In article ,
"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:

"Smitty Two" wrote in message
In the market for a rental now and I've walked away from several that
had "bonus rooms" that didn't look permitted. I don't generally live in
fear of liability issues, but I wouldn't take that one on. Non-permitted
"improvements" can decrease, rather than increase, the value of a home.

How does on "look" permitted?

By not looking like a cob job. While it's theoretically true that
there's no automatic correlation between quality of workmanship and the
issuance of a permit, *most* homeowners don't have the skill to do
"transparent" additions. They look like lean-tos, with shoddy
construction built on inadequate foundations.

OTOH, I saw a beautiful 1930 remodel the other day, clearly professional
throughout, obviously not a 1930's floorplan. Nevertheless I was
surprised to learn that the front of the house had had several hundred
square feet added to it. Clearly the work of a good architect coupled
with a "damn the expense" attitude towards quality of materials and
workmanship.

I know there are places where regulations are more lax, and the people
are less litigious. But, in *this* city, you can't throw a bent nail in
the trash without arousing a building inspector, and in *this* state, if
my tenant stubbed a toe in an unpermitted room, I'd be in court
answering "willful and negligent" charges.