Subscribe to Answers
Maria Gilda Racelis Normally not unless the tree roots impact the structure of the property.
Maria Gilda Racelis
Have never seen home inspector made reference except to clean the leaves droppings from gutter. City of San Jose has a disclosure on sidewalk trees..
San Jose, CA
Maria Gilda Racelis
Good morning Maria. Hell no, but that isn't always the case. Have seen many inspection reports that bring it up, it just doesn't make any sense.
Trees should be included if they pose any danger of damaging the structure or are a safety issue
Not every tree on the property, but ones that are affecting foundation and roofline.
Only if it is laying on the roof.
They are of significant value, much more than many of the things that are inspected.
Only if they have the potential to damage any of the structure.
Maria, this is very good question.
No, they are not mechanical...
Only if it is causing foundation problems are limbs that are scrapping the roof and affecting the shingles.
Only if it's growing in the house and has a purpose other than standing there.
Only if they decide to hug a house
Most trees are not covered. I guess a buyer could have a arborist to look at the trees.
Only if they post a threat to the property or to safety.
Maria Gilda Racelis usually, my home inspector does go over it if the trees are close to home and even if there is a possibility of them falling on house.
Though never about the health of the trees - to best of my knowledge.
Should they? A good idea.
As a non agent, but just a home owner, I'd say yes IF it impacts the integrity of house and driveway. I've had many home buyers who were told by home inspector that they should remove some trees (and they did so before moving in).
If the tree poses a danger to the home, such as roots are starting to crack the foundation, then yes, I think it would be appropriate to mention it in the report. I have had this on a couple of inspections.
Inspectors typically check the trees/shrubbery that are close to/touching the house. They always put in the report that those should be pruned so they do not touch the house; in fact, I think they usually recommend a 6" gap. Bugs and water could impact siding/etc if they aren't kept pruned.
I'm of the view that it should be called out if the trees are too close to the property, pose a threat to the property or the roots may intrude.
Out here I have recently seen inspectors call out for having a BRAND NEW (less than two months old) sewer line inspected because tree roots may have compromised it. Lovely boiler plate that caused the buyer to spend a few hundred to inspect a brand new line.
In my own transactions, I've had insurance companies require trees to be trimmed or removed to insure the house. I don't think a tree warning is out of place for an inspector, when warrented.
If they present a risk of damage to the structures or hardscape, yes. Otherwise no.
No. Absolutely not.
The only exception MAY be the consequence of a century oak raising the pavement a bit too close to the house and only when such is observable.
When a TREE is in need of inspection, someone knowledgeable about trees is more advisable than someone who enjoys their shade.
Yes, especially if they look like they could possibly fall onto house, roots could heave sidewallks or patios, and even crack foundations. Have arborist look at them.
An arborist would have specialized knowledge about trees.