In my comprehension, it's a kind of past participle (not in the grammar, but in the meaning), like "born" is a past participle too. Like "nato" in Italian, and "né" in French.
But I didn't find why it's used with the present in Italian, French, Latin, and many other languages, and with the past in English.
(My guess if that the Romance languages structures are inherited from the Latin, and the English has a very particular structure)
"Natus est" will be the only past tense you will see in a while, don't worry. For now, just treat "natus" like any other adjective.
Novi Eboraci is in the locative case. This is a special case which indicates a location used for cities.
Some general rules:
- -us and -um become -i: Novum Eboracum -> Novi Eboraci / Corinthus -> Corinthi
- -a becomes -ae: Roma -> Romae
York did exist. It was founded by the Romans.
The city was founded in about AD 71 when the 5,000 men of the Ninth Legion marched (...) and set up camp.
Eboracum, as the Romans called York, was born.
It is capitalized in the correct answer at the top of the page because it begins the sentence. Of course the Romans only used upper case anyway I believe so I am not sure what the convention is that requires the use of lower case. I guess we just capitalize as we would in English.
If "natus" were a normal adjective, "is [adjective]" would be the right translation, but it's a past participle (for the verb "nascor": "to be born"). Despite having "est," "natus est" (and the construction in general of "[perfect participle] est") is past tense. The present tense version would be an entirely different form "Iuvenis nascitur."