Further - if you never have a problem the value of the inspection is zero. If you do have a problem the value of an inspection after the problem has occurred is minimal. The value of an inspection that prevents a problem is something - but how to quantify that is difficult.
Topographic maps, flood risk maps, wildfire risk maps, maps of services nearby (substations, transformer locations, storm drains etc), easements, special planning/protection zones, surrounding area zoning etc.
These should all inform your decision. I've vetoed houses because they back onto nature/wildlife reserves, are too near substations, are in flood risk areas etc
Why is this a bad thing? To a naive person, it might seem like a good thing, because you get to look out into a forest rather than someone else's yard.
Essentially because nobody was allowed to trim/maintain the trees due to it being a natural habitat. It's nice to look at but when a 60m tree falls in a storm and wipes out your house it's not great. The reserve was also on the north side of the property and down here in the southern hemisphere that means that every year as the trees grow your house gets more and more shade with accompanying maintenance issues.
I should add that people may weigh that up and be happy to live there, but people should be aware of the risk/benefits before they buy. Natural light/property orientation and shading is a major issue that most people forget about.
If you personally know any architects or general contractors in the residential market, they should be able to recommend someone.
It's all pretty silly, really, especially considering the hottest markets, where you either want a house or you don't, and if you you'll probably pay top dollar with no contingencies and possibly not even your own inspection... since the seller knows if you don't buy it someone else is in line right behind you. Most of the time, houses sold this way aren't in significantly worse shape than those that are fully inspected and repairs made before the transaction.
Overall, this has led me to believe that, in most cases, pre-sale inspections don't really benefit anyone, especially since it's so difficult for buyers to seek E&O recourse/damages against either an inspector or seller after the sale closes.
We took that list back to the sellers (who were then legally required to provide a copy of that report to other future buyers), and we simply waived the little stuff. We wanted them to fix the big stuff. They didn’t want to do that, so they came down on the price by a considerable amount. He saved us tens of thousands of dollars.
Now, given the problems we’ve had since then which the inspector didn’t identify, we would have paid back more than what he saved us — Except for insurance coverage. USAA is really good about paying out on claims, when many other insurance companies would weasel out.
We love this house, we love this neighborhood. If we had to do it over again, I think we would have pressed harder to get even the minor problems fixed or to get the seller to come down even further on price. But I think we probably would have still bought this house.
I don’t blame the inspector for anything he missed. Most of those problems were well disguised, until such time as there was an actual catastrophic failure. He couldn’t have known. If I knew his name and contact details, I would recommend him to future buyers in the Austin area.
And we’re definitely sticking with USAA.