I get the temptation to just do a layover, especially with how much a full tear-off costs these days. But I’ve heard too many horror stories about hidden rot and insurance headaches, like you mentioned. I’m in the Midwest, so snow load is a real thing—extra weight worries me. Has anyone actually had a layover hold up for more than 10 years without issues? Or does it always end up costing more in the end?
I’ve managed a handful of properties here in Indiana, and I’ll be honest—layover jobs can be a gamble, especially with our Midwest winters. I get why folks do it; initial savings are nothing to sneeze at, and sometimes the old roof doesn’t look that bad from the street. But when you start adding up the risks, it’s not always the budget-friendly fix it seems.
One thing people don’t always factor in is how much harder it is to spot soft decking or minor leaks with a second layer on top. I’ve seen layovers that lasted 12-15 years, but in almost every case, when it finally came time for a full tear-off, there were some nasty surprises underneath—rotted sheathing, mold, even the occasional critter nest. That’s when you end up paying more, since you’re fixing two problems instead of one. Insurance adjusters tend to frown on multiple layers too, and I’ve actually had a claim denied once because the underlayment was compromised and hidden by the layover.
About the snow load—yeah, it’s a real concern. Two layers of shingles plus wet snow can add a lot of weight. Most roofs are built to handle some extra, but if you’ve got an older house or a lower pitch, you’re rolling the dice. I’ve had to deal with sagging rafters in one of my older rentals after a few rough winters, and I’m convinced the double shingle layer didn’t help.
All that said, I do know a couple of folks who went the layover route and didn’t see major issues for over a decade. But they were lucky with relatively new decking underneath and no major storms in that period. If you’re planning to keep the place long-term, I’d lean toward a full tear-off. It’s not cheap, but at least you know what you’re dealing with, and you’re less likely to get caught off guard later. Just my two cents, based on a few too many roofing headaches...
That’s when you end up paying more, since you’re fixing two problems instead of one.
Couldn’t agree more. I tried the layover route on my first house thinking I’d save a buck, but when I finally tore it off, the decking was a mess. Lesson learned. Sometimes spending a little more upfront really does save you headaches down the line. Midwest winters don’t mess around.
Sometimes spending a little more upfront really does save you headaches down the line. Midwest winters don’t mess around.
Yeah, skipping the tear-off might look cheaper, but it’s risky if you’ve got any hidden rot or soft spots under there. I found a couple of weird dips in my roof after buying—turns out, water had been sneaking in for years because the old shingles trapped moisture. If you’re in a cold climate, ice dams just make it worse. Not worth cutting corners, honestly.
- Seen a ton of roofs where folks tried to save by skipping the tear-off—almost always leads to trouble later.
- Midwest freeze/thaw cycles really sneak moisture in under old layers.
- Had one client with shingles layered three deep... looked fine outside, but underneath? Total mess.
- Sometimes paying for the full tear-off feels rough, but you’re buying peace of mind.
