So we are selling our custom built house. The house was built by a licensed builder with union carpenters in 1999 to the IBC 1996 code and approved by the county building inspector. The buyers inspector said that the wrong shims were used under our steel beams. We called the county inspector and he said the material that was used at the time our house was built was standard practice. The buyer’s inspector responded that he is legally obligated to inspect to the current code and we would face severe liability issues if this “problem” is not taken care of immediately.
The current county building inspector says this is a non-issue.
This happens all the time, since building codes evolve.
My house has electrical wiring that was legal when it was installed, but would not meet current code. Same with some of the plumbing (indoor plumbing was added about 25 years after the house was built).
A buyers inspector is obligated to tell the buyer about this.
The county building inspector is NOT obligated to do anything about this. Such items are ‘grandfathered in’, and not required to be changed.
The buyers inspector would face sever liability if he didn’t tell the buyer about it.
You would face severe liability if you knew about it, and concealed it from a buyer.
But as it is, no problems – you both know about it.
Of course, the buyer may try to use this to negotiate a lower price, and he wants it fixed. You can counter by saying that it has never been a problem in the 12 years you’ve lived there, and there is no legal requirement to get it fixed.
This is true. The real question about any “code violation” is “so what?”
Is it a hazard to the building or ocupants?
Will it deteriorate the structure of the building (even if over decades) and so should be repaired ASAP?
Due to either of the above, will it make the building less salable?
If it’s a hazard, it would not be grandfathered. If it means, say, the beams will rust if you don’t watch them, or the wood will rot from condensation on the iron, then maybe there’s a reason to worry and repair sooner rather than later.
It’s not a liabiity problem for anyone unless someone concealed a detrimental aspect of the building. It’s not “severe liabilit” unless the occupants are unknowingly in danger.
IIRC from those house shows back when real estate was hot, the “Building Inspector” ploy was a way to try to talk down the selling price. The buyer has signed an offer to purchase, which means they took the house pretty much off the market for a week or two while they negotiated back and forth; then they did a building inspection (how long did you wait for that and the report?); now they are stalling even longer while you kick this issue and the cost of repair back and forth. Eventually, they hope you will give a little just to sell the place or else you’ll do this all over again for another few weeks with the next prospective buyer. If the inspector makes such dire comments, he’s propping up the bargaining position of the people who are paying him.
If everyone else who has this situation is doing the repair as soon as they can, the buyer has a point. If everyone with a house in the same situation is basically doing what you are and letting it ride, claims “it’s gotta be fixed now!” are just a bargaining ploy. Do you hold firm, give a little, or cave in? What’s critical, time or money? Your call.