalidAddress) and optional municipalities. The Burlington and Ardmore rows map to ComplianceNotFound; the St Louist row maps to InvalidAddress.
| City | County | State | Postal code | Name | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Burlington | Chittenden | US-VT | 99203 | VT Address with Possible AHJ | Vermont address that comes back as a possible AHJ |
| Ardmore | Carter | US-OK | 99206 | No ordinance found | Address that comes back no ordinance found |
| St Louist | St Louis City | US-MO | 99207 | Invalid address | Address that comes back as invalid |
Coverage matrix
| Area | Postal codes | What to verify |
|---|---|---|
| No permit | 00001, 00002, 00003, 00004, 00005 | ECV, familiarization, verified response variants without permit |
| Multi-permit | 00050, 00051 | Multiple permits, ADT vs customer, familiarization |
| Single permit (ADT) | 00020, 00021, 00022, 00023, 00024, 00025 | ADT responsibility, fees, familiarization, verified response |
| Single permit (customer) | 00040, 00041, 00042, 00043 | Customer responsibility, AHJ, familiarization, prior-to-install, billing |
| Compliance edge cases | 99203, 99206, 99207 | ComplianceNotFound vs InvalidAddress, empty or absent municipalities |
Integration testing strategy
Phase 1: Wire up POST /service-availability-lookup
- Call POST
/service-availability-lookupwithPREMISESand a reference row (for example 98029 Issaquah). - Confirm
200and parsestatusandmunicipalitiesyour product needs. - Persist or display permit and fee guidance as required.
Phase 2: Jurisdiction and multi-permit UI
- Use 13209 (Syracuse) or 55343 (Hopkins) when building flows for multiple permits or overlapping rules.
- Validate list or stepper UX when more than one permit or municipality appears.
Phase 3: Customer vs ADT responsibility
- Alternate between customer rows (for example 19936, 20783) and ADT rows (for example 98029, 84128) to confirm copy and permit responsibility-specific fields.
ADT responsibility means that ADT will be responsible for obtaining and maintaining permits. Customer responsibility means that the Customer will be responsible for ontaining and maintaining permits.
- When permits are ADT responsibility, the customer will be billed through ADT or the partner for associated costs.
- When permits are Customer responsibility, the customer will be billed directly from their jurisdiction when they are obtained or updated.
Phase 4: Compliance status handling
- 05401 — expect
ComplianceNotFound; treat as possible AHJ / indeterminate compliance in your UX if you surface that case. - 73401 — expect
ComplianceNotFoundwith no useful municipality list (no ordinance). - 65465 — expect
InvalidAddressusing the documented city spelling St Louist; confirm your client does not assumemunicipalitiesis populated.
Phase 5: Production readiness
- Run the same request shape against real customer addresses in production.
- Do not key production UX only to reference postal codes; treat them as non-production helpers.
- Log and monitor compliance fetch failures per your operational standards.
Important notes
Reference addresses are not a substitute for production validation. Use them in non-production environments to stabilize tests; ship and test with real locations before go-live.
Practices:
- Environment-specific suites: Keep automated tests that depend on reference rows out of production-only pipelines where they add noise.
- Document fixtures in tests: Name the postal code (and city/county) in test titles so failures map quickly to a scenario.
- Cover status edges: Include at least one row from the compliance edge case table (
ComplianceNotFoundandInvalidAddress) in your client test matrix. - Partner token scope: Use a partner token with the scopes your deployment requires for service availability.
Related resources
- Compliance concepts — terminology for permits and compliance
- Service availability guide — implementation walkthrough
- API reference: check service availability — request and response schema