Expert: Russel Ray - 11/8/2007

Question
QUESTION: Mr. Ray-
My husband and I are trying to buy a house in Florida.  We had an inspection done, and they found no major problems, except that a leak in the roof we saw while touring the house was to present during the inspection and so is not in the report.  We decided to get a stucco inspection.  The realtor sent us a copy, with the statement that none of this was a big deal, it sounds worse than it is, it's just 10 years old. I read the report, had some serious concerns, and called the stucco inspector.
He said there were some major problems, including stucco losing its finish, extremely wet stucco with wood rot underneath (extent not yet determined,) no flashing, no sealants at joints, etc.  He recommends $12,190 of work at a minimum to bring things up to code, and replace some stucco (only the damaged, not the parts losing their finish.)
I am looking for advice on how to proceed from here.  I know we can back out of the deal if all the work is not done.  I know it has to be done by the homeowners because the deal cannot go through with wood rot in the walls.  But I am concerned about the quality of the job done.  Will this be a problem later on?  Would it be more wise to walk away now and look at some other houses?  We are leaning this way, especially with the unaccounted-for leak in the roof.
What do you think?  If the stucco is only repaired and not replaced, are we asking for trouble?

ANSWER: Hey, Jennifer.

A few things here:

First, I'm puzzled about why the roof leak was not in the home inspection report, especially if you saw evidence of it while touring the house. That would seem to indicate that a qualified home inspector would also have seen it/

Second, stucco is a very good exterior covering, except in areas of high moisture. It is a very porous material, and if the stucco wall is not prepared properly, or the stucco is not applied properly, there will be nothing but problems. I love it in the desert environments like Southern California, New Mexico, Arizona, and West/Central/South Texas. Although a good, quality stucco installation can suffice anywhere, it's been my experience that stucco installers who don't work with it on a daily basis probably doesn't have enough experience to do a better-than-average job. So my own personal preference outside of those desert areas is that probably pass on the house if I didn't have the opportunity to witness its construction. In Florida, I'd probably choose brick or wood.

Third, you've already got extremely wet stucco with wood rot underneath. That would be enough for me to move on. But then add in no flashing, no sealants, etc., and I think you'd be walking into a stucco money pit (see http://www.badstucco.com; ask some questions over there--the guy who runs the site is probably one of the nation's foremost authorities on stucco). I don't think anyone is going to be able to do a quality repair job without tearing everything off and doing it right.

So, yes, you should be concerned about the quality of the job; I think it will be a problem later on; I think it would be wise to walk away now and look at some other houses; and I think that if the stucco is only repaired and not replaced, you are, indeed, asking for trouble.

Don't forget to browse http://www.badstucco.com.

---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Inspector did not find the roof leak because it was not raining during the inspection.  I think this is a new leak; no evidence of staining or discoloration of trusses, etc.--1 drop every 5-8 seconds.  I was there during a rainy time and found the leak in the attic.

As for the stucco, the company inspecting it said a repair could be done (including any rotted wood beneath), but it would look like a repaired area.  This would be $6000. Said another alternative would be to repair the four areas needing attention (as discovered by probing), then coat entire house with elastomeric--this is the $12,000 solution.  My concern is that perhaps other areas might need repair which we don't know about at this time.  Flashings and sealants would be added as needed with either repair job.

I'm still leaning towards avoiding future problems by finding another house.  Do you concur given the additional information above?  Really like the house, but I don't need to buy into a bad situation if you believe other problems are likely to surface later.

Thanks for your help.

Answer
Hey, Jennifer.

The cost sounds reasonable for a house of about 1,500 square feet, but I've never seen a stucco repair that I liked. As your contractor said, it will look like a repaired area. And, yes, my concerns, as yours, are that other areas might need repair which you don't know about right now. I can virtually guarantee you that the builders/subcontractors didn't just have problems in one area, that the problems are endemic to the house. With typical weather in Florida, you might be looking at $6,000 in repairs every two or three years. I personally find that unacceptable. The $12,000 solution, with the elastomeric, is a solution, but it's a newer solution that doesn't have an appropriate track record yet. When it comes to my house, I usually try to go with the tried and proven technologies.

I grew up in South Texas, and have done extensive building and renovation throughout the Gulf Coast areas in Texas, Louisiana and Florida down to Tampa. My uncles and I built one of the first stucco houses in South Texas back in 1968 (everything else was wood or brick) and it has held up extremely well due to our diligence in (1) doing the job right and (2) the dry weather down there. However, in coast cities (Corpus Christi, Victoria, Houston, Beaumont, New Orleans, Panama City, and Tampa), I have never been happy with the stucco installations. It's just not a good material for high-humidity areas, and the fact that the house you're looking at is "only" 10 years old would be a definite clue for me that it's not the house I want to buy. $6,000-$12,000 after only 10 years? I understand finding one's dream home, but I'd have to say no on that one.