# Home Inspectors' Requirements when inspecting homes for sale



## ewenme (Jul 23, 2010)

When a home inspector does his job for a realtor [either for the seller or buyer] and he/she calls out items that are not up to code is the home owner on the hook to fix them? We had a home inspector call and ask about a certain practice with bath fan duct termination when a house wa built in 1991, and he said, 'that does't meet the code.' It met the code when it was installed, but it would not meet code if it were installed today. We don't require people to bring everything up to code when the codes change. What do you think of this either way:

1. Should the buyer/seller have to bring the home up to current code to sell it/buy it?

2. Should the building inspection department require existing homes to be brought up to current code every time the code changes? [if you answer yes to this one, be prepared to defend your stance.]

3. If a jurisdiction doesn't require updating, can the lender require it?


----------



## Coug Dad (Jul 23, 2010)

1.  It depends upon what you mean by "have".  I have heard of jurisdictions that require minimum code compliance for a property to be sold.  Barring a legal local requirement, the "have" can be a negotiating point between buyer and seller.  I have seen transactions with thousands of dollars of corrections and I have seen sellers reject the report and say "as is, where is" and the buyer goes ahead with the purchase anyway.

2.  I would like to see the government stay out of it.

3.  Lenders may require changes, especially FHA or VA backed loans.


----------



## packsaddle (Jul 23, 2010)

deleted by author


----------



## Uncle Bob (Jul 23, 2010)

Ewenme,

I was a licensed Home Inspector in Texas when they first started issuing the license; and, the Texas Real Estate Board, cautioned us "not to quote codes". Many Home Inpectors get into trouble when they do. A home inspection for a real estate contract sale, is to give the homebuyer an idea of the condition of the home and it's systems "at the time of purchase". The home inspector does a non-distructive inspection of the home and reports on any defects; such as evidence of roof leaks, wood & siding damage, if the central air system, range, oven, etc. are working. If the plumbing has or has had leaks, check the electrical outlets and fixtures; "visible" structural damage.

It is not; in Texas and Oklahoma anyway; a code inspection; and home inspectors can get into a lot of trouble quoting codes.

The inspection report belongs to whoever pays for it; usually the buyer. Repairs or replacements are then negotiated into the contract by the seller and buyer.

There is also; in many State; a requirement for the home owner to sign a statement that lists all "know defects" to the property.

A few years ago; the State of Texas started requiring many more hours of training before a Home Inspector's License would be issued. This started Home Inspectors taking ICC IRC courses; and today more of them have ICC IRC Combination Inspector Certification.

Companies like Burgess (a third party inspection company) hire them to conduct third party inspections for builders. The builders like this inspection for the same reason Real Estate Brokers do; the home inspectors carry errors and omission insurance; and, it is a liablity buffer between them and the buyer.

To answer your questions (in the States I'm familiar with);

1. Should the buyer/seller have to bring the home up to current code to sell it/buy it?

Can't be done in most cases (not financially feasible).  Has absolutely nothing to do with code requirements; and, defects are negotiated between the buyer and seller.

2. Should the building inspection department require existing homes to be brought up to current code every time the code changes? [if you answer yes to this one, be prepared to defend your stance.]

I don't know of any jurisdiction that has shown itself to be that stupid.

3. If a jurisdiction doesn't require updating, can the lender require it? 

A lender can require anything they deem necessary before approving a loan (like breathing on a mirror); but, code requirements for existing homes is not on their lists. Condition of the property is; and they usually have their own inspectors for that.

Hope this helps,

Uncle Bob


----------



## jim baird (Jul 23, 2010)

1) No

2) No

3) I've heard lenders are more risk averse now, but that one is silly.  In a buyer's market a really hard-nosed buyer might get that, but the easier approach is just to lowball the price.


----------



## mmmarvel (Jul 24, 2010)

A couple of stories - first, in one jurisdiction a buyer was buying a new home.  He had a home inspector look it over, even though it had a COO from us.  The buyer came to us with the inspector's report wanting to know how it got it's certificate if all these items were wrong.  The bottom line was, they might be wrong but they weren't in violation of the code (and in a couple of instances they weren't in that condition when we did our inspection).  One of the points in particular that I remember was a bathroom window that had a crack in it.  Well, first, it wasn't cracked when we had inspected, second, the code didn't say that a window couldn't be cracked.  There were about 20 things that the inspector found, if I were the buyer I would have had the builder fix all of them prior to signing a contract, but they weren't against code.

Second, when I was still in Oregon I did some serious investigating into becoming a home inspector, to the point of taking a community college course in it.  The course was great, like most CC courses it was taught by someone who had been doing home inspections for several years.  I did bring up a couple of questions and right away the teacher asked me if I was ICC certified in residential (I had/have my combo), she said based on the questions she knew I did.  While there was nothing wrong with having my certs, most home inspectors didn't need them because it was typically a mistake for them to quote code.  Stick with what they know (and many of them, with some good training and experience are very good) and typically the inspections that they do and what they are looking for does not really address the code.  They will point out a bad roof, but don't say if it does or does not meet code.  Point out a bad foundation, but since they weren't there when it was put in, since they don't know all the particulars, they can't (shouldn't) say it does or does not meet code.

Finally, like UB said - a home inspector typically won't (shouldn't) say that something meets code or not.  About the only exception would be to say something like the stairs are going to need replacing and the present design doesn't appear to meet present code, a new set of stairs will be required to meet present code - ditto electrical or whatever.

I've not heard of jurisdictions that REQUIRE that a structure be brought into compliance with the new code every time it changes hands.  Typically that is why we have the old code books still around, so if there is a question we can check against the year/code that the house was built under.  And ditto UB on the lender, it's a contract they can require anything they want, they can require that he blow a horn at midnight on the 29th of every month if they want; a wise client would question that requirement and not sign the mortgage.

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## peach (Jul 24, 2010)

1) no

2) no

3) the lender can require almost anything.  IF the structure was in compliance with the MINIMUM code requirements when it was built, the CO is valid.  Homeowners do alot of things after the building is built to take it out of compliance *usually without a permit*.


----------



## Daddy-0- (Jul 24, 2010)

I believe the P.M. code specifically condemns requiring retrofit to current code. We cannot and should not even consider this. I had a recent situation where a H.O. was unhappy with her new roof on a thirty year old building b/c it did not have ice and water barrier installed. A new roof being incidental repairs that do not require a permit only has to meet the code under which the structure was built.

Home inspection pre sale reports are only for information and bargaining and cannot require anything in my opinion. I have in the past told the purchaser "I will give you $500. bucks towards closing and you can make whatever repairs you like." If they want the house they will take it.

I agree that Home Inspectors have no business quoting code unless it is the code under which it was built. Even that can get you in trouble.


----------



## peach (Jul 24, 2010)

I've seen a pre-sale report with things like dead fly on the living room sill.

they get paid to note existing conditions (some might be code issues.. some not).. but it still comes back to the code under which the code was built.

How many of us require an old  60 amp "fuse box" be upgraded to a new service when the house sells?  (NONE is my guess).


----------



## ewenme (Jul 26, 2010)

The reason I posted these questions was two-fold:

1. A local inspector is moon-lighting as a home inspector for real estate agents/banks. IMHO he is overstepping the bounds of home inspector when he calls out code issues. Several real estate agents have personally told me: 'he is a nightmare.' Banks are loathe to give loans 'if there are code issues.' I give my usual reply: If a home was acceptable when it was built, it is not required to be brought up to current code.

2. There is an ugly rumor going around that some jurisdictions will be requiring updating on every 'structure' that changes hands, in compliance with the proposed 2012 IBC/IRC. I have not seen anything is writing, but I'm curious as to whether or not anyone else has any information about this topic.

I'm glad to find that I'm not alone in my stance on existing buildings. Thank you all for your replies.


----------



## vegas paul (Jul 26, 2010)

Lender:  Sorry, I can't underwrite your mortgage, it appears that your 1970-built house doesn't have fire sprinklers...


----------



## Uncle Bob (Jul 26, 2010)

Ewenme,

" A local inspector is moon-lighting as a home inspector for real estate agents/banks."

Whoa, if you mean a municipal code inspector; has a side job as a Home Inspector ( especially in the same jurisdiction); your city has a definite problem. Most cities; that I'm aware of; require employees to notify the city of any other employment; especially, employment that might conflict with their job with the city.

Is HR aware that this muncipal inspector is working as a Home Inspector? Is the City Attorney aware of it? I see this as a definite conflict of interest; and, has the potential of bringing the city into a civil legal suit.

I am surprised that the local Realtor's Association has not submitted a complaint with the city council.

Uncle Bob


----------



## Mark K (Jul 26, 2010)

To help put to bed the rumor of required upgrades refer them to 2009 IBC Section 3401.4.1 where it states that if the building was at one time in conformance with the applicable code at the time and no changes have been made then it is not necessary to upgrade the building..


----------



## cboboggs (Jul 26, 2010)

ewenme said:
			
		

> 1. Should the buyer/seller have to bring the home up to current code to sell it/buy it?
> 
> 2. Should the building inspection department require existing homes to be brought up to current code every time the code changes? [if you answer yes to this one, be prepared to defend your stance.]
> 
> 3. If a jurisdiction doesn't require updating, can the lender require it?


1. No

2. No.

3. The lender can require anything their little heart desires.


----------



## ewenme (Jul 26, 2010)

UB:

He's not a municpal inspector, but he does work full time for the State, on the payroll of the local University. Which is why I see it as a problem. He's a nice guy, and he happens to be my neighbor, but I think he's stretching things a bit far. We have other home inspectors, but they usually don't have regular jobs as inspectors, or they come from neighboring jurisdictions, or they're retired inspectors. Maybe I'm just splitting hairs. Or may be I'm jealous and wish I could retire and be a home ispector!  I passed the NACHI test several years ago. I took the test as a lark in competition with some other inspectors.


----------



## FredK (Jul 26, 2010)

1. No.

2. No.

3. If they want.


----------



## Mule (Jul 26, 2010)

Most HI's I know do not specify that the house does not meet code but they state that the house does not meet current standards. A whole lot of difference in the way the inspector words the report.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jul 26, 2010)

> He's a nice guy, and he happens to be my neighbor


Have you talked to him about his approach, maybe show him code sections where if it was lawfull at the time it was built it is okay.

I do  a couple of insurance inspections every month usually general liability and they are pretty specific about NOT quoting code sections. I can make recommendations such as "Missing knockouts in electrical panel. Recommend a licensed electrician install knockouts in electrical panel".  If the buyers/sellers are coming to you and you cannot agree with his reports then he will look like he does not know what he is doing and that may effect the way others will few his performance as a state inspector.


----------



## ewenme (Jul 27, 2010)

MTlogcabin: No, I haven't talked to him from my perspective. I've answered his questions about existing buildings. He is a seasoned inspector in commercial work, but I don't think he's as familiar with residential stuff. I think he is using his inspector skills and code knowledge in a capacity that leaves him some liability when he actually quotes code. I could be wrong about that. But I'd want to hear that from an attorney. I do know that he frustrates the real estate community because when he calls out a 'code violation' the bank wants it to be brought up to code. I don't think this is really my battle, but I do have to deal with the real estate agents who want to know if what he calls out is required. That's where I disagree with the HI. I can't require a lot of things that he questions, simply because they were legal when built. Mold is an issue that he posts remarks about, but he doesn't do any leg work to identify the mold or actually see if it is a problem. Mold scares the lenders and the buyers. What if the plywood got wet during construction, turns black, then dries out? Is it infected with mold? Unless it's tested no one will know. Huge issues in a poor economic time.


----------



## JBI (Jul 27, 2010)

There are very few retroactive requirements for one and two family dwellings. Most of them are required to be done at point of sale (or before).

There are two words that absolutely, positively should NEVER be used in a pre-purchase home inspection report and they are 'Code' and 'Violation'. Those words do not belong in a home inspectors vocabulary. When I was doing both at the same time (never a private in my jurisdiction BTW), I was very careful not to use them, and to deflect such questions from my client. If they wanted to know what 'code was' or if something 'met code', I explained that they would need to contact their local Code Official for those determinations. All I could provide was an opinion.


----------



## TimNY (Jul 28, 2010)

I don't know how you can require anything beyond what is contained in the Property Maintenance code for an existing structure.

Honestly I can't even believe any reasonable person would attempt to apply new codes to an existing building.

That being said, insurance companies and banks can compel you to do just about anything if you want them to provide you a service.

So..

1. No.

2. H-ll no.

3. Absolutely.


----------



## texas transplant (Jul 28, 2010)

If you want to read the opinions of some of the home inspectors across the nation go to this link.   It give you a great insight on the way they do business, what they look for, what they call out and what standards they use.

http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_inspection/index.php

It is interesting to read these threads.


----------

