I’m curious where other people think the line is between a building being considered an “Outbuilding” vs. “another home” to inspect.
It’s common for older homes in Austin to have a back-house kind of structure. Some of them are essentially insulated garages with a foundation, electric and a small HVAC system.Something like that is easy to add-on with the “Optional - Outbuilding” section of the promulgated form we have to use in Texas.
But other times they are more like a detached apartment unit with the whole 9 yards - kitchen appliances, bathrooms, water heater, hvac, attic, etc. Sometimes it feels like the client is getting a great deal to add that on for an extra $100 or whatever.
(Related side question I just thought of - at what point does a garage, when being renovated/updated, become considered “livable space” and part of the square footage of the property?)
Even if the additional building is considered “livable space” and part of the square footage that we provide a cost for, square footage doesnt seem to directly translate into the amount of work I have to do. For example, inspecting two 1500 sq. ft. homes seems to be far more work than inspecting one 3000 sq ft home.
Additionally, It becomes really hard to list everything I find throughout the additional building (electric, appliances,HVAC,plumbing, roof,etc) in the one “Outbuilding” section. Writing a report for essentially two buildings in one becomes very tedious and time consuming.
On the other hand, sometimes the additional building really isnt much more work, even with all the usual components of a home.
Is there a line where you guys say, after arriving to the property, “ehh, sorry Mr.Bob, this additional building is considered a whole other home and I have to charge you more than I expected to inspect it”