Hi all - we're in the process of purchasing a home. It's in an area with mostly historic homes and we thought the home was from the mid 1900s, but it turns out it was basically fully rebuilt with only original foundation left. Everything else is ~25 years old. That said, there's a laundry list of inspection items that were raised that leave us a little concerned and are hoping for those with more experience to weigh in on whether you would proceed.
The house was disclaimed as having an older (but good condition) roof and an older (but good condition) water heater. It turns out the roof has had multiple leaks that have been patched, and on top of it has multiple areas where water has started to leak through and rot siding, essentially needing an immediate full replacement to be insurable.
The water heater is much worse than expected, with significant corrosion and as our inspector put it "risk of imminent leakage." It will need replacement.
The foundation itself was noted as having issues - several beams noted as improperly supported resulting in minor floor sag, and then some other issues such as sill plates not properly anchored to the foundation.
On top of the major issues, basically every system in the home is near end of life, and there are additionally a littany of minor concerns that feel like deferred homeowner maintenance (things like shower diverters that simply don't function at all, lightswitches that don't function at all, and issues with major appliances including washer, fridge, and oven.
The house is priced comparably to much better maintained houses in the neighborhood, but more than cost we are concerned that this is a pattern of deferred maintenance. Would you proceed with this purchase if sellers made reasonable concessions on pricing during due dilligence to fairly address these concerns? Or would you keep looking?
[link] [comments]
source https://www.reddit.com/r/RealEstate/comments/1k7dmrx/would_you_proceed_concerning_inspection_findings/
Comments
Post a Comment