An architecture website SEO audit examines technical performance, image optimization, content structure, local search setup, and internal linking — the areas most commonly failing on architecture sites, where visual-first design often conflicts with how search engines read pages.
This walkthrough documents the actual process and findings from auditing architecture firm websites. Not fabricated examples, not hypotheticals — these are the categories of issues that appear consistently when we review architecture websites as part of an SEO engagement.
(For the broader technical SEO picture, see Technical SEO for Architecture Websites.)
What an Architecture Website SEO Audit Covers
A thorough audit covers five areas:
- Technical health — crawlability, indexability, Core Web Vitals, schema
- Image and portfolio — file formats, alt text, filenames, project page structure
- Content and keyword structure — page titles, headings, service page organization, blog content
- Local SEO — GBP setup, NAP consistency, local signals on the website
- Internal linking — how pages connect to each other
Each area gets assessed and scored. Issues are prioritized by impact — the fixes most likely to produce meaningful ranking improvement are addressed first.
Step 1: Technical Health Check
What We Check
Core Web Vitals via Google PageSpeed Insights:
- LCP (target: under 2.5 seconds)
- INP (target: under 200ms)
- CLS (target: below 0.1)
Crawlability via Google Search Console:
- Index coverage — how many pages are indexed vs excluded
- Crawl errors — broken URLs, server errors
- robots.txt — nothing important accidentally blocked
Site structure:
- Is there a sitemap submitted to Google Search Console?
- Are all important pages reachable within 2–3 clicks?
- Are there orphaned pages with no internal links pointing to them?
Canonical tags:
- Does every page have a self-referencing canonical?
- Are there duplicate page versions accessible (with/without trailing slash, http vs https)?
What We Typically Find
Failing LCP: The most common issue. Architecture websites almost universally have an above-the-fold hero image that is served as an uncompressed JPEG at 3–8MB. This single issue is the primary cause of LCP scores of 6–9 seconds — well above the 2.5-second threshold.
Missing or wrong canonical tags: Particularly common on Next.js and WordPress sites that haven't been explicitly configured. Multiple URL variants (with/without www, with/without trailing slash) coexist without canonicalization.
Project pages not indexed: When portfolios are built using JavaScript gallery modals (the URL doesn't change when a project is viewed), individual projects have no indexable URLs. Google Search Console shows the gallery page indexed, but 20 or 40 individual projects are effectively invisible to search engines.
No sitemap submitted: A sitemap exists (sometimes auto-generated by the CMS) but has never been submitted to Google Search Console. Google may not have discovered all project pages.
Robots.txt blocking key directories: Occasionally, /admin/ or other directories are correctly blocked, but a misplaced wildcard has accidentally blocked project or service directories.
Priority fix from this section: Hero image compression and WebP conversion for LCP. JavaScript portfolio fix to create individual project URLs.
Step 2: Image and Portfolio Audit
What We Check
- Image formats in use (JPEG, PNG vs WebP, AVIF)
- Typical file sizes for hero and portfolio images
- Image filenames (generic vs descriptive)
- Alt text presence and quality
loading="lazy"usage and above-fold image handling- Width and height attributes on
<img>elements - Whether project pages exist as individual URLs
What We Typically Find
All images as JPEG: The standard finding. Photography delivered by a professional photographer is almost always in high-resolution JPEG. Without a pipeline that converts to WebP on upload or on-the-fly, the website serves raw JPEG files — often at 2–8MB each.
Generic filenames: IMG_0042.jpg, DSCF_7821.jpg, PHOTO-001.jpg — these are the most common filenames. No keyword value, no geographic data, no project type signal.
Missing alt text: One of two patterns: either no alt text on any image at all (blank alt attributes throughout), or alt text consisting of the firm's name and city repeated on every image ("Amfor Studio Mumbai" × 40 images).
No lazy loading: All images loading simultaneously on page load regardless of whether they're visible to the user.
Hero image lazy-loaded: The opposite mistake — the above-fold hero image has loading="lazy" applied, which delays the most important image and directly worsens LCP.
No width/height on image elements: Layout shift on every page during load.
Portfolio as gallery modal: Projects accessible only through a JavaScript overlay with no unique URL per project.
Priority fix from this section: WebP conversion, descriptive filenames, alt text audit, and project page structure.
Step 3: Content and Keyword Audit
What We Check
- Page title format and keyword inclusion
- H1 usage (one per page, descriptive)
- Service page structure (separate pages vs combined)
- Blog content existence, frequency, and keyword targeting
- Keyword cannibalization (multiple pages targeting the same keyword)
- Thin content pages (low word count, no original value)
What We Typically Find
One combined "Services" page: The single most common content mistake. All services (residential, commercial, interior, landscape) listed on one page with a title like "Our Services" or "What We Do." The page has no keyword target it can effectively compete for.
Project pages with no text: Each project page (if they exist as individual pages) shows image galleries with titles like "Project 14" or a one-line caption. No descriptions, no location mention, no scope information.
Blog posts that stopped 12–24 months ago: A blog exists with 5–15 posts from 2022–2024. No new content has been added. The posts that exist are often trend roundups or project announcements rather than content addressing client questions.
H1 tags missing or duplicated: The homepage H1 is "Welcome" or "Studio Name" without any keyword relevance. Service pages have no H1. Multiple pages share the same H1 tag.
Missing meta descriptions: Many pages have no meta description. Google then generates its own, often pulling from the first visible text on the page — which on image-heavy architecture sites may be a navigation link or a caption.
Keyword cannibalization: If the firm has both a "Projects" page and a "Portfolio" page targeting similar content, or multiple service variations on different pages targeting the same service keywords.
Priority fix from this section: Create separate service pages; add content and proper titles to project pages; reactivate the blog with client-question-focused articles.
Step 4: Local SEO Audit
What We Check
- Google Business Profile existence and verification status
- GBP completeness: category, description, photos, hours, website link
- GBP activity: last photo upload, last post, review response rate
- NAP consistency between GBP and website
- NAP consistency across key directories (Houzz, Archinect, ArchDaily)
- Local signals on the website (city mentions, address in footer, LocalBusiness schema)
- Review volume and recency
What We Typically Find
GBP claimed but abandoned: The most common local SEO finding. The GBP was claimed (often years ago) but has received no updates since. No new photos in 18+ months, no posts, reviews left unanswered.
Wrong primary category: "Design Studio" or "Art Studio" or "General Contractor" instead of "Architect" — reducing relevance for architect-specific local search queries.
No portfolio photos on GBP: The "Photos" section is empty or shows only a logo and one exterior shot of the office. Missing the visual content that architecture clients specifically look for.
NAP inconsistency: The website footer lists one version of the address; GBP lists a different version; Houzz lists yet another. Small differences ("Ground Floor" vs "GF") that quietly undermine local trust signals.
No LocalBusiness schema on website: The homepage has no JSON-LD markup providing Google with machine-readable firm information.
Few or no client reviews: 2–3 reviews from 2021. No recent reviews. No systematic process for requesting them.
Priority fix from this section: Update GBP category, upload 15 portfolio photos, request reviews from recent clients, add LocalBusiness schema to homepage.
Step 5: Internal Linking Audit
What We Check
- How many internal links point to each important page
- Whether service pages and project pages are connected
- Anchor text variation and descriptiveness
- Orphaned pages (no internal links pointing to them)
- Link depth (how many clicks from the homepage to reach any important page)
What We Typically Find
No links between portfolio and services: Portfolio pages exist but link to nothing. Service pages exist but don't link to relevant projects. The two sections of the site operate as separate silos.
Homepage links to everything equally: The homepage navigation links to Portfolio, About, Services, and Contact. The homepage body links to nothing. No priority hierarchy signals from the homepage to the pages the firm most wants to rank.
Blog posts don't link to service pages: The blog exists but operates as a completely separate section. Articles don't link to the relevant service page, missing the internal authority transfer opportunity.
Orphaned project pages: Project pages reachable only from the portfolio gallery page. If the gallery page has low authority, the project pages inherit little.
No breadcrumbs: Navigation without breadcrumbs removes a clean internal linking signal and a ranking element.
Priority fix from this section: Add internal links from service pages to relevant projects; add internal links from blog posts to service pages; add breadcrumbs.
The 10 Most Common Issues on Architecture Websites
Ranked by frequency and impact:
| Issue | Frequency | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Failing LCP (hero image uncompressed JPEG) | Very common | High |
| 2. No individual project URLs (JS gallery only) | Common | Very high |
| 3. Combined services page (no separate service pages) | Very common | High |
| 4. No alt text on images | Very common | Medium |
| 5. GBP claimed but abandoned | Common | High (local) |
| 6. Generic image filenames | Very common | Low-medium |
| 7. No schema markup | Common | Medium |
| 8. No internal links between portfolio and services | Common | Medium |
| 9. Blog abandoned or never started | Common | Medium |
| 10. NAP inconsistency | Common | Medium (local) |
How to Prioritize Fixes
Not all issues need to be fixed simultaneously. Prioritize by:
- Fix first: Anything blocking indexation (robots.txt, JS rendering, canonical errors)
- Fix second: Core Web Vitals — especially LCP from image compression
- Fix third: Project page structure and service page separation
- Fix fourth: Local SEO — GBP update, NAP audit, schema
- Fix fifth: Alt text, filenames, internal linking
- Ongoing: Content (blog, project descriptions, service page expansion)
A firm that fixes items 1–4 in the first 60 days is already ahead of most competitors in the Indian architecture market.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does an architecture website SEO audit check?
Technical health (Core Web Vitals, crawlability, schema), image and portfolio optimization (formats, filenames, alt text), content structure (service pages, headings, keyword targeting), local SEO (GBP, NAP, local signals), and internal linking.
How long does an architecture website audit take?
A thorough audit covering all five areas takes 4–8 hours for an experienced SEO specialist. Some agencies present audits that are auto-generated tool reports — these lack the architecture-specific context that makes a real audit actionable.
What tools are used to audit an architecture website?
Google Search Console (crawl coverage, Core Web Vitals, queries), Google PageSpeed Insights (LCP, INP, CLS), Screaming Frog or Sitebulb (crawl analysis, internal linking, redirects), and Google's Rich Results Test (schema validation).
How often should an architecture website be audited?
A full audit annually; a lighter review quarterly. Core Web Vitals should be checked monthly (the PageSpeed Insights score can change as third-party scripts are added or images are added to the site).
What's the most important thing to fix in an architecture website audit?
Project pages having individual, indexable URLs with written descriptions. This is typically the single highest-impact structural change for architecture firms, because it transforms an invisible gallery into 20+ keyword-rankable pages.
Get a Real Audit of Your Architecture Website
Amfor Studio conducts architecture-specific SEO audits — not auto-generated reports. We look at your website the way Google looks at it, and we prioritize fixes by actual business impact.
Request your free architecture website audit
See also: Technical SEO for Architecture Websites | Architecture Website SEO | SEO Services for Architects