Spewey you are 100% wrong regarding inspections - at least with respect to the state of Maryland. A buyer doesn't have to negotiate anything with the seller when it comes to the inspection report. It is the buyer's sole discretion to determine whether the house is still acceptable and whether he or she wants to follow through with the sale. Here is the verbatim language for the General Inspection Contingency Clause for use with all Maryland Association of Realtors' Regional Sales Contracts: "This contract is contingent until 9 p.m. on the _____ Day after the Date of Ratification ("Deadline") for satisfactory inspections of the property by the Buyer, a home inspection firm and/or other representative(s) at the Buyer's discretion and expense. The Seller will have all utilities in service at the time of inspection(s). In the event of an unsatisfactory inspection, AS DETERMINED BY BUYER IN HIS SOLE DISCRETION, BUYER MAY, BY NOTICE TO SELLER, DECLARE THIS CONTRACT NULL AND VOID IN WHICH CASE BUYER'S DEPOSIT SHALL BE REFUNDED IN FULL. (emphasis by way of all caps by me) In the event such Notice is not given by the Deadline, this contract will remain in full force and effect."

It looks like additional useless bureaucracy, foisted on these agents. I had a mountain of such useless forms. Soon they'll add a form to disclose that the house is on a street and have the new buyer sign off that they realize there is a street there and on said street travels automobiles that could possibly run over children, the elderly or wayward dogs, not to mention pollute the air in front of the house, make noise, and possibly OMG park in front of the house. Then there's the future form to disclose that critters and varmints could possibly trespass in the back yard of the house and leave their droppings, eat the fruit off your trees, skunk spray your dog, kill your cats, possibly come into your house by way of doggy door and otherwise terrorize you. And don't forget the disclosure form for letting you know that you have other humans who live next to you, in front of you and behind you, commonly referred to as "neighbors" and that these neighbors could possibly offend you with their cooking odors, their noisy parties, their scanty attire, their unkempt gardens, and their dogs who might poop in your front yard. I'm sure there are other "disclosures" I've not thought of but that the California government is discussing at this very moment, all in the name of giving me, the home buyer, as much heads up as possible about all the nuisances that may face me in my life here in the beautiful Golden State.

Again, Brickeye offers irrelevant straw man arguments to support his untenable positions. He said: "I put those examples forward to show exactly how hard it can be to enforce codes." The reality is that once a new construction or remodeling project has passed an existing code inspection, it does not need to be brought up to future code levels. Code compliance that was required at the time of the inspection is all that is required. No one is debating that. No one suggested otherwise. So your reasoning here is baseless. Brickeye further stated: "I do know of jurisdictions that revoke COs at sale of the property and require a new inspection to grant a new CO each time ownership changes." Then Brickeye does not understand the authority under construction and existing building codes that gives the code official just that power. In fact, it happens more often than you would think. It is VERY common for private home inspectors to spot code violations that were missed after the issuance of a CO on, for example, new construction homes, only to have the CO revoked when a code violation has been found that may have been missed in a previous inspection or when the CO was issued based on fradulent information provided by the owner.. In fact, the building codes require rescining a CO in such circumstances. The current owner is made aware of the problem and required to come into compliance. Happens more often that you think. But all this completely irrelevant to the issue. The issue is, that buildings with previously valid COs can fall into a state of disrepair to the point that they become a hazard to the public well being. When that happens, maintenance codes apply, which can a do allow the government to force owners to take actions to correct them. This can be done with or without the permission of the property owner or by getting an adminstrative "search" warrant to enter the property to make inspection when probable casue has been shown to a presiding judge. Properties can be permanently condemned, temporarily condemned until repairs are made, or civil judgements sought against the building's owner. Commercial Builidng and Fire Codes do not require a warrant to search a privately owned commercial building if they are open to use by the public and are inspected during normal business hours, and Codes mandate that commercial building owners must make their buildings accessible for annual maintenance inspections. So maintenance inspections on private structures are not without precedent nor basis in law. Brickeye further commented: "Last time I looked insurance comanies are private enterprises and seem to look out for themselves pretty well." Insurance companies DO look out for themselves when they insure a property or are made aware of existing maintenance problems....but insurers do not routinely make safety inspections of private homes nor are they made aware of hazardous conditions which violate the terms of the insurance agreement by fradulent homeowners, and that is where the problem lies. If the insurer knows that a property is in a state of disrepair, they will insist that repairs be made or one's insurance coverage revoked. If the homeowner doesn't tell the insurance he is violating the terms of the insurance agreement, how does the insurer know? He doesn't, which is why insurance companies FULLY SUPPORT the use of routine maintenance inspections by Code Departments for private rental and other units. It saves them and their majority policy and stockholders money and protects them from paying out on fradulent claims. Deliquent owners who have no mortgages also are likely not to carry insurance on their structures. This becomes a public problem when, for example, there is a fire or building collpase and it is up to the taxpayer to pay for the cleanup. The cry and clamor that government has no business protecting it's citizens from irresponsible property owners is without merit. Government inspections protect the public, protect insurers, and protect other private owners who properties can be devalued by delapidated and dangerous properties. The anarchy that Brickeye suggests is pie-in-the sky and actually the most irresponsible and absurd position, and why Codes were developed in the first place: to protect the public from those who simply just don't care about anyone else but themselves.

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.