The Deck That Was Never Permitted

A standards-of-practice inspection is a visual, non-invasive, performance-based assessment. Within that scope: the missing hanger nails, the absence of visible ledger flashing, the baluster spacing, and the guard height are all observable conditions I can report. The guard at 36 in and balusters at 5 in are worth flagging because current typical requirements call for a 36 in minimum guard and baluster openings that will not pass a 4 in sphere; a 5 in gap is a fall hazard for small children, and I can state that as an observation without pretending to be a code official. Beyond scope: determining whether the ledger connection is adequate. Lag screws at 16 in centres may or may not be sufficient depending on ledger length, joist spacing, siding type, and whether the fasteners engage the rim joist or only sheathing. Verifying that requires load calculations or an engineer's review. Similarly, I cannot confirm footing depth or soil bearing. My report should distinguish clearly between what I saw and what needs a specialist, and I should not certify structural adequacy I have not evaluated.

I would decline the framing politely and redirect to what I actually know. I do not have access to the permit file, I have not verified the agent's claim, and permit status is a legal and administrative question, not an inspection finding. Writing 'unpermitted deck' in a report would be repeating hearsay as fact and could expose me to a defamation or negligence claim if it is wrong. What I can say is that the deck's visible construction details warrant verification of permit history and any required inspections, and that the buyer should confirm this with the local authority. Said in front of the seller, that language is neutral and factual. I would also make clear that permit status and structural adequacy are separate issues: even a permitted deck can have missing hanger nails. Keeping those threads distinct protects everyone and keeps the report defensible. If the agent pushes, I explain that my report describes conditions, and I do not editorialize about permits on anyone's say-so.

For the ledger: state that the ledger is fastened to the rim joist with lag screws at approximately 16 in centres, that flashing at the top of the ledger was not visible, and that the adequacy of the connection and the presence of proper flashing could not be determined by visual inspection. Recommend evaluation by a qualified deck contractor or structural engineer, and note that concealed water intrusion at an unflashed ledger is a common cause of rot in the rim joist. For the guard: state the measured height and baluster spacing, and note that the spacing exceeds the 4 in sphere commonly used as a child-safety benchmark, creating a fall-through hazard. This wording is defensible because every clause is tied to something I measured or saw, the limitations are explicit, and the recommendations name who should act. It avoids declaring the deck unsafe or the connection inadequate, which I cannot support, while still giving the buyer the information they need to make a decision. The report protects the client and the inspector at the same time.