On a new construction inspection in Arizona I found a section of a concrete tile roof that “looked” wrong. This is the small section of roof above the entryway. It appears the tile does not extend over the flashing. A lot of reading hasn’t led me to any practice or standard I can point to. I plan on writing it to say “Tile roof underlayment exposed. Water penetration is possible as the tile does not overlap the roof flashing. Recommend repair or replacement as required.”.
That narrative sounds good.
I would just add “water penetration and (damage to the underlayment) is possible”.
1 Like
Maybe a missing course? “The tile appears to be missing a course exposing the underlayment”?
2 Likes
It’s what I thought when I saw it, too, Brian… 
2 Likes
It’s a new construction, expect unexpected 
2 Likes
I’m learning that quickly, this one looked pretty good at first
Reports for new builds are often much longer than older homes.
It would be interesting to see a picture straight up from the drip edge (but a bit back) to see what that sidewall flashing’s configuration is. I’ve been fooled before at that intersection. I agree it looks terrible but the installer didn’t seem to be hurting for lateral space - the overlap at the outer/rake edge is large and the tiles could have been shifted closer towards the house if needed.
2 Likes
Are there weep holes under the edge of that flashing? Or is this over a block wall?