Before I attempt to answer this question, I will take you on a little detour.
What do you consider new construction? As a Seattle Home Inspector, a home that has only been lived in a couple of years I would still consider "New Construction." Basically any house that was built under "current code requirements," I would consider New Construction. Once the home has had multiple owners or is older than a couple of code cycles, I would be less likely to see it as New Construction, and might refer to it as "Newer Construction."
For agents, in the business of selling homes, I suspect the definition of "New Construction" might be a little narrower and only include homes that had never been lived in. In these different economic times however, new homes can sit on the market for months and even years without a buyer. There are also the homes that sit half done---the builder in foreclosure---that get bought up and finished "years" later---after rain has been blowing in the window openings for months---the rats and racoons have been having a field day in the crawl space and attic. Time is always the enemy with homes that are not built properly or or not completed properly---whether new or old. I think there is the perception that "New Homes" are guaranteed to have fewer problems than older housing stock so the term "New Construction" is used as a "selling point."
I am no enemy of New Construction. In fact I would argue that most new homes are going to be better than their counterparts (same comparative price range---adjusted for inflation) built 75 years ago---and especially 175 years ago. People will point to the grand old mansions still standing around the country as some kind of proof that old construction is better than new construction---but this argument doesn't take into account that these homes were never in the "price range" of the homes of today that they are being compared to. They are merely the ones lucky enough to still be standing---the comparable ones have long since gone back to the earth. And of course this is all before we start talking about lead, asbestos, galvanized plumbing, knob & tube wiring, single pane windows, rubble foundations, squeaky/unlevel floors, and a long list of modern safety features we have grown accustomed to.
So, at a recent inspection of a New Construction home, even though it had been lived in for 2 years, I would still consider it "New Construction." For me, this means I "expect" more from the home----not less. On newer construction I wonder why the things that are wrong with it were not caught either by the local jurisdictional inspectors, or more importantly, why they were not caught by the home inspector when the original buyers purchased the home. Were they talked out of having it inspected because it was "New Construction?" Were the jurisdictional inspectors asleep at the wheel? Was the home inspector incompetent?
The answers to these questions are relatively unimportant---except in the entertainment value they provide---or the blog fodder they provide.
For example, why have the woodpeckers had access to the attic of this 2 year old home. 
Who should have caught the defect that allowed them to think they could get into the attic? 
As you can see in the preceeding picture, the screen on the inside of the vent is completely missing. Of course woodpeckers can be very aggressive when it comes to making holes in homes. Most of the time they are merely making noise to attract a mate or going after bugs they can hear behind the wood. For them to turn your attic into a bird house, they really need a "starting" point. A tiny hole that they can make bigger---usually involving a nice work platform for them to roost on while they peck their way into your house. A screen is really no guarantee that they won't peck their way through it---but at least it is better than nothing.
I am hired to inform---to simply tell the house's story as accurately and as thoroughly as possible---with the bedside manner befitting any professional of any real profession. While the home inspector can not afford to "soft pedal" anything he or she finds, they can impart the information as if they are part of the solution instead of being part of the problem. Of course there will always be those that do not understand enough about the process to know the difference. There will always be those with agendas that will prevent the light of truth from coming in. Information protects all parties to the transaction---and yes---sometimes information is a bummer.
Every home sooner or later returns to the earth. It is just a matter of under who's watch it happens.
But if the buyer flys the coop---they will do so because they now have a better idea of what the house is----regardless of whether it is new or old. If the agent is supportive, that buyer is almost guaranteed to use both of us again. Like I said---it is FREE advertising!
Charles Buell, Seattle Home Inspector
.JPG)
Comments(13)