Originally Posted by
Bruce Breedlove
I don't know off the top of my head. I'm sure I could look it up in my old code books but, like most home inspectors, I don't inspect for code compliance so it is not a huge concern for me.
Should it be? I sure would hate to have to inspect for code compliance, especially for codes that have changed throughout the years.
This is the way I always looked at it:
- Home inspectors are learning more all the time.
- That leads to clients expecting more all the time.
- That leads to home inspectors delivering more all the time.
- In 5 years when those people sell, is it reasonable to except that some home inspector may come along and say 'By the way, that room is not a "bathroom", and your house does not have as many "living square feet" as it says because all those low ceiling areas cannot be counted as living space, blah, blah, blah.'
- In 5 years plus 1 day, you get a call from your client "WHY TO HECK DIDN'T YOU TELL ME blah, blah, blah NOW IT'S GOING TO COST ME an arm and two legs to sell this dog of a place because it isn't as big is you told me it was, and I can't use that bathroom you called "real nice work, very pretty and well done" - *I* DEMAND *YOU* PAY ME for my loss, blah, blah, blah."
I know, because I used to try to set the top of the learning and advancing curve, home inspections ARE improving ... continuously.
Would you tell your client that that bedroom in the dark basement with no window or door is not really a bedroom because there is no natural light, no natural ventilation, and no emergency egress out? Of course you would. Would that have been reported 15 years ago? Probably not, HIs were not thinking like that then.