There is no national home inspection report

There is no national home inspection report

There is no national home inspection report. No federal rule governs the document. One state prescribes the form it takes. Two states set a deadline for delivering it. And the words it uses for a problem are defined differently in different jurisdictions — in two cases, in ways that point in opposite directions on the same facts.

A buyer holding a report is holding a document built to whichever rules applied where the house happens to be, and almost nobody tells them that. Two reports on two identical houses in two states can look nothing alike, agree on every fact, use different words for the same condition, arrive on different schedules, and both be fully compliant.

This is not a complaint about the industry. It is the shape of the regulatory record, and it is the most useful thing to understand before you read a page of the document you paid for.

Form, contents, or nothing at all

States fall into three groups, and the group your house is in decides almost everything about what the document looks like.

The seven contents states are not even prescribing the same facts. Massachusetts alone requires the on-site start and finish times. Oregon alone prescribes the recommendation verbs — monitor, evaluate, repair, replace. Kentucky alone forces the report to name its own governing standard. North Carolina alone mandates a summary page, and only for prepurchase inspections of three or more systems. Stack those and a conclusion falls out: a report carrying all seven states’ required contents would be better than any one state requires, and no state requires it.

One correction worth carrying. Louisiana appears on lists of form states because a renewal rule asks licensees to “submit a copy of a completed inspection report form from the previous licensing period.” That is a sampling requirement for the renewal file, not a prescribed format. Louisiana prescribes no form and sets no delivery deadline.

The words for a problem are jurisdictional artifacts

Deficiency. Material defect. Significantly deficient. In need of repair. Does not function as intended. None is a term of art with one settled national meaning. Each is defined somewhere, by somebody, and the tests do not agree.

Two things follow. An agreement naming the ASHI standard and a report using the words significantly deficient have between them imported an undefined threshold, filled by a state rule in Illinois or Tennessee and by nothing at all elsewhere. And the color-coded severity ladders reporting software prints are a presentation convention: across nine state rulebooks and both national standards, none establishes a three- or four-tier scale, and only Tennessee defines two tiers at all.

The contradiction, applied to one water heater

Two of those definitions are not merely different. They are opposites, and they can be applied to the same component on the same day.

InterNACHI’s standard defines a material defect and then adds the sentence almost nobody quotes: “The fact that a system or component is near, at or beyond the end of its normal useful life is not, in itself, a material defect.” Wisconsin’s statute makes the opposite call, treating a condition that “would significantly shorten or adversely affect the expected normal life of the component” as a defect in its own right. Service life is the express exclusion in one and an independent trigger in the other.

Put a fourteen-year-old gas water heater in front of three inspectors. It holds temperature and does not leak, and there is visible corrosion at the cold-water inlet fitting. Under InterNACHI’s standard the corrosion is reported as an observed condition, and the unit’s age may not be converted into the finding. Under Wisconsin’s statute the same corrosion is squarely a defect, because it will shorten the expected normal life — and Wisconsin restricts the word defect to conditions meeting that test, so the inspector must use it. Under the Texas rule the answer turns on something different again: performance now, or hazard.

Three governing documents, three defensible answers, one appliance. None of the inspectors is wrong. The reader who assumes the word carries a fixed meaning is the only person in the transaction making an error.

The part of the report to read first

Open the report and find every place it says a system or component was not inspected, was inaccessible or was obstructed. Read those before a single finding. The defects an inspector found are known problems with known locations, and known problems can be priced, scheduled and negotiated. The components nobody could see are unknown problems, and an unknown problem cannot be any of those things. Three states require the disclosure: Illinois requires which systems were not inspected and why, Massachusetts requires the inspector to indicate which designated components were not inspected and to record the obstructions that prevented it, and Texas gives it a checkbox — NI, meaning present but not inspected.

Those entries come in three kinds. A physical obstruction — stored property in front of a panel, boxes over a crawlspace hatch — is reversible, and while a deadline is running it is a request you can make. A scope exclusion is permanent: the flue interior, anything concealed, the remaining service life of anything. A conditions call — the roof was wet, the utilities were off — expires, and a system nobody operated is a different thing from one tested and passed.

North Carolina’s licensure board treats the failure to explain these as a compliance problem in its own right, listing among its five most common failures a report that “did not state the reasons systems and components designated for inspection by the Standards of Practice were not fully inspected.” Then the consequence nobody states plainly: the gap is yours. No seller owes you a second visit. Reading the exclusions is the one point at which that risk is still yours to refuse.

When the document arrives, and who sets that date

Delivery is governed even more thinly than format. Illinois requires reports to be submitted “within 2 business days after the completed inspection.” North Carolina requires delivery by the date set in a written agreement or, absent one, within three business days. Massachusetts requires inspectors to “timely submit a confidential written Report only to the Client” and never defines timely. Oregon, Kentucky, Tennessee and Louisiana set no deadline at all.

Ohio is widely described as a three-business-day report state and is not. Its rule requires copies of all written agreements to be provided within three business days of execution — a clock that usually starts before the inspection happens. Anyone citing it for your report has cited a real rule about the wrong document. Oregon does something more useful than a deadline: its rules provide that “a home inspection shall be deemed completed when the initial written inspection report is delivered,” which is the clearest statement anywhere that an inspection is a deliverable rather than a visit.

For most readers, then, no government deadline applies and the only enforceable date is the one in the inspection agreement, signed before the work, when you still have something to trade. Put a delivery date in it, confirm who receives the report, and choose a date that leaves usable time inside your contractual window rather than its last afternoon.

What the report is not permitted to settle

Five things the document will not decide, because asking for them wastes the window in which you can still act. Whether the house meets code — Texas rules do not require inspectors to determine it, and the Commission’s guidance says it does not require inspection to any of the various building codes. How long anything has left — ASHI excludes “the age, life expectancy or remaining useful life of systems and components,” InterNACHI excludes service life expectancy, and Texas and Arizona exclude it by rule, while a live federal form promises buyers the opposite. What is behind a wall — concealed and latent conditions sit outside every standard reviewed. What the property is worth, or whether to buy it — market value, insurability and the advisability of purchase are excluded by name in both national standards. What the repairs will cost — InterNACHI excludes the cost of repairs and Arizona’s board excludes “the methods, materials and costs of corrections.” And one more, most often lost in a negotiation: no standard of practice and no state inspection rule reviewed imposes a repair duty on a seller. The report supplies evidence; the contract supplies the remedy.

A method for the document in front of you

Start by finding out which document governs, because the report usually says. Kentucky requires reports to state the standards of practice being followed, and Oregon requires a disclaimer in bold capitals on page one. If a state rule governs, its definitions control. If only ASHI or InterNACHI is named, you are reading a trade standard, which binds anyone outside its membership only where a state adopted it by reference or an agreement incorporated it.

Then work through it once before you talk to anybody: the not-inspected entries, separating reversible from permanent; then every finding handed to another trade, which Oregon calls evaluate and which describes a question the inspection was not permitted to answer rather than a defect; then the defects, read against the governing definition rather than the English word. Last, run the document against the North Carolina board’s five published compliance failures, the shortest credible quality test in any public document.

From here: the full reading method, the severity vocabulary side by side, what counts as a material defect, which states prescribe a form, and when you get the report. If the inspection has not happened yet, our guide to what the inspection day covers and excludes explains how the report’s contents get decided on site, and our guide to what a checklist can and cannot record covers the instrument most often mistaken for it.

Primary sources for the two definitions that conflict: InterNACHI’s material defect standard and 2017 Wisconsin Act 338; the one prescribed form is REI 7-6. Report rules are amended more often than standards of practice, so confirm the current text before relying on one.

Frequently Asked Questions