Had the same dilemma when I did my main roof a few years back. The idea of just throwing another layer up there seemed easier and cheaper, but once the old shingles came off, we found a bunch of hidden rot around the chimney and some sketchy spots near the gutters. If I’d just covered it up, I’d be dealing with way bigger headaches now.
One thing I’d add—check your local code too. Around here, you can’t have more than two layers anyway. Plus, a tear-off lets you upgrade the underlayment or add ice and water shield if you’re in a colder climate. It’s more work and money upfront, but peace of mind is worth a lot.
If I’d just covered it up, I’d be dealing with way bigger headaches now.
That’s the part that always gets me—what you can’t see under the old shingles. I’ve managed a few properties where previous owners just kept layering, and every time we finally did a tear-off, there was hidden damage. Usually around chimneys or valleys, sometimes even mold. It’s a pain to budget for, but skipping the tear-off can end up costing more if you have to fix structural stuff later.
I get why people want to save money upfront, especially if the roof looks okay from the outside. But local code is a big deal too—some places are strict about max layers, and insurance can get tricky if you don’t follow it. Anyone ever had issues with warranties being voided because of extra layers? That’s come up for us before.
If you’re in a cold climate, ice and water shield is almost non-negotiable. I’ve seen too many ice dams cause leaks right into attics. Full tear-off isn’t fun, but sometimes it’s just the lesser evil.