LICT-Exterior common mistakes
LICT-Exterior · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
[Roof covering] Declares the roof 'serviceable' from the ground with binoculars instead of documenting an inspection method - or, at the other extreme, walks a steep-slope roof with no fall protection and no harness anchor.
Schedule pressure and ladder anxiety push inspectors to one of two shortcuts: a five-minute visual from the driveway, or a bold climb to 'look thorough'. Both produce an opinion the report cannot support, and the walk creates a liability exposure.
What to do instead
Adopt a written roof-access protocol: ladder at the eave with three points of contact for a perimeter/eave view, binoculars and a pole camera for field views, and roof walking only on pitches and weather conditions your policy allows. Record the method and its limits in the report ('inspected from eave level and ground; field shingles not traversed').
[Water management] Signs off on a re-roof or new siding installation without checking kick-out flashing at wall-to-roof terminations, step flashing at sidewalls, chimney counterflashing, or the ledger flashing at a deck attachment.
Attention gravitates to the large, visible components - shingle colour, siding courses, gutter runs - while flashing is small, often hidden behind the finished surface, and requires the inspector to think in water paths rather than in components.
What to do instead
Use a water-path checklist rather than a component checklist: roof-to-wall, roof-to-sidewall, chimney, skylight curb, window and door heads, deck ledger, and grade-to-wall. For each, photograph the detail and note whether flashing is present, visible, correctly lapped, and terminated with a kick-out where required.
[Site drainage] Writes 'grading appears to slope away from the foundation' without measuring, and omits downspout discharge points, swales between lots, and any negative grade within the first few feet of the wall.
Grading looks correct in a photograph and 'appears to' feels like safe hedging, so the inspector never puts a level or slope gauge on the ground. Downspouts are treated as plumbing trivia rather than the single largest point-source of roof water at the foundation.
What to do instead
Measure and record: place a 4-foot level on the soil perpendicular to the wall, note the fall per foot or percent, and record the distance each downspout discharges from the foundation. Photograph discharge outlets with a tape or a landmark in frame so the distance is verifiable.
[Moisture detection] Reads a thermal camera image as a moisture finding, calling a cool patch 'active water intrusion' without confirming it with a moisture meter or identifying a plausible water path.
Thermal cameras produce vivid, persuasive images, and a cool area feels like proof. In reality, cool patches come from air leakage, missing insulation, thermal bridging, shade, and evaporative cooling as readily as from water.
What to do instead
Treat thermal anomalies as hypotheses, not findings. Confirm with a pin or pinless moisture meter at the same location, state the delta-T and interior/exterior conditions at the time of the scan, and report the anomaly plus the confirmation result. If you cannot confirm, describe it as an anomaly warranting further evaluation.
[Structure] Groups all wall and foundation cracking into one description - 'some cracking noted' - without measuring width, sketching the pattern, or distinguishing shrinkage, settlement, and stair-step movement in masonry.
Cracks are numerous and the inspector is behind schedule, so they get collapsed into a single sentence. Pattern recognition (diagonal at corners, stair-step in block, vertical at mid-span, horizontal at floor line) is a skill that requires deliberate practice.
What to do instead
For every reported crack, record width (with a crack gauge or feeler), length, orientation, location by elevation and storey, and pattern type. Sketch or photograph with a scale. Note whether it is fresh, painted over, or offset at the face, and recommend monitoring or engineering review based on the recorded data rather than on impression.
[Report writing] Fills the report with adjectives - 'good condition', 'minor issue', 'adequate drainage' - with no location, no reference standard, and no recommended action, so the client cannot tell what was seen or what to do about it.
Adjectives feel professional and are fast to write. Writing a defensible finding forces the inspector to commit to a condition, a location, and a recommendation, which is slower and creates an apparent record of responsibility.
What to do instead
Use a fixed four-part sentence for every finding: component and location, observed condition, implication if left, and recommended action with a timeframe. Replace 'minor' with a measurable description. Where no standard exists, say so explicitly rather than inventing a threshold.
[Photo documentation] Submits a photo set that is either too thin (one wide shot per elevation), unlabelled and unsequenced, or missing the close-up that shows the actual deficiency.
Photos are taken as memory aids while walking, not as evidence for a reader who was never there. No one plans the pairing of wide, medium, and close images, so the wide shot shows a wall and the close shot shows a stain with no way to connect them.
What to do instead
Use a fixed capture sequence per deficiency: wide (locate on the building), medium (locate on the component), close (show the condition, with a scale reference such as a tape or coin). Number images and reference the numbers in the written finding so the report and the photo set are cross-indexed.
[Codes and standards] Cites a code section from memory without the edition or jurisdiction, or applies today's requirement retroactively to a building constructed decades earlier and calls the existing condition a violation.
Code references make a report sound authoritative, and recall of familiar sections feels reliable. The distinction between the code in force at construction, current code, and a safety concern is subtle and rarely taught explicitly.
What to do instead
Never cite a section you have not looked up in the edition adopted by the local authority. State edition and jurisdiction when you cite. Separate three categories in the report: 'compliant with the code in force at construction', 'meets current code', and 'safety concern regardless of code'.
[Site safety] Works alone on an extension ladder at the eave, opens an exterior electrical panel without confirming disconnect, and scrapes or cuts suspect exterior cladding and paint without respiratory protection or a hazard assumption.
Exterior work compresses many hazards into a short visit, and habituation sets in quickly: the ladder was fine last week, the panel 'looked off', the siding was 'just cement board'. Pre-1980 buildings are routinely treated as if they were modern.
What to do instead
Run a documented pre-site hazard assessment and carry the PPE it names. Use a two-person rule or a secured ladder for eave work, verify de-energization with a tester before opening any panel, and assume exterior cladding, paint, and sealants on pre-1980 buildings contain asbestos or lead until sampling says otherwise - do not disturb, and note the assumption in the report.
[Scope and client communication] Gives a verbal 'it looks fine to me' or a rough repair cost on site, offers an opinion outside the agreed scope, and leaves the report without a limitation statement or a description of what was not inspected.
Clients ask direct questions during the walk, and refusing feels unhelpful or evasive. Verbal reassurance costs nothing in the moment and is remembered by the client far longer than the written qualifications that arrive a day later.
What to do instead
Agree the scope in writing before the visit, including concealed areas and any component excluded. Use a prepared deflection for on-site questions ('I don't give conclusions on site - it will be in the written report with its limitations'). End every report with what was not inspected, why, and what further evaluation is recommended.