Will I Get Busted For Unpermitted Patio By Inspector?

[Juu]

Hi guys, I'm new here and potentially getting a solar system soon. I have a concern that you guys might be able to give some advice on.

I have an extended area (enclosed patio) at the back of my house when I bought the house in Lake Forest, CA. It is unpermitted. My electric panel is located in that area. If I want to go solar, will the inspector have me tear the patio down instead? What if I move the electric panel somewhere outside of my house? Since it needs to be upgraded for solar panels anyway.

What will the inspector be looking for?

Any advice will be highly appreciated.

[nwdiver]

Hi guys, I'm new here and potentially getting a solar system soon. I have a concern that you guys might be able to give some advice on.

I have an extended area (enclosed patio) at the back of my house when I bought the house in Lake Forest, CA. It is unpermitted. My electric panel is located in that area. If I want to go solar, will the inspector have me tear the patio down instead? What if I move the electric panel somewhere outside of my house? Since it needs to be upgraded for solar panels anyway.

What will the inspector be looking for?

Any advice will be highly appreciated.

Every area and every inspector is different and I can only speak to my personal experience but every inspector I've ever encountered only inspected what they were there to inspect. They generally don't go hunting.

[sdold]

^^^ That's been my experience as well on three or four home jobs, except that they were required to look for CO alarms on all inspection visits.

[Sunking]

They can only inspect what was applied for in the permit. Otherwise they can be sued. It would be a conflict of interest.

[inetdog]

One word of caution: The inspector is not likely to complain directly about your unpermitted patio. But, especially with your service panel located there, he may take action on any active safety hazard which is part of the unpermitted construction. It could come down to whether the work would have been code compliant if a permit had been issued and the work inspected.

[NewBostonConst]

When you say "electric panel" are you talking about your main breaker box? Breaker boxes can be enclosed.

If you are talking about your meter box they need to be outside. Meters are a way to disconnect the house from the grid in an emergency and need to be accessible to utility workers to read and work on the meter.

On a solar install the inspector will be looking at the meter and disconnect. I don't think he would allow them to be enclosed? I don't live in an area with screened in porches so others might say this is ok?

[ButchDeal]

An inspector is very unlikely to look up all the permits for your home to know if your deck is permitted or not.

That said if your deck is NOT built to code (many are pretty obviously not) then he may notice the code violation which is not the same as noticing that it was not permitted .

[NorthRick]

An inspector is very unlikely to look up all the permits for your home to know if your deck is permitted or not.

That said if your deck is NOT built to code (many are pretty obviously not) then he may notice the code violation which is not the same as noticing that it was not permitted .

Something similar happened to my friend. He was having a garage built on the side of his house. The city refused to give the certificate of occupancy until a code violation on the deck was corrected (steps were too close to the power meter). The deck had nothing to do with the garage build but one of the inspectors out to look at the garage reported it.

I built a shed in my backyard that was big enough that it required a permit - which I got. I taped the permit to the house close to where the shed was going. About half way through construction I get a letter from the city saying I was building without a permit and would be fined. Turns out an inspector driving by, and not the one who had done my foundation inspection, saw the build but not the permit and reported it. A phone call cleared it up, but both incidents taught me that they are always looking for something to get you on.

[J.P.M.]

Something similar happened to my friend. He was having a garage built on the side of his house. The city refused to give the certificate of occupancy until a code violation on the deck was corrected (steps were too close to the power meter). The deck had nothing to do with the garage build but one of the inspectors out to look at the garage reported it.

I built a shed in my backyard that was big enough that it required a permit - which I got. I taped the permit to the house close to where the shed was going. About half way through construction I get a letter from the city saying I was building without a permit and would be fined. Turns out an inspector driving by, and not the one who had done my foundation inspection, saw the build but not the permit and reported it. A phone call cleared it up, but both incidents taught me that they are always looking for something to get you on.

On the garage, the violation was already on the books. No inspector was necessary to find it. Kind of like the librarian doesn't need to go to your house to know you have an overdue book if you want to borrow another one.

The second one sounds like an overzealous inspector trying to be more Catholic than the Pope.

But, it can't hurt to expect the unexpected.

[malba2366]

Is the electrical panel in the unpermitted area? If the deck looks properly built and the electrical panel is properly wired then the inspector likely won't dig any deeper.

[malba2366]

They can only inspect what was applied for in the permit. Otherwise they can be sued. It would be a conflict of interest.

That is not correct...building inspectors are allowed in most places to enter your property to look for permit violations or unsafe construction. You can not sue them for "conflict of interest" as their legal interest is to maintain the safety of buildings.

[SunEagle]

That is not correct...building inspectors are allowed in most places to enter your property to look for permit violations or unsafe construction. You can not sue them for "conflict of interest" as their legal interest is to maintain the safety of buildings.

It really depends on the state, county & city codes which will determine what a building inspector can and cannot do. There are just too many different rules and regulations to make a blanket statement.

[Ampster]

Check the code in your city or county. In my county a permit is not required for a deck which is not higher than 15 inches. Likewise for a patio cover no higher than 12 feet. Your mileage may vary.

[Sunking]

That is not correct...building inspectors are allowed in most places to enter your property to look for permit violations or unsafe construction. You can not sue them for "conflict of interest" as their legal interest is to maintain the safety of buildings.

No big conflict of interest. If previous work was inspected and passed before, and they comeback and say it is not, will get them sued big time as they would be responsible.

[J.P.M.]

No big conflict of interest. If previous work was inspected and passed before, and they comeback and say it is not, will get them sued big time as they would be responsible.

It would seem to me that a building inspector would only have knowledge of whether or not an improvement on a property is permitted is if the inspector reviews all the property records, including the original approved plans for the property development a priori, and is thus prepared to compare what's currently on the property to what the AHJ thinks is on the property via the building record and/or other documents.

As strange as it may sound, such records may/may not exist. One anecdotal example: The original plans/permits and any records dealing with the original construction of my current home do not exist anywhere. As for the other records of property improvements, I have more stuff on my property than the county (the AHJ) has. The county had all that once, as well as docs/backup/permits for all required improvements, but they purge files after a few months. Records and statements of building permits having been issued as required for all subsequent improvements (as best as I can figure out) do exist with the AHJ, but no backup and no originals or copies exist with them.

Anyway, it's certainly possible but I'd kind of doubt a building inspector would dig that deep unless or until (s)he found something very odd or very dangerous and then went looking for building permits issued to the property. If it's a mess, or things look really dangerous, or FUBAR, the AHJ might get curious.

SK: As the OP writes, the existing patio is unpermitted. Unless the work had a permit issued and the work was not done per the design plans/calcs., or was not inspected/passed but subsequently done anyway without required inspections/approvals, the work was not reviewed or inspected, or approved. If that's a correct statement of the state of affairs, they (the AHJ) can't "come back" because they aren't "unapproving" something the OP can't prove they once approved, meaning they probably can't be sued for changing their mind. There might be some question that the AHJ dropped the ball on follow through, but often building permits have a lifespan of a year or so and after that, they expire and a new permit or a time extension of the expired permit must usually be applied for.

Without proof such as an approved job record signoff that the AHJ passed something, they (the AHJ) probably can't be sued for rescinding an approval that cannot be found or verified as ever having existed in the first place.

One question I'd have: How does the OP know the work is unpermitted ? Been to the AHJ ? Saying it's unpermitted - if that's a correct statement of affairs - would seem to imply someone, the OP, the prior owner, a neighbor, maybe even the AHJ and/or public record knows, or at least is of the opinion the improvement requires a permit, and that even though required, one does not exist, and that no permit makes it unreviewed/unapproved.

Which raises another question: Maybe it is unpermitted, but what if a permit was not required for the improvement when it was done ? Would the AHJ have a record that someone asked if a particular improvement does/does not need a permit ? Another example and maybe similar circumstances to what Ampster writes: I just replaced ~ 1,400 ft.^2 of deck on my house. If it was 30" or less off the ground it would not have needed any permitting/review/approval whatsoever. (It's on a slope with most of it > 30" above grade - the permit requirement cutoff height around here - and even though it's replacing an existing and slightly larger but otherwise similar structure, it required a permit and review/approval and it got all of that).

I'm also replacing ~ 280 ft.^2 of pergola on the deck. The pergola will be attached to the house. That pergola, strange as it may seem, does not require a building permit, nor was it part of the permit scope for the deck.

A third general question that's a bit unrelated: If a permit was required and not issued, where, if at all, does property title insurance come into play if a permit for the work was not issued and the AHJ gets porky about after the build compliance ? If the title co. is somehow liable, how would the title co. know or be able to verify that such unapproved work was done before the property changed hands to the current owner ?