In my experience, those “peace of mind” points really add up when you’re managing a place long-term.
Totally with you on this. I’ve managed a few older duplexes and single-families, and every time I tried to “save” with a layover, it came back to bite me within a few years. The initial savings just didn’t stack up against the hassle of tracking down leaks later, especially when tenants start calling about stains or musty smells. One place had a layover from the previous owner—looked fine for a while, but then we found out the decking was basically compost in spots. Had to rip everything off anyway and replace half the sheathing. That was not a fun call to make to the owner.
I do get why people consider layovers, though. If you’re in a milder climate and the first layer is solid, it can buy you time. But like you said, codes are getting stricter. Around here (Midwest), most inspectors won’t sign off on more than one layer anymore, and insurance companies are starting to ask questions too.
Ventilation is such an easy thing to overlook, but it makes all the difference. I had one attic where they did a layover and blocked half the soffit vents by accident—next summer, shingles started curling and we got mold on the rafters. Ended up costing more than if we’d just done it right the first time.
If I could give anyone advice: budget for the tear-off if you plan to keep the place for more than a couple years. It’s not just about leaks—you get to see what’s going on with insulation, flashing, even pests (found a squirrel nest once under an old roof). And if you’re already seeing any sagging or soft spots, don’t wait. It doesn’t get cheaper with time.
Only exception I’ve seen work out is on newer homes where someone just wants a quick cosmetic fix before selling. Even then, it’s kind of rolling the dice.
Curious if anyone’s had luck with synthetic underlayment instead of felt? I’ve heard mixed things but haven’t tried it myself yet.
I went with synthetic underlayment on my last roof job (asphalt shingles, pretty average slope), mostly because the contractor pushed it as “new and improved.” It was a bit pricier than felt, but installation was quicker and it held up well during a few heavy storms before the shingles went on. No leaks so far, but I do wonder if it’s overkill for a basic roof in a mild climate. If you’re already spending for a full tear-off, it might be worth the extra peace of mind, but I’m not convinced it’s always necessary.
It was a bit pricier than felt, but installation was quicker and it held up well during a few heavy storms before the shingles went on.
Honestly, I get the hesitation about synthetic underlayment for a basic roof. But after seeing felt tear up in a single windy afternoon, I’m kinda sold on synthetic—even if it feels like overkill sometimes. The install goes way smoother, and you don’t get those weird wrinkles that show through the shingles. If you’re already tearing off everything, might as well do it right, yeah?
I get the appeal of synthetic, but honestly, I went with felt last year just to save a few bucks. My roof isn’t huge and I figured if it lasted this long, why change it up? Well, one bad windstorm later and I was chasing pieces of felt across my yard… not fun. If I had to do it again, I’d probably cough up the extra for synthetic, especially since a full tear-off is already a big job. Sometimes saving money upfront just means more headaches down the road.
I get where you’re coming from, but I’ve actually had the opposite experience.
Maybe it’s my area (midwest, not a ton of crazy wind), but I put down felt underlayment on my garage roof five years ago and it’s still holding up fine. I did make sure to overlap and staple it pretty thoroughly, though. For me, the cost difference between felt and synthetic was enough to justify sticking with felt—especially since I’m always watching the budget. Not saying synthetic isn’t better, but sometimes the “cheap” option works out if you’re careful with installation.“Sometimes saving money upfront just means more headaches down the road.”