‘As-Built Permit’ Needed for Bedroom
QUESTION: When I purchased my home, the seller explained that the master bedroom had been added without a building permit. The addition seemed to be well constructed, so I didn’t concern myself at the time.
Now that I’m selling the property, the buyer wants me to apply to the county for an “as-built permit.” I’ve never heard of this permit and am afraid to stir up trouble with the local building department. Is this necessary, or should I leave well enough alone?
ANSWER: The as-built permit process is a form of confession and repentance, whereby a homeowner may obtain absolution for past construction sins, as it were. But beware: The degree of penance to which you may be subjected is something to be considered very carefully before proceeding.
As-built permits have become an increasingly popular method of last resort for people in your situation, because so many property owners have avoided the standard building permit process when embarking upon additions.
The main problem with “bootlegged” additions is that they are illegal and must be disclosed to prospective buyers.
If you own such a project, inspection, correction and municipal approval are the only process by which it can be legitimized.
But before commencing this ominous process, understand that, once it is initiated, you have no choice but to continue for the duration. If repair requirements become too costly or complicated, you have no choice but to proceed. The as-built permit cannot be canceled. It is somewhat akin to a roller-coaster ride: Once the wheels begin to roll, it’s too late to reconsider.
As the process unfolds, you may be required to expose internal portions of the construction for inspection and analysis.
This could mean excavating sections of the foundation, opening walls, ceilings and roof surfaces for examination of the framing, waterproofing, plumbing, electrical wiring, insulation, etc.
Conditions deemed to be in conflict with local building requirements would be subject to appropriate changes, and needed improvements could be very costly.
Furthermore, all fees applicable to new construction, such as assessments for local schools, public sewer lines, etc., would become due and payable. The possibility exists that the additions or alterations could be judged inappropriate to the property and summarily disallowed. In such cases, demolition or reconversion could be mandated.
For a clearer perspective of the general quality and degree of code compliance at the addition to your home, you can hire a private building inspector for an independent analysis before talking to local authorities.
Safety, Not Compliance, Is the Main Issue Here
Q: Our deck is about 20 years old and has 12-inch-wide openings in the guardrails. Now that we’re selling the property, the buyers want us to make the spaces smaller to comply with the new building code.
According to our neighbor, a licensed contractor, the railings were built to code at the time of construction and are therefore not subject to mandatory change. Is he right, or do we need to alter the rail spaces?
A: Requirements affecting safety railings have undergone a gradual evolution in recent years. Before 1979, guardrail spacing was unregulated. Then the first standards became effective with the enactment of a nine-inch space limitation. In 1985, allowable openings were reduced to six inches and then, in 1993, a maximum spacing of four inches became the rule.
The reason for these changes was to ensure that children would be less likely to fit though the spaces in high railings.
As to your current obligations as a seller, there is no existing requirement for upgrade of existing safety railings. If the buyers prefer compliance with current standards, upgrades should be performed at their expense, after the close of escrow.
But regardless of who pays for the improvements, the value of child safety clearly outweighs the issue of strict code compliance. If the height of your deck poses a significant hazard, modification of the railings is strongly advised, notwithstanding the age of the building or the codes that may apply.
Hairline Cracks Are Usually Cosmetic
Q: Since occupying our new home, we’ve noticed some cracks in the exterior stucco and above the doors in the hallway. How can we tell if this is a serious structural problem?
A: Your question echoes a common concern of many homeowners and buyers. Fortunately, most building cracks are purely cosmetic in nature. Hairline cracks in stucco, plaster or drywall can be found to some degree in most homes. Generally, they result from normal settlement stresses and are not indicative of structural failure.
A primary symptom of serious settlement is displacement; that is, shifting or separation at building cracks.
Try to view the two sides of a crack as matching puzzle pieces. If the pieces fit closely together, the crack is most likely a cosmetic condition. If the pieces have shifted so that their patterns no longer line up, or if a crack has widened more than one-eighth of an inch, there may be serious structural settlement. If this is the case, evaluation by a licensed structural engineer is recommended.
*
Got a question about any aspect of the home inspection? Send it to Barry Stone, Los Angeles Times, 540 Atascadero Road, Morro Bay, CA 93442. Queries can also be sent via e-mail to: inspector@fix.net.
