Couldn’t agree more about the camera inspection—especially with older homes where you never really know what’s lurking under the floors. Here’s how I usually break it down for folks: first, walk the property and check for obvious signs like water stains, slow drains, or weird smells. Next, open up access panels and look for corrosion or leaks on visible pipes. After that, if anything feels off—or if the house is pre-1980s—I always recommend calling in a pro with a camera. That peace of mind is worth every penny, even if you’re handy. Sometimes those old cast iron lines look fine until you see what’s inside... learned that one the hard way.
Totally get where you’re coming from with the camera inspections. Here’s my two cents:
- You nailed it—visual checks only get you so far, especially in those old houses where surprises seem to hide everywhere.
- I’ve had more than one deal nearly derailed by mystery pipe issues. Camera found a root ball once that looked like spaghetti... never would’ve guessed from the outside.
- DIY is great for basic stuff, but I always budget for a pro inspection on anything pre-80s. That upfront cost has saved me thousands down the line.
- Sometimes folks think it’s overkill, but honestly, peace of mind is worth it. Less stress, fewer nasty surprises later.
One thing I’d add: even newer homes can have weird plumbing quirks. Never hurts to double-check if something feels off.
DIY is great for basic stuff, but I always budget for a pro inspection on anything pre-80s. That upfront cost has saved me thousands down the line.
Couldn’t agree more—those “hidden” issues can be wallet-busters if you miss them early. I used to think I could spot everything with a flashlight and some know-how, but after one surprise slab leak... never again. Sometimes paying for the camera is just smart math.
