• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Are Video Inspections Here to Stay or Just a Pandemic Fad?

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?
 
It will become the mandate as we continue the race to the bottom....

True.

The department I work in has decided to allow photographs in lieu of inspections for reroofing permits. The arguments we get into over the adequacy of the photos are unbelievable. We have caught roofers sending in photos from jobs that very obviously aren't the house they're working on. And they act all butt-hurt when called on it.
 
True.

The department I work in has decided to allow photographs in lieu of inspections for reroofing permits. The arguments we get into over the adequacy of the photos are unbelievable. We have caught roofers sending in photos from jobs that very obviously aren't the house they're working on. And they act all butt-hurt when called on it.
We do nothing but a final as that is all that is required by code....As long as the pics do not show a violation, you have not accepted any evidence against yourself, so do as you please....We still fail plenty of roofs.
 
The video inspection companies that have pitched their product to me are in real time with the inspector giving direction to the person on the jobsite as to what they want to see. There are minimum requirements for video resolution in order to comply with the inspections, however, you can't control wifi or cell coverage which may limit where this can be used.
 
The video inspection companies that have pitched their product to me are in real time with the inspector giving direction to the person on the jobsite as to what they want to see. There are minimum requirements for video resolution in order to comply with the inspections, however, you can't control wifi or cell coverage which may limit where this can be used.
Like most basements in my Town....
 
It is my belief that video inspections are viewed negatively by the majority of inspectors and building officials, yet this appears to be a growing industry only because building departments are willing to pay for it.
 
It is my belief that video inspections are viewed negatively by the majority of inspectors and building officials, yet this appears to be a growing industry only because building departments are willing to pay for it.

Not here. Here, the State is pushing it as an alternative because we don't have enough qualified building inspectors to fill the available jobs. The State isn't talking about third-party inspection companies taking videos, they're talking about letting the contractor call in from his cell hone and point it where a building official tells him to point it. No additional fees or income for the building department.
 
I was just looking at this program because it integrates with our permitting software. I think they are going to temporarily turn it on for free for a lot of Florida area due to the hurricanes.

 
The companies that are pushing software for VI have plenty to offer from GIS data to video storage. They have programs that integrate with other common software. They lend an air of sophistication to an otherwise mundane chore. Now if the end result was a competent inspection they would be on to something.
 
Back
Top