[BBMW]

Don't buyers in Vegas use lawyers to vet the paperwork and sniff out these kinds of things? Most of the lawyers I've worked with in my RE dealings wouldn't have let me close if all the ducks weren't in a row beforehand.

[Chickrae]

Originally Posted by three1oh

So now what? anyone have any experience in this? Should i contact the city to try and make it legal? or will that just open a can of worms? I guess its really not an issue until i goto resell this house one day.

i guess the question i have is how can i make it a legal room?

thanks!

I am not sure about the other things you asked but I will respond to what I know about permits. I used to work for a city in the building dept with the inspectors, and if you bring this to the attention of the city, they may require you to get a building permit. Obviously the bedroom is already built, but it might be in your best interest to get the permit and with that an inspector will look at it and inspect what he can see and then it will be on record that a permit is in place, even if it's after the fact. That way if you ever sell it, it will be legal

[Lemming95]

Do you want a 4th bedroom or hobby room? or do you want a bigger garage?
Is there something about the construction, not to code, that makes it likely to fail a inspection -ventilation -HVAC, below grade?
Going to the county to get it approved will ease the problem, an increased sq ft will affect the value and the tax value. And you will be legal when you sell.

[olecapt]

Originally Posted by BBMW

Don't buyers in Vegas use lawyers to vet the paperwork and sniff out these kinds of things? Most of the lawyers I've worked with in my RE dealings wouldn't have let me close if all the ducks weren't in a row beforehand.

No lawyers. Was clearly the agents job. It is not a difficult task or anything. The fact the agents can't get paid says their packages violated company rules.

The problem with an SRPD is that the requirement vanishes if you close without it.

@chickrae. I have had direct experience with permitting such an addition. It came out worst case...cost at least 50% more to get it permitted than it did to build it in the first place. Inspector basically required that it be opened up to bare studs and rebuilt with new wiring and an added window. Note that fire resistance wallboard is required on any walls that face the garage...

If you got a break it could have been vastly less expensive. But the inspector involved was apparently not in a good mood.

[MrRational]

The work being done with permits is less of an issue than whether it was done to code to be used as bedroom. In addition to having a closet a space must have a large enough window to be used for egress to be called a bedroom.

I doubt those conditions exist which is why you (the OP) bought a house with 3 BR's not 4.
There is no case here.

[olecapt]

Originally Posted by MrRational

The work being done with permits is less of an issue than whether it was done to code to be used as bedroom. In addition to having a closet a space must have a large enough window to be used for egress to be called a bedroom.

I doubt those conditions exist which is why you (the OP) bought a house with 3 BR's not 4.
There is no case here.

That is a local regulation. It changes in Las Vegas depending on which government is involved. And yes there is meat to the permit. It would, for instance change the square footage of the home and its taxes.

[bledsoe3]

It doesn't sound like they misrepresented it since they didn't list it as a bedroom.

[olecapt]

Originally Posted by bledsoe3

It doesn't sound like they misrepresented it since they didn't list it as a bedroom.

Sure they did. Any construction that requires a permit would be a material fact. You are required to disclose material facts.

Unpermitted work is a particular item on an SRPD.

The "bedroom" descriptor makes no difference. Actually the big deal would be changing the wall on a garage.

[MrRational]

Originally Posted by olecapt

Sure they did. Any construction that requires a permit would be a material fact. You are required to disclose material facts.

This is a different end of the complaint you started with and titled the thread using. In any case... and back to the chase:

I doubt more than 20% (if that!) of existing houses have had all the improvement work and remodeling changes (let alone the smaller tasks) that legally call for a permit and inspection... were actually permitted and inspected or even done by licensed contractors.

This sort of phenomenon is why the burden falls on the buyer to do their homework before spending their money. When a Q arises, short of conscious and deliberate and overt deception... yer screwed.

This reality is such an old concept that there is even a Latin phrase for it:
caveat emptor

[olecapt]

Originally Posted by MrRational

This is a different end of the complaint you started with and titled the thread using. In any case... and back to the chase:

I doubt more than 20% (if that!) of existing houses have had all the improvement work and remodeling changes (let alone the smaller tasks) that legally call for a permit and inspection... were actually permitted and inspected or even done by licensed contractors.

This sort of phenomenon is why the burden falls on the buyer to do their homework before spending their money. When a Q arises, short of conscious and deliberate and overt deception... yer screwed.

This reality is such an old concept that there is even a Latin phrase for it:
caveat emptor

Misstatement of fact. Caveat emptor generally prevails in commercial RE...but not in consumer RE where different standards exist.

And in this case it would appear that we have conscious and deliberate and overt deception.

I too think the OP should have noticed. Such a change is obvious. I would also have expected any competent agent to have raised the question.

Note that Las Vegas is a new community and code violation add-ons are common but certainly not dominant. 20% or less of newer housing.