Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Basically you need to have or do thorough inspection regardless if the house was just built or has been for 13 years or 30. Building and electric codes and requirements have changed over the years and many aspects of a house have a longer or shorter predicted life, however a complete inspection will provide an approximate guide as to what might need to be replaced or serviced going forward.
Building and electric codes and requirements have changed over the years...
So! What does that have to do with an inspection!?
This is right there at the top of my Bad Information List! When you as a buyer hire a private inspector to inspect a house- he, along with you- have to understand that at the time the house was built it was built to the standard that was in-place at the time. Meaning, if there are things that are required "today" that were not required 13,15, 25yrs ago doesn't mean they are today or tomorrow.
There are some safety aspects of codes today that are well worth investing in if they weren't code at the time the house was built- but you can't technically use them as bargaining chips. Though some buyer's agents will to naive sellers.
Good, well experienced inspectors will familiarize themselves with the code that was pertinent at the time the house was built. And will also know "which code" to use. Before the incarnation of the ICC (International Code Council), there were as many as 5 or 6 different code authorities. And that doesn't even count major metropolitan cites that had their "own" book of building codes.
I hear these stories all the time about people selling their house, getting the inspectors report, and there's this list of demands from the potential buyer that they want "fixed" (I also have had this happen to me- but the potential buyer didn't know my occupation- and I rejected any item that wasn't code at the time the house was built). Half of them will be items that are code related- but NOT code at the time the house was built. Granted, a lot of people are over-a-barrel because they have to sell and will do the list just to get down the road. I call it hoodwinked! So as a seller, you too should be as informed- know the condition of the house. Know what "codes" were in place at the time it was built- get your own inspection if you feel that you may have issues with an upcoming sale.
Another potential pitfall in this process is disclosure. You; as a seller, now know that there are discrepancies with your house (from an inspector's report that was given to you). If that sale falls through for whatever reason you could legally be held responsible to repair those items.
So! What does that have to do with an inspection!?
This is right there at the top of my Bad Information List! When you as a buyer hire a private inspector to inspect a house- he, along with you- have to understand that at the time the house was built it was built to the standard that was in-place at the time. Meaning, if there are things that are required "today" that were not required 13,15, 25yrs ago doesn't mean they are today or tomorrow.
There are some safety aspects of codes today that are well worth investing in if they weren't code at the time the house was built- but you can't technically use them as bargaining chips. Though some buyer's agents will to naive sellers.
Good, well experienced inspectors will familiarize themselves with the code that was pertinent at the time the house was built. And will also know "which code" to use. Before the incarnation of the ICC (International Code Council), there were as many as 5 or 6 different code authorities. And that doesn't even count major metropolitan cites that had their "own" book of building codes.
I hear these stories all the time about people selling their house, getting the inspectors report, and there's this list of demands from the potential buyer that they want "fixed" (I also have had this happen to me- but the potential buyer didn't know my occupation- and I rejected any item that wasn't code at the time the house was built). Half of them will be items that are code related- but NOT code at the time the house was built. Granted, a lot of people are over-a-barrel because they have to sell and will do the list just to get down the road. I call it hoodwinked! So as a seller, you too should be as informed- know the condition of the house. Know what "codes" were in place at the time it was built- get your own inspection if you feel that you may have issues with an upcoming sale.
Another potential pitfall in this process is disclosure. You; as a seller, now know that there are discrepancies with your house (from an inspector's report that was given to you). If that sale falls through for whatever reason you could legally be held responsible to repair those items.
Fortunately, I have more faith in my own skills and have seen many times where inspectors were totally incorrect with some of their comments and little actual knowledge regarding very basic housing issues.
I’ve seen it too many times and have helped friends as another set of eyes before and after their so called inspector was hired to perform the service.
I also understand that the average home buyer or layperson only has an inspector/inspection report to rely on.
We are house hunting in an area where the houses tend to be fairly new. We've only ever lived in new construction, so are used to newer homes.
However, there is a 2007 build home we are going to see this weekend that looks very promising on paper. I know that is considered fairly new in most parts of the US, but we have never lived in a home that old. What items should we be looking out for during the visit? What major repairs would come into play around this time frame? We are not DIY types at all, so wondering if it's not ideal for us to buy an "older" home.
So! What does that have to do with an inspection!?
This is right there at the top of my Bad Information List! When you as a buyer hire a private inspector to inspect a house- he, along with you- have to understand that at the time the house was built it was built to the standard that was in-place at the time. Meaning, if there are things that are required "today" that were not required 13,15, 25yrs ago doesn't mean they are today or tomorrow.
This is worthy of repeating for emphasis.
Codes change over the years for a variety of reasons. Existing buildings are grandfathered into the standards in existence when the original building permit was pulled.
Just because we have increased requirements for insulation, or changed a variety of things that are required for handrails, that does not mean that an older house (and 13 years is not older...) is non-compliant. Nothing needs to be brought up to current code in order to sell or occupy a structure.
Hey, K'ledgeBldr, if you were buying a house is there a build time when houses were generally built well?
Prior to 1900, if it's still standing, it should have been built well, although the sizes and shapes of things like doors, windows, hallways and stairs may be radically different than what we consider 'standard' today.
From 1900 to 1915, probably well built? From 1915 to 1925 there may be a lack of houses and maybe not well built ones? There was the war that took a lot of the construction people away and then the Spanish flu that took out a lot of the able bodied workforce right around 1918-1920. Figure five years after that for the workforce to get skilled again?
1930's to 1945's (as well as the older ones), I'd expect all the materials to be good - wood with less knots, old growth wood, higher level of skilled labor and the house designed for natural ventilation and such. But a prior to 1945's house could have issues with lead, arsenic, asbestos, etc. (Did asbestos exist back then?)
Then, in the mid-50's there was a whole shift in things. All of a sudden tract housing showed up and cookie cutter houses were produced. Although, there still would have been the old standard construction methods and standards of quality still lingering around? Wasn't a 2x4 in the fifties still a 2x4? When did lumber sizes start shrinking?
The 50's started seeing a whole lot of new materials show up, Formica and such. The 70's had a lot of that plastic faced wall paneling.
I built a house in the 90's and the standard bath surround was a one piece fiberglass unit that could stand on it's own. Now that same bath surround is plastic of some sort and about the integrity of a soap bubble. I can carry more 2x4s today than I could then and it's not from me getting stronger but the 2x4s weighing less. The wood itself weighs less, although there may be a bit more shaved off the 2x4s. I think they were 1.5"+ and now they're 1.5"-. But they still weigh quite a bit less.
I'm not sure if I'd want to buy a new spec built house these days. We're gonna probably build a new one in a year or two when we're done with the current renovation/restoration, but I think it's gonna be harder to source decent materials. It must be harder for folks who can't look at a house and see past the finishes to buy one anymore.
I don't know, sounds like a demo to me (he said while sitting in the living room of his 1916 house).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
