Should Building Inspectors Have Hands-On Contractor Experience?

Should Building Inspectors Have Hands-On Contractor Experience?​

Building inspectors play a vital role in ensuring that construction projects comply with local building codes, safety regulations, and design standards. However, an ongoing debate in the construction industry centers on whether inspectors should have prior hands-on experience as contractors in fields such as framing, plumbing, electrical, or mechanical work. This question raises important points about inspectors' qualifications and their ability to balance technical knowledge with practical experience.

Inspectors with practical, hands-on experience in a construction trade can bring significant benefits to their role. For example, an inspector who has worked as a mechanical contractor might easily spot deficiencies in HVAC systems or identify faulty installation of plumbing components. Contractors often appreciate inspectors with field experience because they are seen as more relatable and practical, understanding both the challenges and shortcuts that may be taken during construction. This hands-on experience can make inspections smoother and less confrontational, as the inspector is seen as someone who "has been there" and understands the trade-offs contractors face.

On the other hand, inspectors are primarily tasked with enforcing building codes and ensuring safety, not solving construction problems. It is argued that a strong understanding of the codes—gained through education, certifications, and on-the-job training—can be just as valuable as years of hands-on trade experience. Many jurisdictions require that inspectors maintain continuing education in building codes to stay current, ensuring they can effectively enforce standards even without direct contractor experience. Additionally, some building inspectors come from non-trade backgrounds, such as architecture or engineering, yet still perform their jobs effectively through training and mentorship. These professionals argue that code knowledge, attention to detail, and critical thinking are the most essential skills for an inspector, rather than years of hands-on trade experience.

Contractors may sometimes feel frustrated if they believe their inspector lacks real-world construction experience, especially when disagreements arise over the interpretation of codes. Yet, inspectors are required to adhere strictly to building codes, and even experienced contractors must follow these guidelines, regardless of how unnecessary or impractical they may appear in some cases. Conversely, it’s worth noting that not all contractors have expertise in every trade, and specialized inspections often require a broader understanding of the entire construction process.

Ultimately, the key to effective building inspections might not solely depend on prior field experience but on a combination of code expertise, continuous education, and effective communication with contractors. Building inspectors, with or without trade experience, need to collaborate with contractors to ensure that both parties are working toward the common goal of creating safe, compliant buildings.

The real question is: How important is hands-on experience for building inspectors? Is it essential for inspectors to have worked in the field, or is a deep understanding of building codes enough to ensure compliance and safety? This is where the dialogue begins.

---

References:​

1. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Construction and Building Inspectors” https://www.bls.gov/ooh/construction-and-extraction/construction-and-building-inspectors.htm
2. Crest Real Estate, “The Role of Construction Building Inspectors and the Importance of Permit Expediting” https://www.crestrealestate.com/
3. HomeGauge, “Does Construction Experience Benefit Home Inspectors?” https://www.homegauge.com
4. CareerExplorer, “What Does a Building Inspector Do?” https://www.careerexplorer.com/careers/building-inspector/
5. Acuity, “Tips on Working with Building Inspectors” https://www.acuity.com/

 

[ICE]

Well that would make a difference but it would also narrow the candidate pool. LA County promoted dozens of permit techs to inspector because they had reached the pay scale ceiling as permit techs. They were given training to obtain a certification as a residential inspector and sent out in the field, The result is what you might imagine. Some have reached the title of Senior Building Engineering Inspector. The prevailing thought on that is that the job can't be all that important if they are sending them to do it.

I think that all engineers should have to do a three year internship as an inspector prior to being licensed.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

I know a now-retired building official who was a house builder for many years before he became a building official. He's a good guy and a friend, but he's also a stubborn old coot (says the stubborn old coot). Almost every time I talk to him he goes on a tirade about how dumb the code is and why HE thinks most of it (speaking mostly about the residential code, since he never learned much about the IBC and he used to hire me to do his IBC plan reviews) is stupid and shouldn't be enforced.

Basically, he wants to enforce the code as it existed 30 or 40 years ago. Does his knowledge and experience as a builder make him more or better qualified than the people who write the codes? Should his experience give him the flexibility to overlook whatever parts of the code HE doesn't agree with?

It's not a direct correlation, but when I was working as an architect and doing field inspections on behalf of the architect rather than as a building official, the thing I hated most was a contractor (or subcontractor) who wanted to argue that he didn't have to follow the construction documents because he knew the code. Most of the time, what he thought he knew was wrong. Usually, I was the guy who had drawn those plans he was supposed to be following, and I was pretty good about ensuring that what I drew met or exceeded the code. And that's the other aspect -- construction drawings may exceed the code. The codes are minimum standards. Once the construction documents are approved, the building officials/building inspectors are supposed to inspect to the approved construction documents. If the approved construction documents call for something that exceeds minimum code requirements, we should be enforcing the approved construction documents, not the code minimums.

My department not too long ago hired a new plumbing inspector. He was a licensed journeyman plumber before taking the class to become licensed as a plumbing inspector. The job with us was his first job as an inspector. He was awful. We knew he was a problem when contractors who routinely failed every first inspector began requesting him by name. That's always a bad sign. He eventually quit because he realized he could earn more money as a plumber, and the boss was happy because it saved us from firing the guy. Contractors later told our other inspectors that the guy might have been an average journeyman plumber but that he wasn't foreman material.

Not all experience is useful or relevant experience.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

The prevailing thought on that is that the job can't be all that important if they are sending them to do it.

Our new town manager thinks we shouldn't do plan reviews, we should just rubber stamp permit applications and handle any problems in the field.

Building inspection is never important until something like a deck collapse or a nightclub fire (Station House) kills or injures a bunch of people. THEN the cry is, "How did the building inspectors allow that to happen?"

 

[ICE]

Not all experience is useful or relevant experience.

Sometimes thirty years experience is one years experience thirty times.

 

[jar546]

I normally see two extremes with inspectors that were never contractors and have no construction experience whatsoever.

1) Gets taken advantage of in the field by contractors because they truly don't understand the code or construction. These are the folks that rarely, if ever fail an inspection because they simply don't know and don't have the confidence to do so.

2) Overly nitpicky and writes up tons of violations because they don't really understand the code, are afraid they might let something go and get in trouble and once again, don't really know how construction works.

There are other categories but these are the two extremes.

 

[Inspector Gadget]

I used to be in the newspaper biz. As an editor, I felt it vital that I be able to do what my staff were being asked to do. The same principle applies in inspection.

I'm seeing a trend in this part of the world where the big cities are all asking for Civil Engineering Technician training....but not construction experience. I am a firm believer in the thought that you can't inspect what you can't do.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

Before I was an inspector, I did a lot of handyman work and bought and fixed up houses before we had codes and inspections. My experience did not help because I learned that I did a lot of things wrong.

 

[tmurray]

I think there is value in having some experience, so you know a little of what you are asking someone to do when you write up a correction.

However, inspections can be so multi-disciplinary that I don't think it is reasonable to have experience with all of it.

 

[rktect 1]

Wait.......... What is the question?

 

[fatboy]

My $0.2 worth, when I was hiring, hands on, real ife experience was a 100% rock solid requirement. That being said, I would tell them that I will fall on the sword to defend them, if it was backed up with a code section, no "I like to see it this way".

 

[klarenbeek]

As long as once someone is an inspector they enforce the code and not "thats' the way i did it so that's how I want it done", past construction experience is an absolute plus. I'm fortunate in that I only inspect the trade I was in. I know the construction process, I know the lingo of the industry, and most importantly I know exactly what I'm looking at.
Even if I was a combo inspector, with my background I still have enough knowledge of the basics of the other trades to better understand what the code is saying and how to apply it. Our jurisdiction has a requirement of a minimum of four years of industry experience for inspectors.

 

[steveray]

Knowledge and communication skills are essential…how you got them is unimportant. I absolutely believe the field experience helps the transition and skill set, but not mandatory.

 

[jar546]

Wait.......... What is the question?

There are actually 2 questions at the end of the OP.

 

[mtlogcabin]

How important is hands-on experience for building inspectors?

Depends on the type of construction. One and two family dwellings simple 1 & 2 story homes hands on experience is not that important IMHO.
Commercial electrical hands on experience would be important
Occupancy types would be a factor when considering if hands on experience would be important. Plumbing in a hospital is a lot more involved then plumbing in a single story office building.

Is it essential for inspectors to have worked in the field, or is a deep understanding of building codes enough to ensure compliance and safety?

1st part No.
2nd part. It would be critical to have a deep understanding of the "intent" of building codes to ensure compliance and safety.

 

[Joe.B]

I think the root of the issue is pay. There's such a strong demand for skilled tradesfolk that anybody with experience can make more in the trades.

Our jurisdiction has a requirement of a minimum of four years of industry experience for inspectors.

I would love to have this as a requirement, but anybody with that much experience would scoff at the pay. It would be a very small candidate pool. It could be listed as "highly desirable", and we might get lucky. Sometimes people burn out on the trade and need a serious change of pace.

 

[rktect 1]

There are actually 2 questions at the end of the OP.

How important is hands-on experience for building inspectors? 100% essential that they have worked in the field for some amount of time, legitimately.

Is it essential for inspectors to have worked in the field, or is a deep understanding of building codes enough to ensure compliance and safety? No to simple book worming it through.

 

[tmurray]

I'm not sure I could agree that it is "essential". I would definitely agree with beneficial, but what aspect of the job can only be learned from experience in the trades?

I didn't have much experience in trades. I was a consultant before I became an inspector.

 

[Sifu]

As with so many topics, it has a lot to do with the individual. I think there are merits to field experience, properly applied. I also think there are pitfalls that need to be overcome. It is great for a contractor (plumber, framer, electrician, etc.) to know how to contract, but to not enforce the code because they think they know better, or "don't do it that way", or worse yet to not read the code, is problematic. Most times these differences can be worked out, depending on the individual....and the management's ability to handle it.

Had an exprience with a master plumber turned fellow inspector about 10 years ago. He forgot more than I'll ever know about plumbing. But one day somehow we had a minor disagreement over a call one of us made, and he was adamant about his take. While I defer to his expertise, I could clearly show him where in the code it was addressed, why it had been implemented and how his take was 180° different. It was not a grey area. We agreed to disagree, he did it his way, I did the code way. Maybe his way was better, but it was pretty clearly a code violation. He was comfortable with doing it his way, I was comfortable following code. Two things occurred as a result of this. 1) He learned that what he had learned under the UPC, and as a 30 year plumber had now changed, even if he didn't learn enough to follow the code. 2) I learned the reasoning and theory behind all of it, even if I didn't learn enough to think I knew better than the code.

FYI, no recollection of the specifics, but it seems to have been a venting issue....surprise, surprise.

But there is a follow up question: Does a contractor with experience as an inspector make a better contractor?

 

[jar546]

One and two family dwellings simple 1 & 2 story homes hands on experience is not that important IMHO.

I don't know about that. There are some really complicated framing systems out there that some folks would not have a clue that there were major issues.

 

[mtlogcabin]

I agreet hat is why I used "simple" to describe the homes I was thinking about, track home construction would be along the same thought. Rectangular homes with gable ends with no hip or valley designed roofs and minimal window openings.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

The real question is: How important is hands-on experience for building inspectors?

In my case my hands on experience made it worst. Because I did contract work before we had codes in this state and did a lot of wrong things. I did not know I was doing wrong until I took a code class.

Is it essential for inspectors to have worked in the field, or is a deep understanding of building codes enough to ensure compliance and safety?

In my case it's the second part.

 

[BN4537]

But there is a follow up question: Does a contractor with experience as an inspector make a better contractor?

Absolutely. Without a doubt. If I go back to wearing the tools from here, it won't even compare to what I was able to do before. Night and day difference.

A contractor might go onto hundreds of jobsites in a lifetime - an inspector goes onto a thousand in a year.

 

[Joe.B]

If I tried to transition from this job to contracting, I'd probably never get a contract. I'd bid way too much because I would want to do it right. I'd be too honest and open with customers. They'd take the lower bids every time. They'd probably end up paying more because of all the change orders and "unexpected" costs, but they'd never know. Meanwhile I'd go broke real fast and come crawling back to the city begging for my old job back.