Comments on: Why Don’t Home Inspectors Mention Code?

By: Double Tapped Neutrals: This Isn't A New Rule | Reuben's Home Inspection Blog

Tue, 24 May 2011 09:55:36 +0000

[...] Despite what many seem to think, this didn’t become a new requirement in 2002. This has been a requirement of UL 67 for a long time, but was spelled out in the NEC in 2002. Oh, and for the record, if a home inspector recommends a repair of say, a double tapped neutral, they’re doing it for the reasons listed above; not because it’s “code“. [...]

By: John Cundiff

John Cundiff — Tue, 28 Sep 2010 14:57:44 +0000

Reuben

Regarding afi, gfi, etc. I will typically recommend that these devices be installed as required by today’s standards. I do stress however, that it is a recommendation for upgrade or improvement and NOT a deficiency. I usually imply to some degree that such improvements are prudent, but discretionary.

The problem, as you stated, is where to draw the line. So many HI’s state things like “I ask for GFI’s in bathrooms, but not basements…” or “only withing 6 feet of the sink…” I always counter them and ask on what are they basing this sellectivity. You might hear some good arguements, but none of them, IMHO, are defensible.

By: Reuben Saltzman

Reuben Saltzman — Wed, 18 Aug 2010 09:57:56 +0000

Hi Nancy, not a bad idea to include a little blurb about AFCIs in your report. I might have to write a blog about them and include a link in my report; my goal has been to get my inspection reports much shorter.

Oh man, I get a ridiculous amount of people asking if things are up to code. Why is that?

I’ve done a lot of electrical work at my own house, and I installed AFCIs where they required at the time I did the work, but I’m not a huge advocate of AFCIs. Maybe just an advocate.

By: Nancy K

Nancy K — Tue, 17 Aug 2010 01:56:25 +0000

Great blog, comments & points; wanted to add my 2… I agree it’s a judgment call. Reuben, reading the sample report of the 1991 house, I see (unless I missed it) that AFCI’s aren’t mentioned, they weren’t required so I guess that’s why? On a 1991 home we would have a def for an AFCI & a little info about their usefulness in preventing fires, a link & “consider” the upgrade for fire safety reasons. Home inspections are subjective opinions; I believe it’s worth putting in the report. Good point about the contract & SOP already stating it’s not a code compliant inspection. I think it’s about learning how to explain the code issue to clients, & Realtors in a way that puts it in perspective…how many times have ya been asked “is it up to code?” when you’re inspecting ANY age house? On a personal level…when we lived in a 1910 home & upgraded some of our electrical, we installed AFCI’s and for me it was peace of mind to have the extra added fire protection.

By: Reuben Saltzman

Reuben Saltzman — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 10:30:15 +0000

City Inspector – I agree, this certainly is not a safety hazard. If I mention that an AFCI is missing, I’m basing this on code… but I don’t have any problem with that.

By: City Inspector

City Inspector — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:25:20 +0000

Just like I mentioned, when a home is built before the that code requirement came to be put in place, that home meets requirements. It is not required to update items to meet the current codes. The codes evolve every 3 years and our state seems to be on tract to adopt the 2012 codes. MN. does not update every 3 years. Now with the updates, they try to learn from previous years experience and make all areas of construction/building safer. This is where AFCI protection comes into play. If a home built in 2004 was supposed to have AFCI protection and does not, you should be looking at the permits, (if any) or was there a situation where it was brought back to an existing construction condition. Bottom line, you can bring a tampered system back to how it was done under that code cycle, to meet the requirements. If the AFCI protection was just missed when the installation was done, does it pose a safty issue? Or is it just a code violation? Remember, we have all lived and grown up in older homes that did not have those ammenities, we all survived. I can’t tell you how to make the call, my piont I would look at is…Is the system still safe? I would call it out that it does not conform with the CURRENT CODE requirements, looking at it from a buyers inspection piont of view.

By: Reuben Saltzman

Reuben Saltzman — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 21:41:39 +0000

Hi City Inspector (Jon?),

Everything you said here is correct, no question about that…

but if you were a private inspector, how would you report on AFCIs? If there were no AFCIs at a 1980 house, would you report it? What about a 2004 built house?

By: City Inspector

City Inspector — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 18:30:30 +0000

As for AFCI’S,
when a home was build under a model code cycle 20 years ago, and all the components of the home meet the code at that time, A home is still code complaint. It is when a homeowner changes things that could involve a component, ( Example: Electrical) say they remodel a kitchen or bath and electrical is involved, that is when that portion of the system is brought up to current code requirements. To add to this , you would have to have access to city records in order to check for compliancy. If only flooring and countertops and plumbing were involved, a owner cannot be made to bring the electrical component of that portion of the job up to current code requirements. They would have to be actually doing work with that system for there to be a update to the electrical system. Does that portion meet the current code? Yes it does. Does work done 20 years ago meet current code requirements? Probably not. Is it required to be updated? No! To be a good inspector, you still need to know codes and construntion practices, also knowing the life safty issues (again refering to codes), because the Codes are what all building practices are based on. Building Codes and other codes that follow: The purpose of the Codes is to maintain a minimum standard for Health, Safty, and Welfare of all Buildings and the Occupents. I hope this sheds light on your debate.

By: Reuben Saltzman

Reuben Saltzman — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 22:56:29 +0000

Hi Chad – was your question at the end rhetorical, or were you literally asking how I approach home inspections in regard to building codes, and code compliance?

By: Chad

Chad — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 16:39:30 +0000

As this was referenced from another blog post about “but your inspection references work that was permitted and inspected”

Like the municipal inspectors (AHJ), the HI have a similar issue it seems. As you develop more awareness of issues outside your scope, questions arise of: How do you or when do you or do do you mention other issues that may be of concern.

But what also needs to be understood is verifying code compliance is not exclusive of the municipality or AHJ. I would not expect the AHJ to perform a code compliance inspection as part of a property sale or inquiry as to its development potential (ordinarily).

Such inquiries would likely be met directing the inquirer to contact a professional to perform such services. A services such as Alta Surveys and Site Analysis. Wherein Alta Survey is typically provided by a land surveyor and Site Analysis as performed by Design Professionals such as Architects and Engineers. (yes some do residential work too)

Trouble for an HI is the clients expectation of what is being providing from their service and what the client may be expecting to use with this information (addition, etc).

So what do you do?