I would not treat this as a pass/fail inspection.
I’d treat the inspection report as another underwriting document.
That distinction matters a lot, especially on property #1.
An inspector’s job is to identify defects, safety concerns, deferred maintenance, aging systems and things that deserve further evaluation. If they’re doing their job well, the report is going to contain a bunch of stuff.
The real question is not:
“Did the inspector find problems?”
They will.
The question is:
“Did the inspection uncover a problem that changes the economics or risk profile of the deal?”
From what you described, I don’t immediately hear “run.”
But there are a few things I’d want to pin down before the contingency period ends.
The CO is useful, but I wouldn’t give it too much weight
An active Certificate of Occupancy is obviously better than discovering the property cannot legally be occupied.
But I would not interpret a CO as:
“Everything in this building meets every version of current code and therefore nothing can be wrong.”
Older properties routinely contain components that don’t match today’s construction standards.
That doesn’t automatically mean they’re illegal, dangerous or required to be completely modernized tomorrow.
So I’d separate:
Doesn't meet today's preferred/current standard
from
Is unsafe, defective, improperly installed or legally required to be corrected
Those are very different problems.
GFCI outlets wouldn't scare me
If we're really talking about missing GFCI protection in kitchens, bathrooms or other wet locations, that sounds more like a straightforward safety upgrade than a reason to kill a deal.
Get an electrician to price it.
Then it becomes a number.
A lot of scary inspection language becomes considerably less scary when somebody tells you:
“That’s $800.”
The electrical panel deserves more attention
“Splices need tidying up” is vague enough that I wouldn’t rely solely on the inspection wording.
I’d have a licensed electrician look at the panel and tell me exactly what is going on.
I’d want to know:
- Is anything actually unsafe?
- Is the panel itself a problematic brand/model?
- Is it adequately sized?
- Are breakers/conductors properly configured?
- Are there amateur modifications?
- Is this a small repair or the beginning of a panel replacement?
Again, turn ambiguity into a number.
Same thing with the older plumbing
“Old but currently working” isn't necessarily a defect.
But for an investor, remaining useful life matters almost as much as current function.
If the plumbing is approaching the end of its expected life, I’d want to know exactly what material we're talking about and what replacement would eventually cost.
Because there's a huge difference between:
and
A dry pipe today can still be future CapEx.
That doesn't necessarily make it a bad deal.
It just means the future expense belongs in your underwriting.
Structural is where I'd remove the guesswork
“Minor settlement” and “hairline cracks” are phrases that can describe completely ordinary older-building behavior.
They can also occasionally be the visible symptom of something more important.
If the inspector is recommending a structural engineer or if you personally don't understand why the joists need reinforcement, I would spend the money and get the specialist opinion.
Especially on property #1.
A few hundred dollars for an expert who can tell you:
“This is normal and here's the repair”
is cheap compared with spending the first two years wondering whether your building is moving.
I’d want the same specificity with the joists.
Why do they need reinforcement?
What caused it?
Is the condition stable?
What's the repair?
What does it cost?
You don't need adjectives.
You need scope and dollars.
This is how I'd process the entire report
I’d take every meaningful item and put it into one of four buckets:
1. Immediate safety/legal issue
Needs to happen before occupancy or immediately after closing.
2. Near-term repair
Probably needs attention within the first year.
3. Future CapEx
Working today, but likely replacement over the next several years.
4. Noise
Cosmetic defects, normal aging and things an inspector correctly documented but which don't materially change the investment.
Then put a dollar estimate next to everything in buckets 1–3.
Suddenly you're no longer staring at a 50-page inspection report.
You're looking at something like:
Immediate: $3,500
Year 1: $4,000
Future CapEx: $18,000
Now you can make an investment decision.
And this is where I'd go back to your original underwriting
Let's say you thought you were buying a property that needed $10k after closing.
But after inspections and contractor estimates, you realize it realistically needs $35k over the next three years.
Fine.
Plug $35k into the deal.
Does it still work?
If yes, you may simply have identified the true price of owning the asset.
If no, then you have something concrete to renegotiate around.
Price reduction.
Seller credit, if financing allows it.
Specific repairs.
Or you walk.
What I would not do is negotiate based on the emotional length of the inspection report.
Negotiate based on economics.
Your previous deal is probably affecting this one
You mentioned walking away from another property because of a bad inspection.
That was potentially exactly the right decision.
But there's a psychological trap after that.
You can start treating every inspection item as evidence that you've found another bad house.
Real estate isn't binary:
Good house = nothing wrong.
Bad house = inspection found problems.
You're buying used buildings.
Stuff is going to be wrong.
The skill you're developing is figuring out which problems are:
priced risks
versus
unbounded risks.
I'll take a property with $20,000 of clearly understood repairs over a property with one mysterious foundation problem nobody can quantify.
Known problems can be underwritten.
Unknown problems are what make me nervous.
So based only on what you've written?
I would not walk yet.
I'd use the remainder of your inspection period to eliminate the ambiguity.
Get the electrician.
Get the plumbing opinion if necessary.
Get the structural engineer if the joist/settlement language warrants one.
Get actual estimates.
Then rerun the deal using the ugly numbers.
And I'd probably add a contingency on top of those numbers because property #1 has a way of introducing you to expenses that weren't invited to closing.
If the investment still produces the return you want after doing that, I’d be a lot more comfortable proceeding.
If it only works when you assume none of this stuff ever needs to be addressed, then the deal never really worked in the first place.
An inspection report shouldn't tell you whether to buy the property.
It should tell you what property you're actually buying.
