I’ve actually seen lenders get picky about “roof age” even when there’s no visible damage. Sometimes it’s less about the inspector and more about the underwriter just following a checklist.
I’ve had buyers’ lenders ask for a roof certification just because the shingles looked “worn,” even though they were only 8 years old. Makes me wonder if some of these calls are just subjective, or if there’s a bigger disconnect between what inspectors see and what insurers or banks care about. Anyone else notice that?“Has anyone had an inspector flag something minor and then had trouble selling or refinancing because of it?”
- Ran into this exact thing last year. Roof was architectural shingles, only 9 years old, no leaks or missing tabs.
- Inspector flagged “granule loss” and “curling,” but honestly, it looked pretty standard for our area (lots of sun, some hail).
- Lender wouldn’t budge until I got a roofer to write up a certification saying it had 8+ years left. Cost me $200 just for the letter.
- What’s weird is, insurance adjuster didn’t care when I renewed the policy—said it was “normal wear.” But the underwriter for the refi was way stricter.
- Seems like there’s a disconnect between what’s actually a problem and what just looks old to someone checking boxes.
- I get that they want to avoid risk, but sometimes it feels like they’re just going off a checklist, not the real condition.
- Noticed it’s worse in regions with lots of storms—inspectors get extra cautious, even if the roof’s fine.
- Honestly, sometimes I think it depends on who you get that day... some are just more picky than others.
- Totally get the “depends on who you get” part. Had a guy last month say my metal roof looked “too new” to be original—guess I should’ve let it rust a bit?
-
This is spot on. Some folks see granule loss and panic, but in sunny states, that’s just Tuesday.Seems like there’s a disconnect between what’s actually a problem and what just looks old to someone checking boxes.
- Honestly, I wish more lenders cared about actual performance, not just what’s on their form. If the roof keeps water out, isn’t that the point?
Funny how “too new” is a problem now… I’ve had the opposite, where an inspector flagged my shingles for “looking tired” even though they were only five years old. Is there some secret roof-aging formula they use? I get that they have checklists, but sometimes it feels like they’re just guessing based on looks. If your roof’s not leaking, isn’t that what matters most? Makes me wonder if we’re all just playing the “does it look old enough” game instead of focusing on what actually works.
I’ve always wondered what goes through some inspectors’ heads. My last place had a 7-year-old roof, and the guy said it “looked patchy”—I’m in the Midwest, so we get wild weather, but still. No leaks, no missing shingles, just a few spots with some algae stains. He made it sound like I was living under a tarp.
Is there some kind of “roof intuition” they pick up after a while? Or maybe it’s just how the light hits the day they show up… I honestly think half the time they eyeball it and if it doesn’t look like it just came out of the Home Depot catalog, they ding you.
You’d think function would matter more than appearance, but I guess curb appeal is part of the game. I do wonder if some materials age faster visually too—my neighbor has architectural shingles and they still look brand new after ten years, while mine started looking tired after five. Maybe it’s just luck of the draw or maybe I should’ve sprung for the upgrade.
