Space-by-space tracking can surface real information, but whether it is worth the effort depends on how your lot is set up right now.
If you are running mostly monthly contracts (where a specific person pays for the right to park, usually in a reserved spot), you already have the data by space because each contract is tied to a specific stall. Pulling revenue per space is just a spreadsheet sort.
If you are running transient parking (hourly or daily, no reservation, whoever shows up takes whatever is open), space-level revenue gets harder to isolate unless your payment system assigns a space number at entry. Most basic pay stations do not do that. In that case, the useful breakdown is more likely by zone or row rather than individual stall, because you can observe which zones fill first and price them differently.
The thing worth knowing here: the premium spaces at most surface lots are not always the ones closest to the exit. They tend to be the ones with the easiest ingress, the most shade, or the best sightlines for someone who parks and walks somewhere regularly. Exit-proximity matters for transient parkers in a hurry. Monthly tenants often care about something different entirely.
A simple way to test this without building a whole tracking system: offer your next two or three vacancies at a slight premium based on position and see whether they fill at the same rate as standard spaces. That gives you real demand data before you invest time in a full breakdown.
On the operational side, the Strategy Guide for this asset type notes that pricing power at surface lots concentrates around location and scarcity, so position premiums are most defensible in a lot that is already running near capacity. What is your current occupancy rate running at? That would change how I would think about where to focus first.
