I think it depends on how involved you have been and what kind of overall technical skill level you have. If you have any concerns, it's likely money well spent

I did. It gave me some peace of mind at a stressful time.

If an engineer or builder did the inspection, maybe, but many 'home inspectors' know little about structure or systems. I'm not disparaging their profession in total, but there isn't a rigorous set of standards for them as their might be for something like architects or engineers.

When I talked to my building inspector he mentioned the same as ichabod mentioned. He just mentioned I have to check for quality. He has the rest covered. We have solid inspectors in our county though.

So you put out the big bucks for a true custom home build, which is presumably inspected by governmental authorities at many stages, and you're still not sure if you're being shortchanged or not? Maybe hire two inspectors, so you can balance them out in case one of them is missing something or is in cahoots with your builder.

Since home inspectors generally do not do destructive inspections(removing wall material/etc.) the codes inspectors are going to see much more than the HI would be able to see.

That leaves quality and craftsmanship. The HI may know more about those areas, but by the same token, a competent builder/supervisor will also be able to do the same.

If you hire an inspector for your construction period, what is his role and authority? Can he direct the contractor and his subs? Does he only report to you (owner) periodically and you direct the contractor and his subs? Or is his/her role and responsibility something else?

First time poster here, long time lurker. I felt very compelled to respond when I saw this post.

Absolutely do it, no question. I assume you're referring to a one-time post-construction inspection. It's the best ~$350 you'll spend during your build. The inspector will find something (or multiple items) which needs correction and you'll be glad you did the inspection.

I recommend doing some searching online for the best local independent inspector (read the reviews). Don't just hire the first person your realtor or builder suggests.

I think it would depend on the situation, in my opinion. For example in my situation, it would be a waste...I'm able to visit the site almost daily, and every few weeks a buddy of mine who is a builder comes and inspects everything with me. If I lived away from the build, I would absolutely want a third party that isn't the architect or the builder acting as my proxy...somebody to show up every couple of weeks, look at the progress, ask questions, etc. I know the architect is in theory supposed to do this (if you pay him), but if I lived away from the build I would not feel comfortable trusting the builder or architect without having a third party verify things.

By the time the house is finished, an inspection isn't going to be all that helpful.

If you are worried about quality and accuracy at milestones, then just pay your architect for full design services that include being your direct agent.

I would go further and have inspections along the way. In some areas, county inspections are cursory at best. I built my own house. After the basement slab, my next inspection was Rough Framing, Rough Electric, and Rough Plumbing. I built an entire shell and wired it and plumbed it. They were on-site for three minutes, and didn't even shut the engine off on their truck! They also don't do plans reviews here, so they have no idea if my house is engineered properly.

My experience with county/city inspectors is that most of them are retired from a specific trade. If your inspector was a former electrician, that's what he'll home in on. I'm sure larger municipalities have more specialists and perform more thorough inspections, but most governments don't have the resources to perform an exhaustive inspection on every step of every house. The last time I hired an inspector when we bought a house, he was on-site for 4 hours- a lot different than 3 minutes!

Once the sheetrock is up, shingles are on and concrete is poured ... there really isn't much to see. It's too late for an inspector to check the quality of construction. I think it would be a waste of time, money and good will with your builder.

I would not see the point of wasting $$$ on a home inspector if you have a building inspector that needs to come and pass your home at certain intervals in order to continue on with the work. Our building inspector was a nit-picking a**hole. But, they are there to protect you. Where I am, home inspectors aren't really licensed and I wouldn't expect them to be as cognizant of building codes as a building inspector.

Where I live I have to have a building inspector at various points during the process. I think this is true most anywhere. As long as you follow the building inspector guidelines and their in-person inspections -- that is truly what you need.

Apparently you didn't read my story about the county inspector that spent three minutes inspecting an entire house, rough electric, and rough plumbing. Maybe they are nit-picky where you are, but not around here.

Whether a local building inspector is good or bad, he/she has no obligation to look for or inform you of defects especially those that are contractural rather than code related. A building inspector doesn't work for you.

In the final analysis, a homeowner is responsible for quality assurance unless he/she has assigned that task to a consultant who has free access to the job site and will be notified in time to inspect the work at the appropriate times. The best time is just before the building inspector inspects.

In my opinion a new home inspection is usually about as effective as flushing the money down the toilet.

Home inspectors are good in home sales because of the "as is" nature of those sales. Typically inspectors find items that you would find yourself as you lived in the property. In a typical sale you then have some leverage (the deal) to get those items addressed or vacate the contract.

None of these things exist in a typical build. The house is usually not "as is" so the builder is already on the hook for those things, so finding them before is not as important. You have little to no leverage once he finds things, unless I am mistaken, most builders have a payment date at the CO, so unless you have a retainage clause the builder can just tell you to go pound sand. Your only leverage are things that you already have, and keep after the close.

You are quite literally hiring a home inspector after you buy the house.

People know that throwing salt over their shoulder doesn't really do anything either. They still do it, even though it is a waste of effort. It makes them feel like things aren't out of their control. That's the same reason they get a useless home inspection on a new build.

If the architect provides full services, then at least they act with the authority of the owner on the jobsite, and that means they can at least exert some control there. No other 3rd party is gonna manage that trick. If you're dealing with a tract builder who owns the land, there is nothing that can be done to make anything happen with that type of build. If the builder doesn't want it to happen.

Well, where I live I guess the building inspectors are held to a higher standard and in turn, hold us to higher standards. In the case of mushcreek, that sucks for you. Our building inspectors can't even pass electrical. They can look and see that it's done but in the end it needs to be finalized and approved by an electrical inspector. We even have separate plumbing inspectors. If a building inspector doesn't take the time to look over the house properly then what the hell are you paying them for? (Our inspections are included in our building permit fees) And yes, while ours have no obligation to advise of contractual defects, you best believe it's their job to look for and advise us of all other defects. Sounds like things are way different down there.

At our new build i see the reports left by the building inspectors and they seem to catch a lot and ask a lot of questions.

Well, when you consider that our building permit was only $400, including inspections, I guess you get what you pay for. They were much more thorough when I lived in FL, especially right after Hurricane Andrew.

City inspectors are concerned with code enforcement not contract document enforcement.

mushcreek $400 permit fees? Wow. Our's are in the thousands.

But yes, JDS you are right. Code, not contracts.

Still not sure I would pay for a home inspector.

Remember- building codes, and the inspectors that enforce them are the MINIMUM standard; many people on here go well past code. Our house exceeds code in pretty much every way.

I doubt that many home inspectors would know the differences in why a slab might be reinforced with welded wire fabric, steel mesh or #4 bars in both directions. It would be a complete waste of money, plus a lot of job site confusion, to have a home inspector on the site, IMO.

If one really wants a second set of experienced eyes to view construction progress at critical times, hire the architect or engineer who were involved with the project at the outset.

If one really wants a second set of experienced eyes to view construction progress at critical times, hire the architect or engineer who were involved with the project at the outset.

Agree.

Ichabod, VIrgil -- of course those vested eyes may simply want to approve, since it went through their offices, yeah?

Artemis, no, this is not the case at all, unless possibly the architect or engineer are employees of the builder, in which case there is an inherent conflict of interest.

If the owner retained the architect or engineer, then these professionals are agents of the owner, and their only responsibility is the owner's best interests.

The local building official generally will require site inspections of all of the major components, including; the footing, foundation, building framing, electrical, mechanical and plumbing. I have never see problems with these items in new construction. The building official will not inspect items such as siding and shingle installation or interior finish work.

Most general contractors hire subcontractors for the majority of the work and do not adequately supervise their subcontractors. I routinely report significant defects on new construction. Most of the items are related to flashing and siding/cladding installation. The installation of siding, roofing and flashing details are specified by the manufacturer and must be followed to insure performance of the material. Materials that are not installed to manufacturers specifications have the potential to fail. If the product fails and was not properly installed, your warranty generally will be void. Most new stone veneer I see is not properly flashed and is a major problem waiting to happen. I also frequently see LP Smart Side and fiber cement siding with improper spacing and flashing at the butt joints and cut edges that are not painted and primed. Another major culprit is the finish grade is often times too close to or touching these materials, which will eventually lead to rot/deterioration.