The ordinary scope, plus additions — and nobody has inspected this house for you yet
A brand-new house gets the ordinary home inspection: the same published standard of practice, the same visual scope, the same report. It also warrants three specific additions that this occasion makes sensible — a sewer scope or, on septic, a septic evaluation; a radon measurement; and a written re-inspection after the builder's corrections — each of which sits outside the standard scope by rule rather than by accident.
What it does not get by default is anyone acting on your behalf. A municipal inspector has signed off; a superintendent has walked the house. Neither was retained by you, and the examination they performed is not the one you need — a distinction written down in the codes themselves.
"It passed inspection" means something narrower than buyers think
Three documented points, each contradicting a common assumption.
The code sets a floor, not a quality level. Section R101.4 of the 2018 Seattle Residential Code states the purpose of the code as providing “minimum standards to safeguard life or limb, health, property and public welfare” — language substantively common to code adoptions across the country. A house built exactly to code is built to the least the jurisdiction will accept — reasonable public policy, and a poor description of what most buyers believe they are getting.
The jurisdiction disclaims any duty to you. The same chapter, at R104.9, provides that nothing in the code creates “any liability on the part of the City, or its officers, employees or agents, for any injury or damage resulting from the failure of a building to conform to the provisions of this code,” and that the department shall not “be held to have assumed any such liability by reason of the inspections authorized by this code or any permits or certificates issued under this code.” Compliance is the obligation of the owner and the parties responsible for the work. The buyer is not the client of the public inspection and has no recourse arising from it.
A certificate of occupancy certifies less than its name suggests. New Mexico's construction regulation puts it plainly at 14.5.3.13(E) NMAC: “the issuance of a C/O shall not be construed as an approval of an unrecognized violation,” and the same provision notes that a C/O does not certify compliance with other agencies' fire, environmental or health requirements. It records that the scheduled stages were signed off. It does not warrant the house.
There is also a deliverable gap. A City of Bellevue, Washington building handout states it in a sentence: inspectors “are charged with the task of inspecting completed work and should not be expected to write punch lists.” The itemized list of workmanship items you intend to hand your builder is not something the public process produces.
What the city actually permitted and signed off on your address is a separate record, held by the building department — a sibling reference covers what a city permit inspection covered and what it did not, and that is where to read about it.
Two examinations, two clients, two questions
The code inspection asks whether the work conforms to the adopted code. Its client is the jurisdiction, its measure is a published minimum, its output is approval or a correction notice, and it occurs stage by stage rather than looking at the house as a whole.
Your inspection asks whether the installed house, as it now stands, has observable defects you should have corrected before you own it. Its client is you, its measure is a standard of practice written for buyers, and its output is a report and, from that report, a punch list.
Neither substitutes for the other, and on a new house the second is the one routinely skipped — because the house looks finished and the paperwork looks complete.
The punch list, and the warranty that starts at closing
The report is a description of conditions. The punch list is what you make of it: the items you ask the builder to correct, in writing, before closing or under a written agreement to complete after it. Keep them distinct: the report is evidence of the house's condition on a date, and the punch list is a demand.
Timing matters because of what begins at closing. In the states that codify a new-home warranty the first tier is the broadest: one year for defects caused by faulty workmanship and defective materials, two years for the plumbing, electrical, heating and cooling delivery systems, and ten years for major structural defects — Minn. Stat. 327A.02 and N.J.S.A. 46:3B-1 et seq. being the cleanest versions. It is a convention rather than a national rule, and the 11-month warranty inspection page sets out the structure and its deadlines properly.
Two consequences follow. Anything the builder agrees to correct before closing is simply corrected; anything deferred becomes a warranty matter, with a claim process, a notice requirement and a clock. And the broadest coverage the house will ever have starts running on the day you close, so the condition record you create now is the baseline every later claim is measured against.
If the builder will correct items after closing, get the list, the scope and the dates in writing before you sign. A verbal undertaking from a superintendent who may be on another subdivision next month is not a record.
The additions worth buying on a new build specifically
A sewer scope, or a septic evaluation. The drain line running from the house to the main is outside the standard inspection everywhere: under the InterNACHI residential standard, the inspector is not required to inspect wastewater systems, to determine “exact flow rate, volume, pressure, temperature,” or to operate any valve. On a new build nobody has ever run water through that line in volume, and it was laid across a site that heavy equipment then drove over for months. A camera run from a cleanout to the main is the only way to see it, and it is far easier to resolve as a builder correction than as a warranty claim about something underground.
A radon measurement. Radon is excluded from the standard scope by rule, not by preference — Arizona's board standard states that inspectors are not required to “determine the presence or absence of any suspected environmental hazards” including radon, and InterNACHI's exclusions list airborne hazards and air quality. New construction carries no presumption of a low result; soil gas is a property of the ground, not the age of the slab. It is a measurement over time rather than an observation, which is why it is bought separately.
A written re-inspection after corrections. On a resale a buyer usually negotiates a credit. On a new build the builder generally performs the work, which means somebody should confirm it was performed and performed correctly. Agree in advance whether a second visit is included in the engagement or billed separately, and schedule it before closing rather than after.
Thermal imaging and moisture scanning, where offered. ASHI's standard carries a separate section — 16.0, Use of Specialized Tools and Equipment — which is itself the point: specialized tools are not part of the baseline, so you ask for them and pay for them. On a house whose entire building envelope is untested, a moisture and thermal pass over exterior walls, window and door openings and wet areas is aimed at the most expensive category of new-construction defect.
Resist buying every ancillary on the menu. Each of these answers something the standard scope structurally cannot; an addition that duplicates the inspector's own visual work spends the budget without aiming it.
What the inspector may not conclude, even about a new house
Buyers of new construction ask two questions that the standards specifically forbid answering, and understanding why saves an argument.
The first is “does this meet code?” Texas rule 22 TAC §535.227 provides that the inspector is not required to “determine code compliance, utility sources, or regulatory requirements except as specifically required” by the standards, and the Texas Real Estate Commission's own guidance states that it “does not require inspectors to inspect to any of the various building codes.” Arizona's board standard and ASHI's draw the same line. Your inspector can report that a handrail is missing; whether its absence violates the adopted code is the building department's determination.
The second is “how long will this last?” ASHI excludes determining “the age, life expectancy or remaining useful life of systems and components,” and InterNACHI excludes service life expectancy, future conditions and the cost of repairs.
The standards also exclude concealed and latent conditions across the board, which on a finished new house is a real limitation: everything the walls now cover was visible for a few days during construction and will not be visible again. That is the argument for phase inspections during construction, and it is an argument that only works before the drywall goes up.
Where this inspection buys you less than you expect
Two honest limits, and one mistake more common than either.
If the builder will only permit an inspection during the final walk-through, with a superintendent waiting and an hour on the clock, you are buying a constrained examination and should scope it accordingly. That is a contract problem rather than an inspection problem, and the time to solve it is when you sign. The final walk-through is a separate event with a separate purpose and is not a substitute.
If significant items will be completed after closing, the inspection cannot speak to them. Inspect what exists, list what does not, and get the incomplete work documented in writing with dates.
The common mistake runs the other way: skipping the inspection because the house is new and everything has a warranty. A new house has never been through a heating season, a storm, or a year of use, so nothing has had the chance to announce itself — and the warranty that is supposed to be the backstop requires you to identify and report defects, in writing, within periods that begin running the day you close.
What to do, and in what order
Reserve the right to an independent pre-closing inspection in the purchase agreement, before you sign. Everything else on this page depends on having it.
Schedule it after substantial completion but with enough days before closing for the builder to correct what is found, and for a re-inspection. The week of closing is too late to be useful; it converts findings into promises.
Order the sewer or septic evaluation and the radon measurement at the same time as the main inspection. Radon is a measurement over a period, so it has the longest lead time of anything you will order.
Convert the report into a written punch list addressed to the builder, not the superintendent personally, and get a written response naming what will be corrected and by when. Keep the report, photographs, punch list and response together: that file is your baseline for the first year, and you will open it again before the workmanship period closes. Read how an inspection report is written first, so you do not mistake severity language for a repair demand, and see the buyer's inspection page for the baseline this one builds on.
Frequently Asked Questions
Do I need a home inspection on a brand-new house?
Yes, and the reason is that no part of the building process produces one for you. The municipal inspection measures the work against a code that states its own purpose as providing “minimum standards,” its governing chapter typically disclaims any liability to you arising from it, and it ends in a pass or a correction notice rather than in a punch list. Nobody has examined the finished house on your behalf until you commission it.
The house passed its city inspections and has a certificate of occupancy. Isn't that enough?
No. A certificate of occupancy records that the scheduled stages were signed off; it does not warrant the house. New Mexico's construction inspection rule, 14.5.3 NMAC, states the point directly: “the issuance of a C/O shall not be construed as an approval of an unrecognized violation,” and the same provision notes the C/O does not certify compliance with fire, environmental or health requirements. It is a record of a process, not an assessment of condition.
What is the difference between a punch list and the inspection report?
The report describes conditions observed on a date and is written to a standard of practice. The punch list is what you build from it: the items you formally ask the builder to correct, in writing, with dates. The report is your evidence; the punch list is your demand. Keeping the two distinct matters later, because the report is the baseline against which any warranty claim in the first year is measured.
What additions are actually worth it on a new build?
Three, each because the standard scope structurally excludes it. A sewer scope or septic evaluation, since every standard excludes wastewater systems and a new lateral has never carried volume and was buried under months of equipment traffic. A radon measurement, since radon and other airborne hazards are excluded by rule and new construction carries no presumption of a low result. And a written re-inspection after the builder's corrections, since on a new build the builder performs the work rather than issuing a credit.
Will the inspector tell me whether the builder met code?
No. Texas rule 22 TAC §535.227 excludes determining code compliance except as the standards specifically require, and TREC's guidance states it does not require inspectors to inspect to any building code; the Arizona board standard and the ASHI standard draw the same line. An inspector reports what is observable. Code compliance is the building department's determination and is recorded in the permit file for the address.
Should I inspect before closing or wait for the builder warranty?
Before closing, and treat the warranty as the backstop rather than the plan. Items corrected before closing are simply corrected; the same items after closing become claims subject to notice requirements and deadlines that start running the day you close. The pre-closing inspection also creates the condition record that any later claim is argued from.
Is the final walk-through the same thing as this inspection?
No. The walk-through is a short buyer-and-builder review confirming that agreed work was done and that the house is in the expected condition; it is not performed to a standard of practice and it is not an examination of the systems. If the only access the builder offers is during the walk-through, you are buying a constrained inspection, and the right fix is to reserve independent pre-closing access in the purchase agreement.