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/

 

[Inspector Gadget]

While the engineers and architects should listen to the inspectors, the inspectors lack the perspective and training of the Architects and engineers. Without this perspective and training the inspectors are incapable of understanding the code.

Y'know, at my advanced age, I should know better than to take the bait from an online troll artist, but I'm a man of questionable self-control.

I'd love for you to explain to me how this mere, humble, totally clueless building inspector (since I don't have a degree architecture, and flunked out of engineering school because I can't grasp calculus) was able to find no less than ten (10) violations of building code in a set of plans for an apartment submitted by one of those exalted, bulletproof, totally knowledgeable engineers, such violations including (but not limited to)
1) A failure to fire-rate two storage room and a laundry room
2) Insufficient exits from a large floor area
3) Two exit doors exposed to fire from an adjacent compartment
4) One unenclosed exit stair exposed to fire from an adjacent compartment
5) Gosh, why, this building needs a fire alarm, and there isn't one
6) Well, heck, yes, code requires this exterior passageway to either be fire-rated or non-combustible, but the engineer did neither..

I guess I just got lucky. I do that a lot. Can't have anything to do with a whole crapton of training. Or competence. That would be ... inconceivable.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

Similar here. They don't teach architects codes at all. Engineers only see the structural part of the code in their coursework.

No wonder the plans I get are so bad. Half the time they don't know what the occupancy is (and what it means)
Last week I got a letter from an architect after a failed plan review telling me he did not need to put the occupancy on the plans because there will be no occupants.

 

[Sifu]

No wonder the plans I get are so bad. Half the time they don't know what the occupancy is (and what it means)
Last week I got a letter from an architect after a failed plan review telling me he did not need to put the occupancy on the plans because there will be no occupants.

Hmm, maybe you could say you don't need to put a stamp on the plans because there is no occupancy classification.

.....Structures shall be classified into
one or more of the occupancy groups

 

[Jay Smith]

Many design professionals use the word occupancy when they’re actually thinking of occupant load. I do QC reviews as a consultant to a large firm that has that built into their standard occupant load table that appears on each life safety plan.

 

[ICE]

While the engineers and architects should listen to the inspectors, the inspectors lack the perspective and training of the Architects and engineers. Without this perspective and training the inspectors are incapable of understanding the code.

You are full of yourself.

 

[bill1952]

I've met and worked with code clueless architects and code clueless building officials. (I wouldn't expect any building officials who frequent TBCF to be in those groups.) Also very code smart architects and building officials. I'll grant that on average building officials are a little more code smart than architects (and make some of the worst design suggestions I've ever heard.)

 

[tbz]

What is assuming me about this topic is the assumption that in this day and age that old or new building inspectors in some form or another are not educated with a formal degree in their field to understand what they need to know.

Architectural School Education or an Engineering degrees are meaningless to preform this job effectively, nor of any requirement for a reason.

The same goes for the flip side for working in the construction field in one form or another.

Do any of them provide additional knowledge to do the job, sure they do, but at the same time they also put up bias walls of knowledge for many.

Its about the time spent educating yourself by having the drive and ability to understand this field of work, and understanding what you are looking at, and having the moral aptitude to seek the correct information when you are looking at or seeing something on a drawing set or in the field that you may or may not comprehend.

Between decades old educational requirements like New Jersey has required to obtain the certificate to be an inspector, to the ICC's training, and the private sector of educational programs, they all still require the person looking to do this job to take a set of formalized and refined tests, and then continue to educate through CEU's no different than Architects, engineers, doctors, lawyers, and a field of many other professions.

The facts are simple, all education is both good and bad, it is the ability to understand and absorb the correct information and see the non-correct information for what it is.

The way I see it, telling someone they can't understand what they are looking at because they don't have some sort of formal degree hanging on the wall is the dumbest thing I ever heard.

Education comes in many forms and the majority of quality education does not happen in a classroom when it comes to this field.

Its just one way of getting to a foundation with a starting point, the actual job starts when you get on the job that you are doing, not the job before it.

It always amuses me when I have to listen to another architect or engineer go on a rant and tell me I don't understand the code because I am only a messily fabricator, why you ask, because I get the satisfaction of seeing their face when I provide them with a copy of the code proposal with my name on it that is published in the code for this specific topic being discussed and they read the reason statement for why I submitted it and then the committee reason for why they gave it their majority approval.

My father, rest his sole, always drilled on me to remember never talk down to another person, as you might be surprised by what they actually know is more prevalent than you may be assuming, and we all know what assumption gets you.

Everyone gets educated every day, knowing that the degree hanging on the wall is nothing more than a basic start, and sometimes a very bad start and being able to accept that someone without that same paper knows more than you do or ever will is called being smart, the opposite is just plain ignorance IMO.

The funny thing is the last time I checked I still only have my high school degree not even hanging on the wall, I guess I don't have the mass between my ears to understand what architects and engineers know, maybe I should thank God I guess.

Enjoy the weekend everyone....

 

[Mark K]

Obviously I have touched on a sensitive topic

I have not claimed that engineers are always perfect or that inspectors cannot be intelligent. The point is that Architects and engineers are exposed to certain facts that inspectors would not likely know. Remember most code provisions were originally written by Architects and engineers

 

[jar546]

Remember most code provisions were originally written by Architects and engineers

Your claim that 'most code provisions were originally written by architects and engineers' is flat-out wrong. Building codes are developed by a wide range of professionals, including inspectors, safety experts, and code officials—not just architects and engineers. Inspectors deal with these codes every day in the real world, identifying gaps and practical issues that designers often miss.

The idea that architects and engineers have some exclusive access to 'facts' is nonsense. Inspectors bring their own expertise and experience, which is just as valuable, if not more so, in ensuring the codes are effective and enforceable.

 

[Inspector Gadget]

The point is that Architects and engineers are exposed to certain facts that inspectors would not likely know.

Let me refresh your memory

While the engineers and architects should listen to the inspectors, the inspectors lack the perspective and training of the Architects and engineers. Without this perspective and training the inspectors are incapable of understanding the code.

You stated, quite clearly, that someone like myself is "incapable of understanding the code."

I'm still awaiting an answer to my question: if "engineers and architects" are exposed to certain facts that inspectors would likely not know, why do I continually find errors in engineer- and architect-submitted plans if I am "incapable of understanding the code."

Or you could do the mature thing and acknowledge that you stepped out of line. Either way.

 

[Mark K]

Let me refresh your memory


You stated, quite clearly, that someone like myself is "incapable of understanding the code."

I'm still awaiting an answer to my question: if "engineers and architects" are exposed to certain facts that inspectors would likely not know, why do I continually find errors in engineer- and architect-submitted plans if I am "incapable of understanding the code."

Or you could do the mature thing and acknowledge that you stepped out of line. Either way.

There is a difference between being intelligent and being exposed to certain facts.

Just because you can find where somebody made a mistake does not mean that they do not know something else that you do not know.

Why do states require engineers and architects be licensed but not inspectors?

 

[Mr. Inspector]

Why do states require engineers and architects be licensed but not inspectors?

Every state is different. Inspectors need them in PA

 

[Inspector Gadget]

There is a difference between being intelligent and being exposed to certain facts.

Just because you can find where somebody made a mistake does not mean that they do not know something else that you do not know.

Why do states require engineers and architects be licensed but not inspectors?

Ontario and British Columbia (those are Canadian provinces) require inspectors to be licenced, that I know of, and a few others are either there or getting there.

It seems like every statement of "fact" you are making is, in fact, not correct.

Good thing you have a website full of untrained building inspectors to correct your mistakes, eh?

 

[mtlogcabin]

Building inspectors do not adopt the regulations.

And police officers do not adopt the laws they enforce but they are the ones given the authority by those who adopted the laws to ensure that they are being adhered to by the general public.

The state through licensing requirements gave you the authority to design buildings. The same state gave the authority to local governments to ensure you design your buildings to the codes the state authorize you to use in your design. This is typically done through the building permitting process.

It is a simple checks and balance type system used to achieve safe and comprehensively constructed buildings.

The inspector is not personally liable if he misses something

Nor should he be
A lot of inspections are nothing more than representative samples of how a building/system is being constructed/installed at a specific date and time.

 

[Mark K]

Ontario and British Columbia (those are Canadian provinces) require inspectors to be licenced, that I know of, and a few others are either there or getting there.

It seems like every statement of "fact" you are making is, in fact, not correct.

Good thing you have a website full of untrained building inspectors to correct your mistakes, eh?

Are you proposing replacing building officials with "untrained building inspectors"?

The IBC assumes the American legal system where the building official makes the decision as to code compliance.

 

[Inspector Gadget]

Are you proposing replacing building officials with "untrained building inspectors"?

The IBC assumes the American legal system where the building official makes the decision as to code compliance.

I'm simply repeating your point in different words: you've already declared all of us incapable of understanding the code if we aren't engineers or architects.

It does sound kinda ridiculous, doesn't it?

 

[bill1952]

I think if a new user was viewing this thread they'd be a little turned off to TBCF.

 

[jar546]

I think if a new user was viewing this thread they'd be a little turned off to TBCF.

that’s because the troll has created controversy as usual. if you wanna be a moderator, feel free to start deleting what you think are problem posts.

 

[bill1952]

Or just ignore those posts and trolls.

 

[steveray]

I think if a new user was viewing this thread they'd be a little turned off to TBCF.

In all fairness….if anyone is that thin skinned they should probably just go talk to AI…we are a little rough and tumble here at times, that is the “danger” in talking to humans, but also how you get the rainbow of perspectives which allows you to decide what is the correct answer

 

[Plumb-bob]

My trades background has help immensely in my inspection career, I cannot imagine taking on this job without it. Some people seem to manage, but it must be a challenge.

One thing not mentioned here is safety- the experience to navigate a construction site without getting hurt or killed. This experience comes from being on the ground for many years and learning what the hazards are and how to avoid them.

 

[Inspector Gadget]

One thing not mentioned here is safety- the experience to navigate a construction site without getting hurt or killed. This experience comes from being on the ground for many years and learning what the hazards are and how to avoid them.

You just gave me a flashback. I was doing a floor in a major supermarket. Some guy in a white shirt and tie was onsite. Dress pants, dress shoes, clipboard, hard hat. Totally rocking the "I ain't used to construction site" vibe.

I didn't witness what happened, but I saw the aftermath: buddy screwed with a temporary plug on a sprinkler pipe or something. Got himself covered with black sludge from head to toe.

Architect.

 

[Sifu]

In all fairness….if anyone is that thin skinned they should probably just go talk to AI…we are a little rough and tumble here at times, that is the “danger” in talking to humans, but also how you get the rainbow of perspectives which allows you to decide what is the correct answer

Yep. I don't come here for validation. I come here for information, opinion, data and sometimes confirmation of what I think I know but am not sure. If my ego got bruised or feelings hurt by what is said on here, imagine what a crappy code official I would make.