I do wish there was more wiggle room for different climates, though. Where I’m at, we barely get any humidity, but we’re still stuck following the same rules as places that get drenched all year.
I hear you on the climate thing, but honestly, isn’t that kind of the problem? The codes are written to cover worst-case scenarios everywhere, but it ends up making things a lot less flexible for folks in drier areas. I’ve worked on projects in both humid and arid zones, and it’s wild how much overkill you end up with in places that just don’t need it.
I get why inspectors want a single standard—it’s easier for them and probably safer overall—but at what point does “better safe than sorry” just become unnecessary expense? I’ve seen clients forced to add way more venting than makes sense for their region, just because the book says so. Wouldn’t a performance-based approach make more sense? Like, if you can prove your design keeps moisture under control, why not let that slide?
Not saying cut corners—mold is no joke—but sometimes the code feels like it’s treating every attic like it’s in Florida.
Totally get what you mean about the “one size fits all” approach. I’ve always wondered if anyone’s actually tracked how much of that extra venting in dry climates really helps, or if it’s just wasted effort and money. Has anyone here ever tried to push back with an inspector using actual moisture readings or data? Curious if that ever works, or if they just stick to the book no matter what.
Has anyone here ever tried to push back with an inspector using actual moisture readings or data? Curious if that ever works, or if they just stick to the book no matter what.
Tried it a couple times, actually. Brought in some data loggers and showed the inspector how bone-dry the crawlspace was, but he just kind of shrugged and pointed at the code book. I get why they want consistency, but it’s frustrating when you’ve got hard numbers and they still want you to add more vents “just because.” Honestly feels like overkill in places where humidity is barely a blip on the radar.
Title: Struggling With Ventilation Inspection Requirements Lately
- Totally get where you’re coming from. Data should matter, but inspectors are usually bound by the letter of the code, not the spirit.
- It’s frustrating when you’ve got proof the space is dry and still have to add vents that might actually make things worse (energy loss, unnecessary airflow).
- Sometimes I wonder if we’ll ever see codes catch up with building science. Until then, it’s a lot of “check the box” stuff, even when it doesn’t fit the real conditions.
- Hang in there—at least you know your approach is solid, even if the process isn’t.
Honestly, I get why folks are frustrated with inspectors sticking to the code, but I kinda see their side too. If they start making exceptions based on “proof” from homeowners, it opens a can of worms. Not everyone’s data is solid, and some people fudge stuff to save a buck. I’m not saying the codes are perfect—far from it—but I’d be more worried if they were just winging it every time. Still, yeah, it’s a pain when your build is actually better than what the code wants... but I guess that’s the tradeoff for consistency?
