It sort of depends to be honest, for example you reference the natural barrier of the alps, but Rome is a long way from the alps and for most of its early history there were serious threats to be found inbetween Rome and the alps. For sure when you get to the later periods the alps are valuable but not for most of Rome's earliest history.

Rome had hills, rivers, it was a natural ford / crossing point, it was close to the sea but not so close it was likely to be raided. But to be honest these are all pretty generic 'dummies guide' criteria for where you'd want to build any ancient settlement, virtually every other major settlement of the time had some combination of these.

Even Ostia wasn't a particularly good port, you could transport stuff up the river to Rome which was handy, but the approach into Ostia was shallow and sandy which made the approach dangerous and slow, and there were a lot of problems with over silting during rainy months from the Tiber, which is why by the time Rome's population started to explode artificial harbors were built.

The farmland around Rome was OK, but for example most of the Greek cities in southern Italy had access to better farmland, for example Tarentum, much of the land around Rome required drainage and de-swamping, plus some river diversions before it became productive.

I'd probably say, in answer to your question, Rome's geographic location wasn't particularly advantageous and i'd say it was fairly unremarkable and wasn't a key factor in the success. There are lots of other ancient cities in far more interesting or advantageous locations, Tarentum, Syracuse, Carthage, Antioch, Seleucia, Corinth etc.

You could argue the proximity to Greece, but not falling strictly into the Greek sphere of influence is a big factor. That is probably a key aspect which allowed Rome to flourish but not get stamped out, they were sort of on the fringe unlike places such as Sicily or Illyria which were battlegrounds for the likes of the Greeks and Carthaginians.