Home : Blogs : Minneapolis Home Inspections - Reuben Saltzman : Reuben's Home Inspection Blog

Why Don't Home Inspectors Mention Code?

Home inspections are not ‘code’ inspections, and a lot of home inspectors even treat the word ‘code’ as taboo. They call it the ‘C-word’. I recently had another home inspector on AR tell me he’s not even allowed to use that word in Kentucky. This is such a taboo word that I don’t use it either, but I don’t think it has to be this way.

The basis of taboo
Three of the largest home inspection organizations make it clear in their Standards of Practice that home inspectors are not required to report on code compliance. For example, the ASHI Standards of Practice state that “Inspectors are NOT required to determine compliance with regulatory requirements (codes, regulations, laws, ordinances, etc.).” There is nothing in the standards prohibiting home inspectors from determining compliance… it’s just not a requirement.

Where ‘code’ plays a role in home inspections
Home inspections are conducted to educate the client – usually a home buyer. The ASHI Standards of Practice states that Inspectors are required to report on Unsafe conditions, which is defined as a condition that is judged to be a significant risk to bodily injury during normal, day-to-day use; the risk may be due to damage, deterioration, improper installation, or a change in accepted residential construction standards.

Accepted Residential Construction Standards
This is not defined, but my interpretation of this means ‘building codes’. This is how construction standards are defined. Inspectors in different parts of the country have different building codes, so they also have different construction standards. What is acceptable in one part of the country might be unacceptable in Minnesota. Home inspectors should be expected to know what’s acceptable in their part of the country, and they should be able to prove it if necessary – this means citing code.

It’s always a judgement call
Since 2003, the National Electric Code has required arc-fault circuit interrupters (AFCIs) for bedroom circuits. AFCIs prevent fires. Does the lack of an AFCI breaker in a home built before 2003 constitute an unsafe condition? What about a new construction home? Let me ask that differently. Should a home inspector call out missing AFCIs in homes built before 2003? What about new construction homes? If a home inspector doesn’t answer ‘yes’ to the last two questions or ‘no’ to the last two questions, they’re basing their answer on ‘code’, not ‘unsafe’ conditions. Us home inspectors call this is a ‘construction defect’, but why not call a spade a spade? It’s a code violation.

Reuben Saltzman, Structure Tech Home Inspections - Email - Golden Valley Home Inspections

Posted by Minneapolis Home Inspections - Reuben Saltzman on 04/08/2009 06:27 AM

Comments (43)

home inspection standards, code compliance, code inspections

Post is included in group: Home Inspector's Corner
Post is included in group: Ask the Home Inspector
Post is included in group: Professional Home Inspectors
Post is included in group: Home Inspectors across the country
Post is included in group: ASHI

43 Comments on Why Don't Home Inspectors Mention Code?

APR

It is not a code violation if there was no law against it at the time when they were built.

It is a code violation if the home was built but only after the law came into effect

Putting on a report as a code violation when is not will only create a sense of fear for the buyers . .and make our jobs as Realtors even more difficult.

Buyers need to know if a home isn't up to code. If it was built before the law cited this requirement then they need to know that. I so agree that code should be used. Luckily my husbands a GC and will tell it like it is! Seller its not up to code!

Fernando - calling something a code violation on a home inspection report that isn't a code violation is just plain wrong, no question about that. That's not what I'm talking about though.

The question I'm posing is whether code violations should be reported, and why they should be reported. AFCIs have been required in bedrooms for 6 years now. If a new construction home is built and there are no AFCIs present, should the home inspector report this? Why? This is clearly a code violation, but it's not any more unsafe than missing AFCIs in a home built in 2002.

Laura - I mostly agree with you. This blog was kind of my rant asking why people get so whipped up when they hear the word "code". They even call it the "C-Word". Why?

Hmm. Interesting because down here that is all they are allowed to base their inspections on pretty much. It's great getting an inspection on a home built in the 70's - Makes for a lenghty report in the inbox.

However, it does get irritating because there are a lot of inspectors that like to throw around the 'c' word but not all of them are code certified to make those statements. My favorite is when they put stuff like 'Insufficient attic ventilation'. Really? There is a specific formula to figure that out and I wonder if they know what it is and took the time to measure exactly the space of the attic, etc.

I agree that buyers need to know everything that is wrong with a home. But when it is 'opinion' of the inspector, that's when I have a problem. It should be mandated that any opinion put in to an inspection report should be followed by documentation. Kind of like showing your work in Geometry class.

(can you tell that I had a sticky inspection recently) :) Thanks Reuben for a great conversational post.

Reuben,

I would pretty much agree with you. As you say it is often a judgment call, but can be a slippery slope. We are not and do not have the authority to call out or demand that "code" violations be repaired. Your example of AFCIs can be easily equated to GFCIs. Home inspectors call out GFCIs with out much trouble. Why? Because they have been around for so long now it has become sort of an accepted standard.

I agree that home inspectors for the most part dance around code as they do many other things in our profession in the name of, what else, liability.

Stephanie - the ASHI standards of practice say to report:

"those systems and components inspected that, in the professional judgment of the inspector, are not functioning properly, significantly deficient, unsafe, or are near the end of their service lives."

Wouldn't this be opinion?

James - Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding! I didn't want to be the one to say it.

I do not mind a mention of code as long as it is explianed. Many inspectors do not explain to folks that a condition that exists used to be code but now code has changed. So the question is is the condition a problem or just subject to a change. Once a buyer hears code violation those words are so charged that it is hard to get at the meaning of the issue

It is all in the way that the report is written and the information is given to the potential buyer. Some homes are older and not consistent with the current building codes but then so are all of the rest of the homes in that neighborhood. If we take the time to explain the findings of the inspector to the potential buyer, it goes a long way. Our state allow mention of code violations and all of my inspectors will make a note that it is not in compliance with the current code but may have been in compliance when the home was built or remodeled.

It does leave a lot to interpretation. Codes change alot an in some places there were none in place at the time it was built.

Reuben

Good post. Your are correct about the safety issue. To easy to wanted to call out things that are not really defects.

Reuben, our inspectors around here sure mention code a lot. Even if complying at time of construction. There are some permitting and insurance issues associated with code compliance.

Hi Reuben, yes. But stuff that gets in to building science and other stuff that takes specific calculations that are on other reports made prior to permitting?

How do you say that there is not enough attic ventilation? Or a loud garage door opener.

I'm not disagreeing I'm just saying that it should be followed by documentation showing why they said that. If their opinion is that the garage door is too loud, put down why it would be a problem. If they feel the door is jammed incorrectly, show a picture why because it looks like every other door to a buyer and for that matter it may have been installed properly per the instructions of the manufacturer.

Same thing goes with other stuff. If an inspector feels that a window is put in backwards show proof, if the electrical socket is about to catch on fire, show why. That's all I'm saying.

The whole 'I think' thing can cause problems. We as agents have 'opinion' on value based on documentation of value from MLS and we have to show it. It's the same thing.

Codes "theoretically" are an attempt to make our homes safer. In the case of the AFCI's I have no problem calling out when they are missing in new construction----if I know that the jurisdiction involved required them. But that is the problem----knowing when, and what jurisdictions adopted what. The answers to these does not alter that it would be a damn good idea to get them installed as a safety upgrade----regardless of code. Now lets look at the odd issue of something that was not code, became code, and now is no longer required by code----and also varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction: The Auto Close function of the door between the house and the garage. This is where my buyer is hiring me for my expert opinion and I am going to tell them that for "safety" it is still a good idea regardless of code. If a door has auto-close installed am I going to now recommend that it be removed? I don't think so.

This discussion has been based on a buyer's inspection. Let's say it's a seller's inspection. I tend to have a change of attitude because the seller may give the impression that all they want is a "Current Standard" or "Code" inspection prior to listing.

As a Texas professional Inspector I make myself an enforcement authority by detailing code violations. We call out "Standards" violations. I do use the word code, but not on the inspections report and only as a means to describe a issue I find.

Charlie and Christine - great points. It's all about communication. Calling something a code violation is a lot different than saying that something is no longer allowed by code.

Stephanie - well said, and I completely agree with you. I thought that was what you were getting at, but I just wanted to be sure. Thanks for the response!

Charles - the auto-closer thing is a great example of something that's right either way. I'm not a fan of the auto closers, so I lean towards not having them... but it depends on my client. If I inspect a garage where there is a stairway that drops down in to the house, I might recommend an auto-closer. If I inspect a house for buyers that have small children, I'll warn them about their kids fingers getting broken by the auto-closer. I never mention code though - I just talk about common sense.

APR

I'm with Charles on this. There are sooo many different codes, and every city, town, or county I go into has different interpretations and/or versions of the national codes, the CABO codes, and the codes that particular community adopted on their own. Given all of this, it would be an overwhelming task for a home inspector who goes into many different jurisdictions to have even a small grasp of the code requirements for any given area. Citing National Code requirements in a general way may be something that inspectors could do effectively.

Let's not forget that "Code" is the minimal standard. Many times you need to exceed the minimum just to maintain good building practices. Codes are not rocket science by any means, if an inspector is comfortable in referencing codes then I say go for it. If a person can read and comprehend then they can cite a code, it does not require any special credential.

To many times I have seen bucket toting checklist inspectors attempting to cite a code just to impress the folks who hired him. I'm sure we have all come across one or two inspectors who fit this description.

Some inspectors need to mention code.

For example, in Massachusetts the defintion for repair is:

"Repair. All repairs, when implemented by the buyer, seller, and/or homeowner shall comply with applicable requirements of the governing codes and sound construction practices."

The inspector is required to mention code when calling out a repair. The client often has many questions on what will it take to make the repair according to the governing codes. Massachusetts has a lot of old homes, making repairs to an old home and satisfying the current governing codes can be quite an adventure.

I have heard many "code stories" yet had previously put them in the "old wives tales" category. It sounds like the stories still hold true in other parts of the country.

APR

Kevin - things must be very different where you and Charles live. That must be very frustrating to have different codes everywhere you go... CABO codes even? What the heck? Fortunately for me, what you're talking about doesn't apply in the Minneapolis / Saint Paul area where I live.

'In the Minneapolis / Saint Paul area, every city needs to adopt the Minnesota State Building Code. It's up to each city's BO to interpret and enforce the code, so there can be variations, but they're few and far between. I've heard many local inspectors talk about how cities can have many different interpretations, and how it's impossible to keep up with all of them. After getting to know enough BOs and after taking enough continuing ed courses or college courses taught by state or local inspectors, I've decided that this argument about not being able to keep up is either BS, laziness, or as Jim Mushinsky said, "old wives tales".

Don't get me wrong, I'm not directing this comment at you. I've heard some pretty crazy stories about what happens outside the Twin Cities Metro area, and I'm glad I don't do inspections there. I'd be pulling my hair out.

Reuben, if we are talking "New Construction" the variations from jurisdiction to jurisdiction are minor----it is all the housing stock build prior to the existence of the IRC where the biggest differences occur. Here is an example of one difference in my area regarding new construction. In the area I cover---which is a big area---Seattle and Renton are the only two jurisdictions where it is required to have a UFER ground---all the other jurisdictions have not adopted this requirement of the code.

if it is a blatant code violations yes call it out IE safety, or new construction other then that I'm with Charles here to many variations here we use IRC 2006 which of course can be superseded by sate or local code then what about ADA and on and on

APR

Call a spade a spade. I think that it is important to always take codes into consideration when inspecting a house, as these standards are put in place for a reason....but just my 2 cents.

APR

Reuben, I think you touched on the essence of home inspection, continuing education. Usually the ones that try and act the smartest are attempting to cover up what they don't know.

I belong to two organizations here and attended the monthly meetings. Both meetings are largely dedicated to continuing ed. Considering the number of inspectors here it's funny to me that I always see the same few faces at these meetings.

This where problems begin. Not staying up to date on your knowledge. Stephanie made an excellent point before. If you say somethings wrong back it up with facts. Or at least explain why you believe there is a problem. Because I'm the inspector and I say so is not good enough.

"Because I'm the inspector and I say so is not good enough."

I get whipped up just reading that James. Anyone that says something like that is doing a disservice to our profession. It's embarrassing.

On that same note, I get really annoyed with inspectors that cite code as the only reason for their recommendations. If you don't know why it's in the code, do some research or don't recommend changes. I'll often point out plumbing code violations in my reports, but if I feel the violations are of little consequence, I don't make any recommendations to correct.

APR

ALL home inspections are based on building codes, whether we admit it or not. Without the codes, everything else is just an opinion. When the particular code is cited correctly it takes the opinion and even the knowledge or lack there of the inspector out of the equation.

On the other hand, home inspectors are not code inspectors because it is impossible to verify code compliance in a completed house. Most municipal inspections take at least 5 visits during different stages of completion, which means lots of stuff is just not available for us to see.

APR

As I see it, codes are for new construction evaluation, which as many others have pointed out would be handled in stages by county or municipal inspectors. As a home inspector, we are not required to cite cods, however if a code reinforces a safety issue than I believe its our obligation to cite it. That being said, the state of Florida uses grandfathering for almost everything. This means that code dates may not be applicable to older homes. If it is a wind mitigation inspection, then I am required to utilize some codes (adhering to minimum standards). I agree that education is paramount, but communication is even more important. Just because a house is grandfathered into not having the requirement of arch fault interrupters or GFCI's for that matter does not mean it should not be talked about. I usually will report those situations as, "Although the house is old enough to not be required to have.......it was implemented into recent code as a safety precaution, WE recommend upgrading to...."

APR

Picking and choosing your code citations wisely is probably the best course, as long a where you live does not require you to cite them. There are some very old "codes" still on the books around here that probably no one would ever want you to cite. Some are pretty funny, some are downright stupid. I'll see if I can compile a list of some of them and post it for you.

Jim - Excellent points.

Steve - I think there's nothing wrong with using more forceful language in your reports. "Your bathrooms do not have GFCI devices. GFCI devices have been required in bathrooms for the last 30 years, and they prevent people from getting electrocuted. Add GFCI protection for the bathroom outlets." Don't even mention what was required when the house was built, just tell the buyer to do it. No one can argue with you.

Kevin - I'm looking forward to that list.

APR

I recommend and suggest and when I do it usually based on a code as what else can it be based on?

Codes change from Town to town and since many of us Inspect in up to 100 different towns the exact following of codes can get us into trouble.

We walk a fine line and in my case have found that constant education in learning the reason behind many codes helps justify my comments.

Pre 2003 with no AFCI in the bedrooms gets a definition of AFCI in my report along with a comment that I recommend upgrade at some point in the future.

Pretty simple in many cases to walk the tight rope but one must not take a mis step.

In Illinois Carbon Monoxide and smoke detectors are required within 15 feet but I like to recommend them in bedrooms and near ventless fireplaces.

Not everything therefore is based on code and this is where Inspectors do have differences.

The key is to convey information .

Reuben this was a good subject.

Have a gold Star, on me.

APR

Thanks Bob. I might have to start copying your approach to AFCIs. I haven't decided how to report them yet. Yeah, I know, It's only been six years... I'll get there.

APR

Stephanie

You have repeated the attic ventilation a couple of times so I think I can safely assume you had a recent problem with this yourself. Many times with ventilation it is very easy to spot, other times it's not. I agree with you that if possible, there should be pictures to explain it to the client. But let take an example of an attic I went in last summer.

Outside temp was about 94, the home was a comfy 76 and the attic was 142 degrees. That is 48 degrees above outside temp and 68 degrees above inside inside temperature. First, since its 142, it is considered unsafe to be in that location for more than 15 minutes. As you know, a good inspection in the attic can take more than 15 minutes. Every baffle and every vent (and all the other stuff) just can't be inspected (properly) in that amount of time. So how would I get pictures? It MUST be explained as such, and I would also suggest to re-inspect on a cooler day or first thing in the morning when the temps are lower. But just the temperature alone indicates poor ventilation and it should be reported on.

Now please trust me, I am on your side in that Inspectors need to explain why a comment is made. If the reason is clear, there should be pictures. Regardless, when I mention the venting, I add another picture that answers your questions, because yes, there is a way to measure the venting.

Recommended amount of attic ventilation.

As for should the inspector mention the code every time a comment is made. No. There are things not listed in the code or the code states, as per manufacturers instructions. Having to cite exact lines of code with every comment would add a lot of time and delays to reports. We may remember where it is in the book, but I doubt any of us can just quote the actual code for every possible comment. Another thing to consider, the item may have been to code when installed, but it just simply broke over time. Is it a code violation or just a broken thingy?

Then we have the "I think" comment. There are times when we see indications of a problem but we can not answer it exactly without, for example, punching a hole in the wall. Lets say I see an active water stain on the ceiling in a closet which is directly below an upstairs bathroom. But in the bath room, there are no signs of leaks or damage. It would be easy to "think" there is a leak in the bathroom above but no way to prove it. If I stated for a fact there was a leak, then the plumber showed up, broke a hole in the ceiling and found no leak, then the kid admitted to, I don't know, playing with a squirt gun and getting it wet, I could be held liable for the plumbers charges and damages caused. After all, I said for a fact, it was X when it was really Y.

So, do I mention the stain and what I think, in my professional opinion, is the problem or not mention it at all?

Again, not trying to be hostile or to sound as such because I really do understand what your saying. In the case above I would say that it may be X but it could also be something else I can't determine and requires more investigation.

MAY

It seems that every inspection I go on has a guy asking about code.

JUL

I inspect in way too many jurisdictions with different variations of what they accept as code for me to actually declare something a code violation. Statewide code would be good but every little jerkwater wants to change this and that in what they accept as code.

I just use the national standards and explain that if they want to know if it is a code violation, they'll have to contact the local yokel for a definitive ruling.

AUG

Here is the problem I see with not communicating well enough. homebuyers read the language and do not know that it's a true defect or not up to code. They see it as something that needs to be fixed, but not THAT important - unless you define it is such a way. Then the word "code" becomes important. A kitchen sink with a standard drain/venting system that was deviated from orginal and existing code has to be written so that in layman's terms - it is understood. "No evidence of venting system to sink drain system" sometimes does not cut it. "existing kitchen drain system and venting is not in compliance to Minnesota Plumbing Code - evidence of non standard plumbing installation". Or more specific to city/county verbage. Then we have to site the code as well?

Am - I agree, saying something like "No evidence of venting system to sink drain system" wouldn't do a buyer any good, but I also think that telling a buyer something is a code violation, like "existing kitchen drain system and venting is not in compliance to Minnesota Plumbing Code - evidence of non standard plumbing installation" doesn't do much good either. For your specific instance, I would write

"Properly installed plumbing vents keep the air pressure inside the sewer pipes the same as the air pressure outdoors. If the plumbing vents aren't installed properly, the air pressure inside the sewer pipes might become too high or too low. Without proper pressure in those pipes your plumbing fixtures might not drain properly; they can gurgle or belch and, in some cases, they can let unhealthy and foul-smelling sewer gases into the house. Your kitchen sink wasn't properly vented, and you may experience some of these issues."

Why bother citing the code here?

AUG

Reuben - nice description in your last post. No need to cite code here, but if asked (challenged) you should be able to back up your statements. I feel if you are offering inspection services in a jurisdiction you have a professional responsibility to your client to know the code that applies in that region. This does not mean citing each and every code violation in the report, but you should have a basis to show how you arrived at a given conclusion. Telling a client "you will need to contact the authority having jurisdication in our city and/or research the code yourself to determine WHY I made that recommendation" reduces your effectiveness as an expert in your field. A client looks to us for answers. That's why we are paid professionals.

If a client is considering purchasing a home, should they not be informed by you, the expert, that if they contemplate a moderately sized remodeling project that they will be required to upgrade some non-compliant issues? True, perhaps non AFCI circuits in a bedroom was not a code violation in a home built in 1970, but if they remodel, they will need to absorb the cost of upgrading to current code in some instances. Another example would be bedroom egress via a window - many older homes do not meet current egress requirements and a buyer could be stuck with a large remodeling bill if they purchase that house and then begin to remodel.

In our profession, we are constantly struggling to prove that our recommendations are valid. I say point it out, and be prepared to provide the actual code to back up your statements.

AUG

Darin - very well put. I agree with everything you just said.

SEP

Codes or not... Who cares! We are being hired by our clients because we are professional home inspectors. Some home inspectors are light weights and some are heavy weights. (In terms of knowledge & experience, not physical features) What our clients are depending on, is us giving them the information they need to make an informed decision.

Case in point as an example; The 2003 IRC says that you don't have to have house wrap or feltpaper behind vinyl siding. The "Vinyl Siding Institute" in their " Vinyl siding Installation Manual" state; "In order to achieve designed performance, vinyl siding must be installed over a water-resistive barrier system...". The barrier system includes house wrap or felt paper and appropriate flashings.

Tell your customers what they need to know, who cares about a code. As the example points out; Sometimes "Codes" are inadequate, or wrong.

NOV

great post, awsome comments

Leave a response…

Name:

Email:
(optional)

Comment:

What does the graphic say?