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.
I just got done with my home inspection (63 pages) and was curious what others opinions are of buying an older home? Some people have said that older homes are put together better than newer homes, others have said that certain era homes were cheaply built etc.
I'm just curious because even though the house I want to buy looks immaculate on the outside, there were a ton of little things in the inspection including:
small discolored wood/moisture stains in subfloor in bathroom (approx 1 foot diameter)
efflourvescence in concrete base wall (house has a crawlspace)
deposits around some of plumbing fixtures
drop in water pressure when more than one water source used
small 1" crack in fireplace that goes through to outside brick
There were about 20 little things (some fixes I could easily do) listed on my inspection, I'm curious if this is normal?
Did the inspection WEIGHT the significance of THEIR observations?
You know, like on a 1-5 scale sort of thing?
Any one (or 100) observations can be within "normal and reasonable"
But the same sort of condition can just as easily indicate something more serious.
iow... get your inspector to CLARIFY what they saw and reported..
and if they haven't already done so to weight their opinions.
THEN look more deeply into the two or three most serious.
Maybe come back here with a photo or two of them and ask.
I agree, I wouldn't be too concerned with the things found. My concrete wall in my basement had the efflorescence; it was due to my gutters being clogged and water was pooling in a certain area. Fixed the gutters, painted the wall with this special paint and the problem is gone. That was just my experience though. Personally, I *love* mid-century homes and its all I've ever owned. Solid, well built. Your experience may vary. Ask the inspector to elaborate and offer correction suggestions then make your decision. Good luck!
People say the 70s and 80s where cheaply built but the 50's were still built with actual "2 by 4s"
I don't know if you grew up in CA but we have earthquakes and cracks are common. I'm not dismissing the damage, that is up to you if you want to get a more qualified person to look at it. The typical inspectors find just the visual stuff. Is it at least bolted to the foundation?
Not sure if it's bolted. The inspector recommended metal T brackets to be installed on the foundation poles. This house has held up for 60 years in San Diego so that's good.
Check your report for a notation regarding the bolting: it is probably there, and compliant with the code at the time of construction. It has been required since the field act 0f 1933 and most commonly enforced after WW2. That's an interesting framing method above your foundation sill plate, maybe thats a bolt sticking up there near the rear of the picture?..
The item I would be most concerned with is the drop in water pressure. I own a house built in 1955. Back then, pipes were cast iron and as they age they leak and crack. That is the case in my house. At some point, we will need to replace the sewer line from house to street. It will be expensive.
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.
