Are Video Inspections Here to Stay or Just a Pandemic Fad?
The pandemic ushered in a wave of adjustments across industries, and the building department was no exception. With traditional on-site inspections largely put on hold, video inspections quickly filled the gap, offering a safe, seemingly efficient alternative to the norm. But now, as we return to “normal,” the question arises: are video inspections a legitimate replacement for in-person inspections, or were they simply a stopgap measure? Let’s look at both sides.
Video inspections undeniably come with their conveniences. They allow inspectors to cover more ground, fast-track scheduling, and even cut down on vehicle-related costs and emissions. For remote or hard-to-access areas, this approach saves considerable time and resources. At first glance, it’s easy to see why video inspections might appear to be the future—less time on the road, lower costs for everyone involved, and, in some cases, quicker service for the public.
However, the inherent downsides are hard to ignore. No matter how high the video quality, it’s still not the same as being on-site. Inspectors rely on more than just sight when assessing compliance; the ability to touch materials, hear structural sounds, and inspect smaller details that a camera could miss makes in-person evaluations far more comprehensive. Video inspections also rely heavily on technology, and if a call drops or the image quality deteriorates, it raises questions about the accuracy and reliability of what’s being inspected. In some cases, this technology dependency can mean missing crucial details or overlooking issues that could lead to costly or dangerous problems down the line.
Then there’s the question of integrity. As much as we want to believe every stakeholder will act ethically, the potential for tampering or pre-recorded submissions exists. It’s a valid concern, and one that inspectors—especially those who’ve been burned by such incidents before—are reluctant to overlook. And if something goes wrong on a project that was video-inspected, who’s liable? What are the insurance implications for building inspectors, contractors, and property owners? Legal and liability issues are a big part of this conversation, as there’s a clear difference between an in-person signature and a digital thumbs-up.
Opinions are divided within the industry. Some building officials are open to using video inspections in certain cases, like re-inspections or routine checks where major safety concerns are unlikely. Others view them as a compromise on quality and safety, insisting that nothing can replace the thoroughness of in-person inspections. Contractors and homeowners also have mixed reviews. While some appreciate the convenience, others have raised concerns, pointing to situations where the remote process simply wasn’t enough to catch critical problems early.
So where does this leave us? One potential compromise lies in a hybrid model. Routine or minor inspections could be conducted remotely, with the more complex or final inspections reserved for in-person visits. Emerging technology may even help bridge the gap: augmented reality, drones, and 3D scanning tools could eventually make remote inspections more robust. Yet, the key question remains—are we ready to put the same level of trust in a virtual inspection as we do with boots on the ground?
As we push forward, this is the debate we face. Video inspections offer undeniable advantages, but they also pose significant risks. Are we ready to balance efficiency with potential sacrifices in quality, or should we revert to traditional methods to ensure no detail is left unchecked? The conversation is far from over, and as always, I invite everyone to weigh in: Do video inspections have a permanent place in our industry, or were they simply a necessary response to an unprecedented time?
The pandemic ushered in a wave of adjustments across industries, and the building department was no exception. With traditional on-site inspections largely put on hold, video inspections quickly filled the gap, offering a safe, seemingly efficient alternative to the norm. But now, as we return to “normal,” the question arises: are video inspections a legitimate replacement for in-person inspections, or were they simply a stopgap measure? Let’s look at both sides.
Video inspections undeniably come with their conveniences. They allow inspectors to cover more ground, fast-track scheduling, and even cut down on vehicle-related costs and emissions. For remote or hard-to-access areas, this approach saves considerable time and resources. At first glance, it’s easy to see why video inspections might appear to be the future—less time on the road, lower costs for everyone involved, and, in some cases, quicker service for the public.
However, the inherent downsides are hard to ignore. No matter how high the video quality, it’s still not the same as being on-site. Inspectors rely on more than just sight when assessing compliance; the ability to touch materials, hear structural sounds, and inspect smaller details that a camera could miss makes in-person evaluations far more comprehensive. Video inspections also rely heavily on technology, and if a call drops or the image quality deteriorates, it raises questions about the accuracy and reliability of what’s being inspected. In some cases, this technology dependency can mean missing crucial details or overlooking issues that could lead to costly or dangerous problems down the line.
Then there’s the question of integrity. As much as we want to believe every stakeholder will act ethically, the potential for tampering or pre-recorded submissions exists. It’s a valid concern, and one that inspectors—especially those who’ve been burned by such incidents before—are reluctant to overlook. And if something goes wrong on a project that was video-inspected, who’s liable? What are the insurance implications for building inspectors, contractors, and property owners? Legal and liability issues are a big part of this conversation, as there’s a clear difference between an in-person signature and a digital thumbs-up.
Opinions are divided within the industry. Some building officials are open to using video inspections in certain cases, like re-inspections or routine checks where major safety concerns are unlikely. Others view them as a compromise on quality and safety, insisting that nothing can replace the thoroughness of in-person inspections. Contractors and homeowners also have mixed reviews. While some appreciate the convenience, others have raised concerns, pointing to situations where the remote process simply wasn’t enough to catch critical problems early.
So where does this leave us? One potential compromise lies in a hybrid model. Routine or minor inspections could be conducted remotely, with the more complex or final inspections reserved for in-person visits. Emerging technology may even help bridge the gap: augmented reality, drones, and 3D scanning tools could eventually make remote inspections more robust. Yet, the key question remains—are we ready to put the same level of trust in a virtual inspection as we do with boots on the ground?
As we push forward, this is the debate we face. Video inspections offer undeniable advantages, but they also pose significant risks. Are we ready to balance efficiency with potential sacrifices in quality, or should we revert to traditional methods to ensure no detail is left unchecked? The conversation is far from over, and as always, I invite everyone to weigh in: Do video inspections have a permanent place in our industry, or were they simply a necessary response to an unprecedented time?
