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.

Dear Barry: What would be the consequences of improving our home without a building permit? The work to be done would include altered plumbing, new siding, new roofing, removing the electric water heater from the outside, installation of a propane water heater on the inside, repairing a sagging ceiling, replacing some windows, and adding an air conditioning system. We’re presently in disagreement as to whether permits are even required for this work and are wondering what we should disclose to buyers when the house is eventually sold. What do you advise? Gaye

Dear Gaye: Your list of proposed improvements and alterations is formidable and, according to the building code, most would require permits. Conducting work of this kind without permits exposes you to legal and financial consequences of several kinds, and these could be magnified by allowing the work to be done by someone who is not a licensed contractor.
If a qualified contractor were to perform the construction without a permit, the majority of the work could be expected to comply with code requirements, even though it would not be legal. But the lack of permits would have to be disclosed to future buyers, and this could significantly affect the marketability of the home. Some buyers would see this situation as a “red flag” and might demand that an as-built permit be obtained from the building department.

With an as-built permit, the municipal inspector could demand removal of drywall to enable inspection of the framing, wiring, plumbing, etc. Costly repairs could be mandated by the inspector, and this might include restoration of the building to its original state.

If a buyer agrees to take the property as-is, even with full disclosure of the nonpermitted work, future discovery of faulty conditions could lead to legal problems, possibly even a lawsuit.

If the proposed work is done by a handyman, rather than a contractor, the likelihood for any or all of the above consequences could be significantly increased. For these reasons, it is strongly recommend that the proposed work be done by licensed contractors and with all of the permits required by law.