House Detective: Making the Most of Home Inspection

The House Detective:  by Barry Stone, Certified Home Inspector

Dear Barry: Before we sold our house, I repaired a roof leak above the bedroom, and just to confirm that the repair was good, I climbed into the attic during the next two heavy rains. No leaking occurred. The people who bought the house hired a home inspector. He didn’t find any problems with the condition of the roof, but he disclosed the water stains in the attic and recommended further evaluation of the roof by a licensed roofing contractor. The buyers did not follow that advice and proceeded with the purchase. A few weeks later, it rained again and two roof leaks occurred. When the buyers contacted us, we asked them to get three written estimates for roof repairs. Instead, they sent us one estimate for a completely new roof. We repeated our request for three repair estimates, but they insisted that we should replace the entire roof. What do you think we should do?  Lesley

Dear Lesley: The buyers were advised by their home inspector to have the roof evaluated by a licensed roofing contractor. They chose not to follow that advice. By disregarding the inspector’s expressed recommendation, they failed to exercise due diligence and are therefore in no position to make demands at this time. By waiving the home inspector’s recommendation, they were, in effect, accepting the roof in as-is condition.

A second vital point is that their home inspector did not cite any physical damage or other observable defects on the roofing itself. He merely reported evidence of past leakage in the form of water stains in the attic. If roof replacement is necessary, that fact should have been reported by the home inspector. The lack of such disclosure indicates that the home inspector regarded the roof as needing possible repair, rather than total replacement.

Given the buyers’ acceptance of the roof as reported by their home inspector, and given the inspector’s lack of major defect disclosures, it would appear that the buyers’ demand for a new roof is unreasonable and overreaching. Unfortunately, this does not guarantee that they will not continue to pressure you for a new roof or to use legal pressure to achieve that end.

What you need at this point is a detailed written report of the roof’s condition by a qualified expert, with lots of pictures of the existing roof. It would also help to have the buyers’ home inspector reinspect the roof to see whether he will confirm or alter his original findings. If the buyers are intent upon pursuing the demand for a new roof, they should cooperate with this discovery process.

Dear Barry: I’ve made a purchase offer on a four-unit commercial property. Do investors typically hire home inspectors for this kind of property?  Don

Dear Don:  The purchasers of commercial properties often overlook the importance of a professional inspection — a surprising omission for a major investment of this kind. Yet the same buyers would never purchase a home without a detailed physical evaluation. For some reason, there is a perceived difference between residential and commercial properties where defect disclosure is involved.

Commercial buildings are prone to all the same defects likely to be found in a residence: roof problems, issues with plumbing, electrical, and heating systems, faulty site drainage, foundation settlement, safety glass violations, trip hazards, and more.

The bottom line is clear: Commercial real estate is expensive. It pays to know what you’re buying before you buy it. Buying commercial property without a professional inspection a risky way to do business. A qualified inspector can provide valuable disclosure to prudent buyers of commercial real estate.

The House Detective:  by Barry Stone, Certified Home Inspector

Dear Barry: In past articles you’ve mentioned “as-built permits” for additions and alterations that were done without building permits. I have a property that was totally renovated — new electrical, plumbing, heating, and roof — all done without permits. I’m going to list the property for sale and want to know if an as-built permit is a good idea before I sell. Could you explain how this works?  Lou

Dear Lou: When you sell a home with non-permitted alterations, you have two choices: You can sell it “as is”, but with full disclosure of non-permitted work, or you can get an as-built permit and, hopefully, make everything legal. But before you apply for an as-built permit, you should be aware of the pros and cons.

Most building departments offer as-built permits as a way to bring maverick additions and alterations into legal conformity. On its face, the concept is quite simple: You submit a set of plans to the building official with an application for a building permit. With a normal building permit, you obtain permission to perform work. With an as-built permit, you seek approval for work that was already completed, to be sure that it complies with the building code. If the proposed plans conform with municipal standards, they are accepted, and a building inspection is scheduled. If the scope of work is not acceptable, the permit is denied, and the building official may order restoration of the building to its original state.

Examples of unacceptable changes would be additions that are too close to property lines, a garage conversion where enclosed parking is required, or a second living unit where single-family occupancy is the limit.

If the plans are approved, the next hurtle is the building inspection. In the best of cases, the building inspector performs a visual, walk-through inspection of the project area. If no building violations are found, the work is officially approved, and the completed work is given the same status as construction that was permitted in advance. In most cases, some code violations are cited, and a correction notice is given to the property owner. When faulty conditions are corrected, the property is reinspected, and final approval is given. But “cakewalk” approval of this kind is not always the case.

If the building inspector finds significant defects that warrant further evaluation, or if the inspector is overly committed to hardcore scrutiny, or if the inspector just happens to be having a bad-hair-day, you could incur demands that would make your head and pocketbook spin. For example, the inspector might order partial or total removal of drywall and other finish materials so that wiring, plumbing, and framing components can be inspected. Excavation of foundations or of buried utility lines might be ordered so that code compliance can be verified. If concealed deficiencies are found, the inspector could demand numerous upgrades and improvements or demolition of all completed work.

To prepare for this process, you should hire a qualified home inspector to perform a preliminary inspection. This will alert you to defects likely to be cited by the municipal inspector. With that information, you can make an educated choice between an as-built permit or disclosure of defects and of non-permitted work.

The House Detective by Barry Stone, Certified Home Inspector

Dear Barry: As editor of a paper that publishes your column, I’ve received complaints from real estate advertisers who find the tone of your articles to be anti-Realtor. After reviewing some recent columns, I tend to agree with them. When recurrent articles deal with unscrupulous real estate agents, a negative theme and negative perceptions can form. The tone of such articles creates an “us vs. them” mentality that isn’t good for anyone involved. I realize there are bad agents out there, just as there are bad inspectors, and you have written about both. But I think you should touch on other topics for variety. Readers would be better served if, for example, you would address the item-by-item details of a home inspection.  Mark

Dear Mark: Let me begin by praising the numerous first class real estate agents with whom I am personally acquainted. There are many outstanding Realtors who bring credit and good repute to the real estate profession — hard working agents who truly represent the best interests of their clients; who conduct their work with the highest ethical standards; who truly deserve every dollar of the commissions they earn.

The intent of this column has never been “us-versus-them”; nor has it been to paint real estate professionals with a broad brush, either positive or negative. As you say, there are good and bad agents out there, just as there are good and bad home inspectors; just as there are good and bad members of every profession.

The content of this column is largely dictated by questions and comments from readers, and many of these involve grievances against Realtors and home inspectors. If human nature tended toward praise rather than complaint, I would probably hear from more people who were satisfied with the top-notch agents and inspectors who have served them. Instead, I receive consumer complaints involving very real problems. The purpose of this column is to address those issues from an honest and unbiased perspective; to educate buyers, sellers, agents, and others about the pitfalls of real estate disclosure and best ways to deal with property defects.

In the years from 1996 through 2005, the real estate market thrived throughout most of the United States, and this booming activity caused many people to enter the real estate and home inspection professions. As a result, there were many inexperienced home inspectors, with little ability to provide homebuyers with adequate disclosure. Unfortunately, these novice inspectors obtained referrals from misguided real estate agents, and unsuspecting homebuyers made bad purchase decisions on the basis of faulty inspection reports.

Some of the agents who referred those inspectors were novices themselves, unaware of the vast quality differences among home inspectors. At the same time, there were experienced agents who should have known better, but who failed to exercise ethical discretion when referring home inspectors to their clients.

So what is the solution?

Leaders in the real estate profession, including brokers and Realtor associations, need to provide agents with better clarity regarding disclosure. This emphasis should be two-fold. First is the matter of ethics: Buyers should be fully informed of property defects because total disclosure is the only honest way to do business. It is the way that everyone wants to be treated. Second is the matter of legal liability: Faulty disclosure exposes agents and sellers to potential lawsuits. If the altruism of ethical disclosure is not sufficient cause, then the need to avoid litigation should be. For either reason or for both reasons, disclosure of property defects is good for everyone.

Agents should become familiar with the best home inspectors in their areas of business and should only recommend those inspectors. Many good agents have made this a practice throughout their careers. When other agents follow that good example, consumer complaints will cease to fill my inbox, and articles that offend agents will no longer be necessary.