U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Office of Policy Development and Research
 

Assessing Housing Durability:

A Pilot Study
 
 

 

 

PATH (Partnership for Advancing Technology in Housing) is a new private/public effort to develop, demonstrate, 

and gain widespread market acceptance for the “Next Generation” of American housing. Through the use of new or 

innovative technologies, the goal of PATH is to improve the quality, durability, environmental efficiency, and 

affordability of tomorrow’s homes. 

PATH is managed and supported by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). In addition, 

all federal agencies that engage in housing research and technology development are PATH Partners, including the 

Departments of Energy, Commerce, and Agriculture, as well as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the 

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). State and local governments and other participants from the 

public sector are also partners in PATH. Product manufacturers, home builders, insurance companies, and lenders 

represent private industry in the PATH Partnership. 

To learn more about PATH, please contact: 

451 7th Street, SW 

Washington, DC 20410 

202-708-4277/202-708-5873 (fax) 

e-mail: pathnet@pathnet.org 

website: www.pathnet.org 

Visit PD&R's Web Site 

www.huduser.org 

to find this report and others sponsored by
 

HUD's Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R). 

Other services of HUD USER, PD&R's Research Information Service, include listservs; 

special interest, bimonthly publications (best practices, significant studies from other sources); 

access to public use databases; hotline 1-800-245-2691 for help accessing the information you need. 
Assessing Housing Durability:

A Pilot Study
 

Prepared for 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 

Office of Policy Development and Research 

Washington, DC 

Contract C-OPC-21289 

by 

NAHB Research Center, Inc. 

Upper Marlboro, Maryland 

November 2001 
 

 

Acknowledgments 

This report was prepared by the NAHB Research Center under contract to the U.S. Department 

of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The principal author is Phillip Davis. Internal 

technical review was provided by Jay Crandell. Contributing analysts include Daniel Priest. We 

would like to acknowledge the helpful review and guidance given by Dana Bres and William 

Freeborne. 

NOTICE 

The work that provided the basis for this publication was supported by funding under a grant 

from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The substance and findings of 

the work are dedicated to the public. The author is solely responsible for the accuracy of the 

statements and interpretations contained in this publication. Such interpretations do not 

necessarily reflect the views of the government. 

While the information in this document is believed to be accurate, neither the authors, nor 

reviewers, nor the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, nor the NAHB 

Research Center, Inc., nor any of their employees or representatives makes any warranty, 

guarantee, or representation, expressed or implied, with respect to the accuracy, effectiveness, or 

usefulness of any information, method, or material in this document, nor assumes any liability 

for the use of any information, methods, or materials disclosed herein, or for damages arising 

from such use. 

ABOUT THE NAHB RESEARCH CENTER, INC. 

The NAHB Research Center is a not-for-profit subsidiary of the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB). 

The NAHB has 200,000 members, including 50,000 builders who build more than 80 percent of new American 

homes. The NAHB Research Center conducts research, analysis, and demonstration programs in all areas relating to 

home building and carries out extensive programs of information dissemination and interchange among members of 

the industry and between the industry and the public. 

ii Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study 
 

 

Foreword 

Durability is one of the least understood attributes of the nation's housing stock. Although many 

attempts have been made to provide solutions to real and perceived durability problems, little has 

been done to benchmark and monitor the durability of U.S. housing. Such information can 

provide the proper focus and perspective for improving housing durability while avoiding costly 

mistakes that may adversely affect the affordability or longevity of homes. 

In response to the lack of information, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 

commissioned a pilot study of the durability performance of a representative sample of homes in 

Anne Arundel County, Maryland. This report presents the findings of facts from this pilot study 

and provides useful criticisms of the study methodology. The study reports several interesting 

statistics, cause-and-effect relationships, and observations on housing durability. The report also 

discusses lessons learned from the study with a view toward improved techniques should this 

effort be expanded to a regional or national level. 

The findings of this study not only demonstrate the feasibility of benchmarking and monitoring 

the durability of the nation's housing stock but also reveal the importance of certain design, 

construction, maintenance, and environmental factors related to durability. These findings, 

however, must be tempered with the understanding that they are associated with a relatively 

small sample in one locality in the United States. The results of this pilot study should not be 

interpreted beyond the limits of the sampled houses and occupants. 

 Lawrence L. Thompson

 General Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

 Policy Development and Research 

Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study iii 

Contents
 Page 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

FOREWORD ................................................................................................................................. iii 

I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 

II. METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................. 2 

General.................................................................................................................................2 

Site Assessment ...................................................................................................................3 

Homeowner Survey .............................................................................................................4 

III. RESULTS ........................................................................................................................... 4 

Site Assessment ...................................................................................................................4 

Sample Housing Characteristics.................................................................................. 4 

Condition Assessment ............................................................................................... 10 

Scoring....................................................................................................................... 15 

Causal Relationships ................................................................................................. 16 

Photographic Record ................................................................................................. 18 

Homeowner Survey ...........................................................................................................27 

IV. EVALUATION OF THE METHODOLOGY.................................................................. 30 

V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................... 31 

VI. RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................................................. 32 

APPENDIX A - HOMEOWNER/OCCUPANT LETTER......................................................... A-1 

APPENDIX B - HOMEOWNER/OCCUPANT SURVEY FORM ............................................B-1 

APPENDIX C - SITE CONDITION ASSESSMENT FORM ....................................................C-1 

APPENDIX D - RATING SYSTEM.......................................................................................... D-1 

APPENDIX E - SUMMARY OF SITE SURVEY DATA..........................................................E-1 

APPENDIX F - STATISTICAL INFORMATION.....................................................................F-1 

APPENDIX G - ALTERNATIVE CONDITION ASSESSMENT FORM................................ G-1
 

Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study v 

Tables 

Page
 

Table 1 - Averages of Building Component Condition Ratings................................................... 15 

Table 2 - Coefficients of Variation for Building Component Condition Ratings......................... 17 

Table 3 - 2x2 Contingency Table: Visible Cracks in Foundations versus Foundation Material.. 17 

Table 4 - Responses to Question 2................................................................................................ 28 

Table 5 - Analysis of Question 2 Responses ................................................................................ 28 

Table 6 - Responses to Question 4................................................................................................ 29 

Table 7 - Analysis of Question 4 Responses ................................................................................ 29 

Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study vii 

Figures 

Figure 1 - Study sample region. (Anne Arundel County, MD) .......................................................2 

Figure 2 - General sample housing characteristics. .........................................................................5 

Figure 3 - Foundation characteristics of sampled homes.................................................................5 

Figure 4 - Exterior finish materials on walls and overhangs. ..........................................................6 

Figure 5 - Roof characteristics.........................................................................................................7 

Figure 6 - Window characteristics. ..................................................................................................7 

Figure 7 - Door characteristics.........................................................................................................8 

Figure 8 - Roof venting and penetrations. .......................................................................................8 

Figure 9 - Garage characteristics. ....................................................................................................9 

Figure 10 - Sidewalk and driveway data..........................................................................................9 

Figure 11 - Deck characteristics. ...................................................................................................10 

Figure 12 - Frequency of surface depressions observed on sampled sites. ...................................11 

Figure 13 - Frequency of observed foundation cracks on sampled homes....................................11 

Figure 14 - Frequency of observed rot in sampled house..............................................................11 

Figure 15 - Frequency of observed termite damage. .....................................................................12 

Figure 16 - Window condition ratings of sampled homes.............................................................12 

Figure 17 - Door condition ratings of sampled homes. .................................................................13 

Figure 18 - Fascia condition ratings...............................................................................................13 

Figure 19 - Condition ratings of roof features. ..............................................................................14
 

Figure 20 - Ratings of exterior stair, porch, patio, and deck condition. ........................................14 

Figure 21 - Rating of fencing condition.........................................................................................15 

Figure 22 - Example of good rating for site grade and drainage. ..................................................19 

Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study ix 
 

Figure 23 - Example of poor rating for site grade and drainage....................................................19 

Figure 24 - A typical small crack found in a concrete foundation wall.........................................19 

Figure 25 - A typicaly small crack found in a amasonry foundation wall.....................................19 

Figure 26 - Rot at the bottom of a door frame in a 1990s sample house.......................................20 

Figure 27 - Rot at the bottom of a door frame and trim in a 1970s sample house.........................20 

Figure 28 - Rot in exterior wood trim of a 1990s sample house....................................................20 

Figure 29 - Rot at the bottom of wood panel siding (insufficient ground clearance) in a 1970s 

sample home............................................................................................................................20 

Figure 30 - Rot in wood trim associated with poor detailing (i.e., lack of cap flashing) and 

maintenance in a 1990s sample home.....................................................................................21 

Figure 31 - Rot of wood composite panel on a garage door (1970s house sample)......................21 

Figure 32 - Abnormal wear and tear on a wood window as an apparent result of pet 

scratching. ...............................................................................................................................21 

Figure 33 - Broken window pane on second-story window. .........................................................21 

Figure 34 - Condensation inside double-pane windows................................................................22 

Figure 35 - Abnormal wear and tear on a wood door as an apparent result of pet scratching.......22 

Figure 36 - Example of aluminum fascia covering older fascia material on a 1970s sample 

house (rated good by inspector). .............................................................................................22
 

Figure 37 - 1970s sample house with wood fascia needing minor repair (rated adequate by 

inspector).................................................................................................................................22 

Figure 38 - Fascia with a poor rating due to signs of rot and paint failure at butt joint to a 

party wall on a 1970s townhouse sample................................................................................23 

Figure 39 - Failed gutter and signs of water damage to soffit on a 1970s duplex house 

sample......................................................................................................................................23 

Figure 40 - Failed guttering and signs of water damage on wood fascia underneath aluminum
 

fascia cover (1970s house sample). Note paint failure on window frames.............................23 

Figure 41 - Vegetation growing in poorly maintained gutter. .......................................................23 

x Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study 
Figure 42 - Failure to maintain outfall of gutter downspout. Note that wood panel siding does 

not have sufficient ground clearance.......................................................................................23 

Figure 43 - Damaged downspout (same house in Figure 42). .......................................................23 

Figure 44 - Sagging gutter. ............................................................................................................24 

Figure 45 - Rusting party wall cap flashing and damaged gutters.................................................24 

Figure 46 - Example of a 1970s house sample with roofing rated as adequate.............................24 

Figure 47 - Example of a 1990s house sample with roofing rated as adequate.............................24 

Figure 48 - A 1970s house with a poor roof based on improper valley flashing and curled 

shingle tabs on the left roof surface. .......................................................................................25
 

Figure 49 - Poor roofing rating due to curled shingle tabs (1970s house sample). .......................25 

Figure 50 - Porch with good rating (1990s house sample). ...........................................................25 

Figure 51 - Porch with good rating (1970s house sample). ...........................................................25 

Figure 52 - Rot in a wood picket on the porch of a 1970s sample home (one picket has been 

replaced with treated wood). ...................................................................................................26 

Figure 53 - Wood floor boards under the porch roof of a 1990s house sample show signs of 

deterioration. ...........................................................................................................................26 

Figure 54 - Example of a wood deck in good condition (1990s house sample)............................26 

Figure 55 - Example of a wood deck in good condition (1970s house sample; age of deck 

unknown).................................................................................................................................26 

Figure 56 - Sidewalk of a 1970s sample house in poor condition due to root movement and 

growth of a closely located tree...............................................................................................27 

Figure 57 - Ponded water on a sidewalk (1990s house sample)....................................................27 

Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study xi 

 I. INTRODUCTION 

Housing constitutes an essential part of the U.S. infrastructure and economy. For many people, a 

home is their primary investment and provides the shelter and function needed for a decent 

“standard of living.” Therefore, the durability of residential buildings, including their component 

parts and materials, is an area that deserves special attention and improved understanding. 

Unfortunately, little objective or comprehensive feedback information regarding the longevity or 

service life of existing houses is available to guide decisions that affect the balance between the 

affordability and durability of future homes. As a result, design and construction decisions 

regarding durability rely on various forms of experience embodied in standards, building codes, 

individual builders and designers, manufacturer recommendations, building inspectors, court 

decisions, and other factors. Without the benefit of a systematic process to obtain objective 

feedback about actual end-use conditions and the performance of the existing house inventory, 

trends in design and construction practices affecting durability may tend to drift or not “keep 

pace” with changes in housing styles, material choices, and owner expectations. 

This report presents the findings of a pilot study aimed at developing a reliable and objective 

means to obtain periodic feedback on the durability performance of the housing stock. The 

objectives of the pilot study are to 

• benchmark the durability performance of a trial sample of the existing housing stock; 

• develop and refine a functional method for housing durability assessment; 

• determine if the resulting durability assessment data are able to reveal any causal 

relationships between the condition of a house and various factors; and 

• consider practical applications of the study findings. 

The pilot study focused on the condition of the exterior envelope for 10- and 30-year-old homes 

and considers only single-family detached and attached (townhouse) dwellings. The pilot project 

involved two types of data-collection activities as follows: 

• a site condition assessment; and 

• a homeowner survey. 

The site condition assessment was limited to the characteristics and condition of the exterior 

envelope of the housing unit, its appurtenances, and the lot. The condition of the interior of the 

homes and their features were beyond the scope of the study. The homeowner survey, however, 

addresses both interior and exterior conditions. 

Section II of this report describes the data-collection methodology. Section III presents the 

results from the site assessment and homeowner survey. In particular, Section III provides a 

combination of anecdotal and statistical findings. Section IV evaluates the durability assessment 

methodology and recommends improvements. Sections V and VI provide a summary of key 

conclusions and recommendations resulting from the overall effort. 

Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study 1
 

 

 

 II. METHODOLOGY 

GENERAL 

The pilot study focused on the condition of two random samples of single-family homes located 

in Anne Arundel County, Maryland. One sample consisted of homes in the five- to ten-year-old 

category and the other on homes in the 25- to 30-year-old category. 

The samples were randomly selected by using a GIS-based software package (ArcView) and 

property tax data obtained from Maryland Property Data, Inc.1 A total of 211 homes were 

randomly selected from a population of 185,291 properties in the county. Three units were 

subsequently disqualified from the study, yielding a total sample of 208 units–103 in the five- to 

ten-year-old category and 105 homes in the 25- to 30-year-old category. The entire sample of 

208 dwellings was retained for statistical analysis. Figure 1 shows the sample region and its 

geographic distribution.2 

Figure 1 

Study sample region.
 (Anne Arundel County, MD) 

1

MD Property Data Set, Anne Arundel County, GIS Integrated Solutions, Laurel, MD, March 31, 2000. 2

Developed using the "ADC Maps on CD" map of Anne Arundel County, Maryland, produced by GIS Integrated 

Solutions. 

2 Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study
The survey method, developed and approved through the Paperwork Reduction Act (OMB 

#2528-0207), required that a letter be sent to each owner or occupant of the houses in the sample 

(see Appendix A). The letter explained the purpose of the contact and informed the homeowner 

or occupant that the home had been randomly selected as a candidate for a site condition 

assessment. The letter also informed the homeowners that they would be contacted to schedule a 

site assessment visit and to conduct a telephone survey. A homeowner survey form (see 

Appendix B) was included with the letter. 

SITE ASSESSMENT 

The Inspection Form. A site condition assessment form was created for gathering information on 

a broad range of house and site characteristics and their associated physical conditions. A copy 

of the site condition assessment form is included in Appendix C. The form used several different 

methods for entering the required data. For some categories, the inspector entered a "yes" or "no" 

to signify whether a condition or component was present. For other categories, the inspector 

checked a single block from among multiple choices. Finally, a 1 to 5 numerical rating was used 

to rate the condition of the house or component. The numeric score equated to the general 

condition of the subject component as follows: 

1 - Excellent 

2 - Good 

3 - Adequate 

4 - Poor 

5 - Needs Repair 

In addition, an instructional form given to each inspector provided component-specific 

guidelines for assigning the numerical scores (see Appendix D). 

The use of different methods to record data provided an opportunity to assess the advantages and 

disadvantages of each method. 

The Inspection Team. Five three-inspector teams conducted visual surveys of the exterior of the 

houses and surrounding site conditions. They recorded selected characteristics of each house and 

site, assessed the overall condition of the house and various components, and compiled a 

photographic record. At least one photograph of each house was required. Each inspection team 

was charged with inspecting roughly 40 houses. At least two members were required to inspect 

each home and complete separate inspection forms. The use of multiple inspections of selected 

homes permitted an analysis of consistency in execution of the methodology. 

The five teams participated in two calibration exercises. The first exercise was conducted at the 

beginning of data collection, in part to resolve differences in the application of the form and 

rating system. Another was conducted at the end of the data collection. The primary goal of 

collecting the calibration data was to assess the variability in the survey data across individual 

inspectors before and after the site assessments. 

At the completion of the site assessment, the forms for 208 houses were deemed suitable for 

analysis. The useful response rate varied from question to question due mainly to the presence of 

Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study 3 
 

conflicting data provided by the inspectors. The conflicting responses were removed from the 

data reported in Section III. While this procedure resulted in a smaller effective sample size 

available for statistical analysis, the presence or frequency of conflicting data provided a useful 

measure of the suitability of various aspects of the data-collection methodology. Appendix E 

summarizes the raw data as collected. 

HOMEOWNER SURVEY 

The project team also conducted a telephone survey of homeowners to gather historical 

information about respondents' homes. The survey addressed sampled a broad spectrum of 

durability and fitness-of-use issues from the perspective of the homeowners or occupants (see 

Appendix B for a copy of the telephone survey form). 

The homeowner survey form was attached to the homeowner letter mentioned previously; 

however, only a few homeowners responded. Follow-up telephone contacts improved the 

response rate, with just short of a 10 percent completion rate achieved. The subsequent site 

assessment visits provided additional opportunities to increase the survey response rate by 

permitting inspectors to speak directly with occupants. In the end, the homeowner survey 

achieved a response rate of 20.7 percent (based on survey forms containing at least partial 

information). 

III. RESULTS 

SITE ASSESSMENT 

Sample Housing Characteristics 

This section presents a discussion of the typical characteristics of the houses in both age-group 

samples. Each discussion topic is followed by one or more figures (graphs) that complement the 

text. The study collected a variety of housing characteristic data with the view toward possible 

explanatory relationships concerning the durability or condition of the sampled homes. It must be 

noted that the percentages reflected in both the discussion and the graphs are based on sample 

sizes that vary as explained in Section II, Methodology. 

• General 

Most of the houses in both age groups were detached (74 percent and 56 percent of the 1970s 

and 1990s samples, respectively). Two-story structures accounted for most of the homes in both 

the 1970s (71 percent) sample and the 1990s (81 percent) sample. The orientation (the direction 

that the front of the house faces) varied greatly in both samples so that no one direction 

dominated either sample. The most prevalent orientation in the 1970s sample was south (25 

percent); in the 1990s sample, it was north (22 percent). The wind exposure of 97 percent of the 

1970s houses and 94 percent of the 1990s houses was judged to be a "B" (suburban or wooded 

exposure) according to ASCE 7 definitions (ASCE, 1999). 

4 Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study 
Housing Type 

100% 

Detached 50% 

Attached 

0% 

1970s 1990s 

Orientation of House 

North 

0% 

50% 

100% 

1970s 1990s 

Number of Stories 

1 

1.5 

2 

2.5 

3 

0% 

5% 

10% 

15% 

20% 

25% 

1970s 1990s 

North-West 

North-East 

South 

South-West 

South-East 

West 

East 

Figure 2 

General sample housing characteristics.
 

• Foundations 

Most of the houses in both samples were constructed on basement foundations (57 percent and 

78 percent, respectively). Block was the predominant foundation material in the 1970s homes 

(51 percent), but concrete accounted for the majority of 1990s foundations (73 percent). Seven 

percent of both samples had window wells, and 1 to 2 percent of the samples had covered wells. 

Twenty-two percent of the 1970s sample and 21 percent of the 1990s samples had walkout 

basements. Sixteen percent of the 1970s sample and 19 percent of the 1990s sample had a 

stairwell. 

0% 

20% 

40% 

60% 

80% 

1970s 1990s 

Foundation Type 

Basement 

Crawlspace 

Slab-on-grade 

0% 

20% 

40% 

60% 

80% 

1970s 1990s 

Foundation Material 

Block 

Concrete 

Brick 

Figure 3 

Foundation characteristics of sampled homes. 

• Exterior Finishes 

Vinyl siding was the most common siding material in both samples (33 percent and 63 percent 

for the 1970s and the 1990s, respectively). While aluminum (23 percent) and brick (22 percent) 

closely rivaled vinyl in the 1970s sample, the 1990s sample contained no close competitors. It 

appears that the high frequency vinyl siding in the 1970s sample was the result of retrofits; vinyl 

did not find widespread use in new-home construction until much later. The siding on 59 percent 

of the 1970s houses and 84 percent of the 1990s houses terminated at least six inches above 

ground. 

Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study 5 
 

Metal was the most common soffit material in both the 1970s and 1990s samples (45 percent and 

53 percent, respectively). Wood was the second most common material (40 percent and 24 

percent) and vinyl the third most common (13 percent and 22 percent, respectively). Most 1970s 

houses had an exposed wood fascia (54 percent) while the most common material in the 1990s 

houses was metal over wood (46 percent). Metal accounted for another 39 percent in the 1970s 

sample and wood for 41 percent in the 1990s sample. Vinyl followed in both the 1970s and 

1990s sample with 6 percent and 11 percent, respectively. Ninety-seven percent of the 1970s 

homes and 99 percent of the 1990s homes had gutters and downspouts. Aluminum accounted for 

the majority of gutters and downspouts in both samples (87 percent and 82 percent, respectively). 

Eighty-two percent of the 1970s homes and 98 percent of 1990s homes had splash blocks. 

0% 

20% 

40% 

60% 

80% 

1970s 1990s 

Siding Material Vinyl 

Aluminum 

Brick 

Wood 

AsbestosCement 

Other 

0% 

20% 

40% 

60% 

1970s 1990s 

Soffit Material 

Wood 

Metal 

Vinyl 

Other 0% 

20% 

40% 

60% 

1970s 1990s 

Fascia Material 

Metal 

Wood 

Vinyl 

Figure 4 

Exterior finish materials on walls and overhangs.
 

Asphalt shingles (99 percent and 100 percent for the 1970s and 1990s sample, respectively), 

gable roofs (84 percent and 99 percent), and a slope range of 3 to 6 inches in 12 inches 

dominated both samples (94 percent and 88 percent, respectively). While overhangs of 6 to 12 

inches were the most common in the 1970s sample (26 percent), a variety of larger overhangs 

were also common (totaling 60 percent). The 6- to 12-inch overhangs (65 percent) were also the 

most common in the 1990s sample. The size of market share claimed by overhangs in the range 

of 6 to 12 inches in the 1990s sample suggests a trend away from the larger overhangs of the 

1970s. 

6 Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study 
0% 

50% 

100% 

1970s 1990s 

Roofing 

Asphalt 

Wood 

0% 

50% 

100% 

1970s 1990s 

Roof Construction 

Gable 

Hip 

Gambrel 

Other 

0% 

50% 

100% 

1970s 1990s 

Overhang 

0" 

0"-6" 

6"-12" 

12"-18" 

18"-24" 

>24" 

Figure 5 

Roof characteristics.
 

• Windows and Doors 

Wood was the most common window frame material in the 1970s sample (40 percent) while 

most 1990s houses had vinyl windows (65 percent). Double-pane windows were the most 

common glazing type in both samples (65 percent and 98 percent for the 1970s and 1990s, 

respectively). Single-pane windows were not uncommon in the 1970s houses (35 percent) but 

were almost absent in the 1990s sample (2 percent). Most houses did not have storm windows 

(67 percent and 96 percent for the 1970s and 1990s houses, respectively). 

0% 

50% 

100% 

1970s 1990s 

Window Frame Material 

Vinyl 

Metal 

Wood 

0% 

50% 

100% 

1970s 1990s 

Window Glazing 

Single 

Double 

0% 

50% 

100% 

1970s 1990s 

Storm Windows 

Metal 

Vinyl 

Not Present 

Figure 6 

Window characteristics. 

Seventy-five percent of the 1970s doors were constructed of wood while metal accounted for 66 

percent of the exterior doors in the 1990s. Metal captured the other 25 percent of the 1970s 

sample. Wood (26 percent) and vinyl (5 percent) accounted for most of the remaining 1990s 

Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study 7 
 

doors. Twenty-seven percent of the 1970s houses had no storm door, and 59 percent of the 1990s 

sample had none. 

0% 

20% 

40% 

60% 

80% 

1970s 1990s 

Door Material 

Wood 

Metal 

Vinyl 

Other 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

1970s 1990s 

Storm Door Material 

Metal 

Wood 

Vinyl 

Not Present 

Figure 7 

Door characteristics. 

• Roof Venting and Penetrations 

Sixty-one percent of the 1970s homes made use of gable vents, 61 percent soffit vents and 34 

percent ridge vents. Fifty-nine percent were fitted with plumbing vents and 7 percent with fan 

vents. Thirty-one percent of the 1990s homes used gable vents, 83 percent soffit vents, and 74 

percent ridge vents. Forty-nine percent were reported to have plumbing vents penetrating the 

roof, as observed in the survey. 

Gable Vents Soffit Vents 

80% 80% 

60% 60% 

Yes 40% Yes 40% 

No 20% No 20% 

0% 0% 

1970s 1990s 1970s 1990s

Ridge Vents Plumbing Vents 

80% 80% 

60% 60% 

Yes Yes 40% 40% 

No No 20% 20% 

0% 0% 

1970s 1990s 1970s 1990s 

Figure 8 

Roof venting and penetrations. 

• Appurtenant Structures 

Forty-one percent of the 1970s houses had garages as did 45 percent in the 1990s sample. 

Eighty-six percent of the 1970s garages and 96 percent of the 1990s garages were attached to the 

housing unit. 

8 Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study 
Garage 

60% 

40% YES 

20% NO 

0% 

1970s 1990s 

0% 

20% 

40% 

60% 

1970s 1990s 

Garage Type 

Attached 

Detached 

Figure 9 

Garage characteristics.
 

Almost all houses in both samples (96 percent and 95 percent of the 1970s and 1990s samples, 

respectively) had sidewalks. Ninety-six percent and 97 percent of the 1970s and 1990s 

sidewalks, respectively, were impervious (e.g., concrete or asphalt). Approximately 98 percent of 

both samples had driveways. Ninety-five percent of the drives in both samples were impervious. 

0% 

50% 

100% 

1970s 1990s 

Sidewalks 

Yes 

No 

0% 

50% 

100% 

1970s 1990s 

Driveways 

Yes 

No 

Figure 10 

Sidewalk and driveway data. 

Forty-three percent of the 1970s homes had decks as compared with 68 percent of the 1990s 

sample. Ninety-three percent of the 1970s decks and 96 percent of the 1990s decks were 

constructed of treated wood. Ninety-eight percent of the 1970s decks and 92 percent of the 1990s 

decks were surface nailed. Two-thirds of the 1970s houses were on fenced lots while only 44 

percent of the 1990s houses were likewise on fenced lots. 

Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study 9 
 

Decks 

80% 

60% 

Yes 40% 

No 20% 

0% 

1970s 1990s 

0% 

50% 

100% 

1970s 1990s 

Deck Material 

Treated Wood 

Redwood 

0% 

20% 

40% 

60% 

80% 

100% 

1970s 1990s 

Deck Construction 

Surface Nailed 

Surface Screwed 

0% 

20% 

40% 

60% 

80% 

100% 

1970s 1990s 

Fences 

Yes 

No 

Figure 11 

Deck characteristics.
 

• Landscaping 

Ninety-three percent of 1970s houses and 95 percent of 1990s houses had landscape plants 

within 10 feet of the structure. The most common landscaping features adjacent to the 1970s 

homes were large shrubs (83 percent), flowerbeds (81 percent), and wood mulch (62 percent). 

The most common landscaping features of the 1990s homes were flowerbeds (90 percent), wood 

mulch (84 percent), and large shrubs (52 percent). In all, 9 percent of the 1970s houses and 8 

percent of the 1990s houses were sited on lots with retaining walls. 

Condition Assessment 

This section presents a summary of the results of the visual assessment of both housing sample 

age groups. The assessment is based on both quantitative and qualitative measures of the state of 

the houses and their components. As with the data in the Housing Characteristics section, the 

sample size discussed in this section varies by component due to the elimination of conflicting 

inspection results. Please refer to Appendix E for comprehensive tabulations of data from the 

visual survey. In addition, the photographic record of this section provides illustrations of 

various observed conditions. 

• Site Grade and Drainage 

The occurrence of surface depressions accounted for almost twice the share of houses in the 

1970s sample compared with the 1990s sample (20 percent vs. 11 percent). Surface depressions 

are indicative of poor site drainage that may be associated with durability concerns such as 

cracked foundations (e.g., settlement) or water intrusion in basement foundations. The Causal 

Relationship discussion explores the impact of site and exterior envelope characteristics such as 

surface depressions on the condition of the exterior of the home. This study did not consider the 

connection between exterior and interior conditions. 

10 Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study 
0% 

50% 

100% 

1970s 1990s 

Surface Depressions 

Yes 

No 

Figure 12 

Frequency of surface depressions observed on sampled sites.
 

• Foundation Cracks 

While most visually detected cracks were small, the study made no measurements. Visible 

cracks occurred in 34 percent of the 1970s sample and 19 percent of the 1990s sample. The 

occurrence of foundation cracks, while not always a significant structural problem, may indicate 

differences in foundation performance associated with material selection and site conditions, 

among other factors considered later in this section. 

0% 

50% 

100% 

1970s 1990s 

Visible Cracks 

Noted 

Not Noted 

Figure 13 

Frequency of observed foundation cracks on sampled homes. 

• Rot 

Any detected rot resulted in a positive response on the survey form. Rot commonly occurred in 

exterior wood trim components and usually appeared to be localized in nature. Thirty-one 

percent of the 1970s homes and 22 percent of the 1990s homes were noted as exhibiting some 

rot. 

0% 

50% 

100% 

1970s 1990s 

Rot 

Noted 

Not Noted 

Figure 14 

Frequency of observed rot in sampled homes. 

Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study 11 
 

• Insect Damage 

Three percent of the 1970s houses were reported to have visual signs of insect damage compared 

with only 1 percent of the 1990s houses. Inspectors noted termite drill holes at two 1970s houses 

and carpenter bee boring holes at another. No specific insects were mentioned for the 1990s 

houses. 

0% 

50% 

100% 

1970s 1990s 

Insect Damage 

Noted 

Not Noted 

Figure 15 

Frequency of observed termite damage.
 

• Windows 

This and later sections use qualitative ratings to describe the condition of components as judged 

by the inspectors. A “good” condition generally signified little sign of wear and tear and 

complete function. “Adequate” may be interpreted to mean that the component was judged to be 

functional with reasonable signs of wear and tear. A rating of “poor” is associated with some loss 

of function. Windows tended to be rated in good condition in both samples (49 percent of the 

1970s houses vs. 89 percent of the 1990s houses). For the 1970s houses, a substantial share (44 

percent) had windows judged to be adequate. Eight percent of the 1970s windows were rated as 

poor, but none of the 1990s windows rated that low. Most storm windows in the 1970s sample 

(53 percent) were judged to be in adequate condition, although the vast majority of the 1990s 

storm windows (79 percent) were in good condition. 

Windows	 Storm Windows 

100%

100% 80% 

Good 60%
 

50%
 Adequate	 40% 

Poor
 20%

0%
 0% 

1970s 1990s 1970s 1990s 

Figure 16 

Window condition ratings of sampled homes. 

Good 

Adequate 

Poor 

12 Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study 
 

• Doors 

The inspectors rated the doors in 54 percent of the 1970s houses and 89 percent of the 1990s 

houses as good. Another 40 percent in the 1970s houses and 11 percent in the 1990s houses 

earned a rating of adequate. Six percent of the 1970s houses had doors that were rated poor. 

Most storm doors in both the 1970s and 1990s sample (56 percent and 87 percent) were rated 

good by the inspectors. 

0% 

20% 

40% 

60% 

80% 

100% 

1970s 1990s 

Doors 

Good 

Adequate 

Poor 

0% 

20% 

40% 

60% 

80% 

100% 

1970s 1990s 

Storm Doors 

Good 

Adequate 

Poor 

Figure 17 

Door condition ratings of sampled homes.
 

• Fascia 

The fascia on the 1990s houses were mostly in good condition (58 percent) while the fascia on 

the 1970s sample houses were typically in adequate condition (51 percent). Another 39 percent 

of the fascia on 1970s houses were judged by the inspectors to be in good condition, and an 

additional 15 percent of the 1990s houses were rated adequate. 

Fascia 

0% 

20% 

40% 

60% 

1970s 1990s 

Good 

Adequate 

Poor 

Figure 18 

Fascia condition ratings.
 

• Roof 

Both roof valleys and roof openings3 in the 1990s (88 percent and 71 percent, respectively) 

sample tended to be in good condition by a wide margin. Most of the 1970 houses were graded 

adequate for roof valleys and roof openings (52 percent and 60 percent, respectively). With 

exterior inspections from the ground only, it is difficult to assign a quantitative measure to these 

ratings. However, the homeowner survey offered some insight into water leakage problems that 

may be associated with these and other construction features (see Homeowner Survey). 

3

The term "opening" is meant to signify any penetration of the roof to accommodate mechanical and plumbing vent 

requirements. 

Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study 13 
 

0% 

50% 

100% 

1970s 1990s 

Roof Valley Condition 

Good 

Adequate 

Poor 

0% 

20% 

40% 

60% 

80% 

1970s 1990s 

Roof Opening Condition 

Good 

Adequate 

Poor 

Figure 19 

Condition ratings of roof features.
 

• Exterior Appurtenances 

Exterior stairs were most commonly rated good in the 1990s sample but only adequate in the 

1970s sample. Cracking and signs of settlement were common factors that resulted in poor 

ratings for exterior stairs in relatively few homes. The majority of patios (57 percent) and decks 

(56 percent) in the 1970s sample were graded adequate while the 1990s patios (71 percent) and 

decks (67 percent) were judged to be typically in good condition. Porches, on the other hand, 

were typically rated adequate in both the 1970s and 1990s samples (70 percent and 75 percent, 

respectively). 

Exterior Stair Condition Porch/Stoop Condition 

80% 

60% 

80% 

60% Good Good 

40% 40% Adequate 

20% 

Adequate 

20% Poor
 

0%
 

Poor 

0%
 

1970s 1990s 1970s 1990s
 

Patio Condition Deck Condition 

80%
 

80%
 60% 

60% Good Good 40% 40% Adequate 

20% 

Adequate 20% Poor Poor 

0% 0% 

1970s 1990s 1970s 1990s 

Figure 20 

Ratings of exterior stair, porch, patio, and deck condition.
 

Inspectors rated the fences of 56 percent of the 1970s houses as adequate and 56 percent of the 

1990s fences as good. Thirty percent of the 1970s fences were rated to be in good condition 

while 38 percent of the 1990s fences were judged to be in adequate condition. 

14 Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0% 

20% 

40% 

60% 

1970s 1990s 

Fencing Condition 

Good 

Adequate 

Poor 

Figure 21 

Rating of fencing condition.
 

Scoring 

Each inspector was required to record four scores for each component of every house, one score 

for each orientation or side of the house–front, left, right, and rear (see survey form in Appendix 

C). A mean score for each component-orientation combination was developed for each house by 

averaging the scores of the inspectors. The resulting mean score of all of the houses was then 

averaged for each component-orientation category. Appendix E presents the results. The four 

orientation-category scores served as the basis for developing an overall average score for each 

component in the 1970s sample, the 1990s sample, and the total sample. Table 1 presents the 

results. 

TABLE 1
 

AVERAGES OF BUILDING COMPONENT CONDITION RATINGS 

BUILDING COMPONENT CONDITION VISUAL SURVEY RESULTS 

1970s 1990s Total Sample 

Grading 2.29 2.22 2.25 

Landscaping 2.79 2.52 2.66 

Sidewalk 2.80 2.27 2.58 

Foundation 2.61 2.14 2.37 

Porch 2.86 2.52 2.71 

Deck 2.99 2.83 2.90 

Siding 2.70 2.33 2.51 

Door 2.74 2.21 2.47 

Windows 2.77 2.20 2.48 

Trim 2.93 2.63 2.78 

Openings 2.91 2.62 2.76 

Soffits 2.71 2.28 2.48 

Fascia 2.92 2.50 2.70 

Gutters 2.84 2.40 2.60 

Flashing 3.07 3.18 3.13 

Roof 2.72 2.19 2.43 

Caulk 3.34 3.02 3.20 

Paint 3.00 2.46 2.77 

Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study 15 
 

Scores between 1 for excellent and 5 for needs repair are possible, but the average scores in the 

table fall in a more narrow range between 2.14 and 3.34 (i.e., between good and adequate). 

While the difference between the 1970s scores and the 1990s scores may be small, no statistical 

analysis was performed to determine whether any of the 1970s data sets differ statistically from 

their 1990s counterparts. The reservations concerning the scoring data expressed in Section IV 

of this report bring into question the value of such an analysis. Nonetheless, the data in Table 1 

offer some useful insights. 

• With the lone exception of flashing, the 1970s sample scores are higher (worse) than the 

1990s scores. 

• The caulk-related scores were worse than the average of overall scores in both age 

groups. 

• Windows, doors, roofs, and the paint on window frames, soffits, and siding were among 

the components in the 1970s sample that fared the worst proportionately when compared 

with the 1990s sample. 

• Siding, trim, and fascia were among the components in the 1970s sample that did not fare 

as poorly when compared proportionately with the 1990s sample. 

Table 2 presents the coefficients of variations for each of the scored components. In half of the 

categories, the variation in the ratings for the 1990s sample is greater than that for the 1970s 

sample, suggesting that the assessed conditions tended to vary similarly in both age groups. 

Some additional observations include the following: 

• All of the paint and caulk category ratings varied more proportionately in the 1990s 

sample than in the 1970s sample. 

• The condition rating of windows, doors and roofs showed more relative variation in the 

1970s sample than in the 1990s sample. 

• Siding, trim, and fascia in the 1990s category showed more rating variation than the 

1970s sample. 

• The component with greatest variation in overall rated condition was grading. 

Causal Relationships 

Based on the housing characteristic and condition data presented in the previous sections, the 

study explored several possible cause-and-effect relationships to explain the data more fully. 

Typically, the methodology involved the use of contingency tables to classify the houses in the 

survey in accordance with some construction characteristic and some housing condition. To 

illustrate the approach, Table 3 presents the contingency table that was used to examine the role 

of foundation material in the occurrence of visible foundation cracks. 

16 Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE 2
 

COEFFICIENTS OF VARIATION FOR BUILDING COMPONENT CONDITION RATINGS
 

BUILDING COMPONENT CONDITION VISUAL SURVEY RESULTS 

Coefficients of Variation 

1970s 1990s Total Sample 

Grading 0.53 0.48 0.51 

Landscaping 0.25 0.24 0.25 

Sidewalk 0.37 0.32 0.38 

Foundation 0.26 0.30 0.30 

Porch 0.19 0.33 0.26 

Deck 0.26 0.31 0.29 

Siding 0.27 0.29 0.29 

Door 0.31 0.27 0.31 

Windows 0.27 0.22 0.28 

Trim 0.23 0.29 0.27 

Openings 0.25 0.29 0.27 

Soffits 0.27 0.24 0.27 

Fascia 0.25 0.37 0.32 

Gutters 0.30 0.25 0.29 

Flashing 0.38 0.33 0.36 

Roof 0.28 0.25 0.29 

Caulk 0.28 0.39 0.35 

Paint 0.24 0.33 0.30 

TABLE 3
 

2X2 CONTINGENCY TABLE: 

VISIBLE CRACKS IN FOUNDATIONS VERSUS FOUNDATION MATERIAL
 

BLOCK CONCRETE 

TOTAL 

HOUSES 

Has visible cracks 35 9 44 

Has no visible cracks 19 83 102 

Total Houses 54 92 146 

The data in the contingency table were then subjected to a statistical analysis tool called a Chisquare test. This procedure determines whether it is likely that the two groups of houses differ (in 

a statistical sense) in terms of the proportion that evidence a given condition, for example, the 

presence of foundation cracks. A confidence level of 95 percent was used for all such 

comparisons. 

A discussion of the findings of the analysis follows (see Appendix F for a more in-depth 

discussion of the statistical analysis). 

• Foundation Material versus Foundation Cracks 

A statistical analysis of the survey data indicated that foundation type is a factor in the 

occurrence of visible foundation cracks. Foundation material and the methods used with each 

material seem to play a role. Examination of the survey data reveals that 65 percent of block 

foundations have visible cracks while only 10 percent of concrete foundations have visible 

cracks. 

Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study 17 
 

 

An examination of the data revealed that about two-thirds of houses with block foundations were 

built in the 1970s. Further analysis of the data indicated that the 1970s houses have a higher 

proportion of visible cracks. These findings brought into question whether time or foundation 

material was the real factor. Since most house foundations built in the 1970s are block 

foundations, does it merely appear that block foundations tend to have more cracks? A separate 

analysis of the foundation material and visible foundation crack data was performed for each age 

group. The results for both groups indicated that the occurrence of cracks is not independent of 

the type of foundation material. So, while time may be a factor in the occurrence of visible 

foundation cracks, block foundations appear to be associated with a higher proportion of cracks. 

• Site Condition versus Foundation Cracks 

A similar analysis sought to test for a relationship between the presence of surface depressions 

on a site and the occurrence of visible foundation cracks. The results did not support the 

proposition that they are unrelated; therefore, it appears that surface depressions also play a role 

in the occurrence of visible foundation cracks. In the study sample, the 28 percent of the sites 

with surface depressions accounted for 44 percent of the sites with cracked foundations 

• Wood Rot 

A similar analysis focused on wood rot and the presence of housing characteristics that may be 

associated with rot, such as the age of the house and the size of the roof overhang. Statistical 

tests did not indicate that any of these factors play a role in the occurrence of rot. However, these 

results are believed to point to factors other than a lack of physical cause. 

Several factors, including remodeling, may have played a role. Casual observations by the 

inspectors indicated that many of the houses built during the 1970s were resided. Exterior trim, 

including soffit and fascia, had been replaced or covered with aluminum or vinyl sheathing. A 

similar situation was noted with the windows. These observations are confirmed by the graphs of 

siding and window frame materials on houses built in the 1970s (see Sample Housing 

Characteristics). Older houses with vinyl siding and vinyl window frames were probably 

retrofitted since these materials were not commonly used in the early to mid-1970s. Assessment 

of the condition of covered original materials was usually not possible. 

• Housing Orientation Analysis 

Additional analyses attempted to associate differences in the orientation of the house with siding, 

paint, and front-door caulk problems, using numerical scoring data from the visual survey of 

building components. This effort failed to yield meaningful results. Since the results of the 

condition-rating component of the survey form was used for this analysis, the lack of a 

statistically valid relationship may likely be associated with a lack of precision in the execution 

of the rating methodology by the inspectors. 

Photographic Record 

This section provides photographs of various observed conditions of the sample homes and sites. 

The photographs are intended to convey the rating system as applied by the inspectors in 

18 Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study 
completing the survey form. Items that did not require a rating (e.g., the presence of foundation 

cracks or surface depressions on the site) are also illustrated. 

• Site Grade and Drainage 

Figure 22 provides an example of good site grade and drainage as rated by the field inspectors. In 

this case, the grade is sloped away from the house on all sides. Figure 23, by contrast, shows 

small surface depressions next to the foundation at the air-conditioner compressor units and 

where the trash cans are stored. In this case, the site drainage was rated as poor by the field 

inspectors. In addition, the existence of surface depressions was recorded on the survey form. 

Figure 22 

Example of good rating for site grade and drainage.
 

Figure 23 

Example of poor rating for site grade and drainage.
 

• Foundation Cracks 

When observed, the existence of foundation cracks was also recorded on the survey forms for 

each sample house. Figures 24 and 25 illustrate typical cracks found in concrete and masonry 

foundations. 

Figure 24 

A typical small crack found in a concrete foundation
 

wall.
 

Figure 25 

A typical small crack found in a masonry foundation
 

wall.
 

Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study 19 
 

 

• Rot 

As shown in Figures 26 and 27, the nature of observed rot was similar in the 1970s and 1990s 

sample houses. Rot of the exterior woodwork was commonly found on wood or wood composite 

doors, trim, and siding. Aside from the general vulnerability of untreated wood to decay, rot was 

often localized at end joints in trim and siding as shown in Figures 28 and 29. Rot was also 

associated with trim details that trap moisture (see Figure 30). Wood decay was also found on 

doors, particularly garage doors with wood composite sheathing as shown in Figure 31. 

Figure 26 

Rot at the bottom of a door frame in a 1990s sample
 

house.
 

Figure 27 

Rot at the bottom of a door frame and trim in a 

1970s sample house.
 

Figure 28 

Rot in exterior wood trim of a 1990s sample house.
 

Figure 29 

Rot at the bottom of wood panel siding (insufficient 

ground clearance) in a 1970s sample home.
 

20 Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study 
Figure 30 Figure 31 

Rot in wood trim associated with poor detailing (i.e., Rot of wood composite panel on a garage door 

lack of cap flashing) and maintenance in a 1990s (1970s house sample).
 

sample home.
 

• Windows and Doors 

While most windows and doors were rated as good or adequate in the sampled homes, Figures 

32 through 35 depict examples of poor ratings. Causes of a poor rating included abnormal wear 

and tear, broken glazing, and condensation inside double-pane windows. 

Figure 32 

Abnormal wear and tear on a wood window as an 

apparent result of pet scratching.
 

Figure 33 

Broken window pane on second-story window.
 

Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study 21 
 

 

Figure 34 Figure 35 

Condensation inside double-pane windows. Abnormal wear and tear on a wood door as an 

apparent result of pet scratching. 

• Fascia, Eaves, Soffits, and Guttering 

Roof fascia, eaves, soffits, and guttering exhibited several problems. In some cases, possible rot 

or other signs of durability problems were concealed from the view of inspectors as shown in 

Figure 36. Figure 37 shows the fascia of a 1970s sample home that was rated adequate but was in 

need of minor repair and maintenance. In this case, the condition of the wood fascia material was 

sound. 

Figure 38 shows that the wood fascia of a 1970s townhouse was also subject to rot at end joints 

at the brick party wall. Figures 39 and 40 illustrate a failed gutter and damaged soffit for two 

1970s sample homes. Other problems with gutters are shown in Figures 41 through 45. 

Figure 36 

Example of aluminum fascia covering older fascia
 

material on a 1970s sample house
 

(rated good by inspector).
 

Figure 37 

1970s sample house with wood fascia needing minor 

repair (rated adequate by inspector).
 

22 Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study 
 

Figure 38 Figure 39 

Fascia with a poor rating due to signs of rot and Failed gutter and signs of water damage to soffit on a 

paint failure at butt joint to a party wall on a 1970s 1970s duplex house sample. 

townhouse sample. 

Figure 40 

Failed guttering and signs of water damage on wood
 

fascia underneath aluminum fascia cover (1970s 

house sample). Note paint failure on window frames.
 

Figure 41 

Vegetation growing in poorly maintained gutter.
 

Figure 43 

Damaged downspout (same house in Figure 42).
 

Figure 42 

Failure to maintain outfall of gutter downspout. Note 

that wood panel siding does not have sufficient 

ground clearance.
 

Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study 23 
 

Figure 44 Figure 45 

Sagging gutter. Rusting party wall cap flashing and damaged gutters. 

• Roof and Roofing 

Figures 46 and 47, respectively, show typical examples of adequate roofs for 1970s and 1990s 

house samples. Examples of poor roofing ratings are illustrated in Figures 48 and 49. The telltale sign of poor roof shingle condition was the "curling" of shingle tabs. Figure 48 also 

illustrates improper valley flashing (receiving a poor rating) and buckled roof sheathing. 

Figure 46 

Example of a 1970s house sample with roofing rated 

as adequate.
 

Figure 47 

Example of a 1990s house sample with roofing rated 

as adequate.
 

24 Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study 
Figure 48 Figure 49 

A 1970s house with a poor roof based on improper Poor roofing rating due to curled shingle tabs (1970s 

valley flashing and curled shingle tabs on the left roof house sample). 

surface. 

• Exterior Appurtenances 

This section addresses porches, decks, and sidewalks. Figures 50 and 51 show the porches of two 

1990s and 1970s sampled homes that were rated as good. In each case, the porch floor was 

concrete and wood, where used, was adequately protected from weather and moisture. However, 

wood deterioration was evident on the porches of the 1970s and 1990s house samples as shown 

in Figures 52 and 53, respectively. 

Figure 50 

Porch with good rating (1990s house sample).
 

Figure 51 

Porch with good rating (1970s house sample).
 

Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study 25 
 

 

Figure 52 Figure 53 

Rot in a wood picket on the porch of a 1970s sample Wood floor boards under the porch roof of a 1990s 

home (one picket has been replaced with treated house sample show signs of deterioration. 

wood). 

Figures 54 and 55 show typical decks with a good rating. Unfortunately, the photographic record 

does not include usable pictures of decks in poor condition for purposes of contrast. 

Figure 55 

Example of a wood deck in good condition (1970s 

house sample; age of deck unknown).
 

Figure 54 

Example of a wood deck in good condition (1990s 

house sample).
 

Figure 56 shows an example of a sidewalk in poor condition for a 1970s sample home. Uplift of 

the sidewalk was caused by growth of a tree planted too close to the sidewalk. In Figure 57, 

ponding of water on a sidewalk adjacent to a 1990s house sample is apparent immediately 

following rain. The downspout and splash block discharge to the sidewalk surface. 

26 Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study 
Figure 56 Figure 57 

Sidewalk of a 1970s sample house in poor condition Ponded water on a sidewalk (1990s house sample). 

due to root movement and growth of a closely located 

tree. 

HOMEOWNER SURVEY 

Forty-three homeowner survey forms (see Appendix B) contained answers at the completion of 

the telephone contacts and site surveys. Twenty-eight respondents provided answers to Question 

2, which asked about the maintenance of eight major housing components. Fifteen responses 

were recorded for Question 3, which asked homeowners/occupants to identify any problems with 

the home. Seventeen respondents answered Question 4, which asked about natural causes 

resulting in damage to the home. Only one positive response was recorded for Question 5, which 

asked respondents about any injuries attributable to the house. Questions 6 and 7 were 

administrative in nature and related to information needed for the site assessments. Questions 6 

and 7 had four and seven responses, respectively. 

The following summarizes the meaningful data and findings from the homeowner survey. 

Statistics are based on a relatively small sample size of only the homeowners who responded. 

Therefore, the findings should not be considered representative of all homeowners within the 

study region. The findings, however, do provide some useful insights. 

Question 1: Time of Residence 

On average, the homeowners in the survey had owned their houses for 13 years (see Question 1 

on survey form in Appendix B). The time of residence ranged from one to 29 years. 

Question 2: Maintenance 

With respondents providing answers for more than one category, a total of 87 answers to 

Question 2 were recorded.. Table 4 presents a tabulation of the number of responses by the 

number of components that required maintenance. Table 5 presents the number of responses for 

each component indicated in Question 2, along with the average number of years since 

replacement and the average number of years occupants lived in their house. Given that some of 

the respondents furnished only partial answers (i.e., provided a comment but did not report 

Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study 27 
 

 

replacement date), the computation of averages was sometimes based on fewer responses than 

reflected in the column headed "Number of Respondents." 

TABLE 4
 

RESPONSES TO QUESTION 2
 

NUMBER OF 

COMPONENTS INDICATED AS 

REQUIRING MAINTENANCE 

NUMBER OF 

RESPONDENTS 

8 1 

7 2 

5 3 

4 2 

3 6 

2 10 

1 4 

TABLE 5
 

ANALYSIS OF QUESTION 2 RESPONSES
 

COMPONENT 

NUMBER OF 

RESPONSES 

AVERAGE YEARS 

SINCE REPLACEMENT 

AVERAGE YEARS 

IN HOUSE 

Roofing 16 6.1 17.6 

Paints 16 2.3 11.0 

Windows 14 4.4 15.9 

Caulking and Sealants 13 1.9 11.1 

Siding 11 3.6 15.0 

Doors 8 4.0 18.2 

Flashing 6 3.8 8.0 

Gutters 3 9.3 14.7 

The answers to Question 2 indicate that a large proportion of respondents perform maintenance 

tasks that help prolong the life of a house. For example, 16 of the 28 respondents reported that 

they had painted, on average within the last 2.3 years (see third column in Table 5). Thirteen 

reported replacement of caulking and sealants, on average, in the last 1.9 years. Respondents also 

frequently mentioned major components such as siding, roofing, and windows. 

The size of the homeowner survey sample precluded any attempt to draw statistical inferences 

regarding the two populations of houses. For example, an average frequency of replacement or 

"return time" can be computed by dividing the number of positive responses for a component by 

the total house-years in the sample. House-years equals the sum of all responses to the lengthof-occupancy question. The house-years for the 43-response sample totaled 504. Dividing 504 

into the 16 positive responses for roofing yields a result of 3.2 percent. If this estimate were 

statistically valid, it would mean that we expect 3.2 percent of the roofs in the sample to be 

reroofed every year. 

Question 3: Durability Problems 

Over half of the 15 responses to Question 3 centered on two issues. Five indicated a problem or 

potential problem related to the foundation or standing water in the basement or crawl space. 

Another three cited problems related to leaks or water stains around windows. Another two 

indicated an attic water problem, one related to the fire sprinkler system. The remaining answers 

28 Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study 
 

varied, citing problems such as nail pops, settling, soffit deterioration, and damage from a fallen 

tree. 

Question 4: Damage from Natural Causes 

Seventeen respondents of the 43 answered Question 4, which asked if natural causes had resulted 

in damage to the home. The question allowed respondents to select from five specific natural 

cause categories and an "Other" category. Table 6 presents a tabulation of the number of 

responses to Question 4 by the number of natural causes of damage cited by the respondent. 

TABLE 6
 

RESPONSES TO QUESTION 4
 

NUMBER OF 

NATURAL CAUSES INDICATED 

NUMBER OF 

RESPONDENTS 

1 15 

2 2 

Table 7 presents the number of responses for each cause indicated in Question 4, along with the 

average year of the incident and the occupant's average number of years in the house. Given that 

some of the respondents furnished only partial answers for Question 4, the computation of 

averages was sometimes based on fewer responses than reflected in the column headed "Number 

of Responses." 

TABLE 7
 

ANALYSIS OF QUESTION 4 RESPONSES
 

CAUSE 

NUMBER OF 

RESPONSES 

AVERAGE YEAR 

OF DAMAGE 

AVERAGE YEARS 

IN HOUSE 

Wind 3 1998 5.5 

Hail 3 1997 6.0 

Flooding 3 N/A 14.5 

Fire 2 1993 18.0 

Termites/Bugs 4 1986 23.3 

Other 4 1994 8.8 

As with Question 2, the small sample size prevents the drawing of statistical inferences regarding 

issues such as the frequency of the various damage/cause categories. If a larger data set were 

available, such inferences would be computed in manner analogous to the frequencies for 

Question 2. 

It should be noted that owners/occupants provided little information regarding the extent of 

damage. None reported catastrophic losses. One respondent indicated $3,000 in wind damage. 

Another reported minor damage from a fire. Still another reported termite/carpenter ant damage 

to a deck. 

Question 5: Injuries (Fitness of Use) 

Only one person responded positively to Question 5, which asked if any injuries were 

attributable to the house. While 16 respondents indicated damage to the house associated with 

natural causes, only one injury was reported and it was associated with a flood. The response did 

not indicate the nature of the injury. No injuries associated with features of the house, such as 

stairs, were reported. 

Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study 29 
 

Discussion 

While all of the homeowner survey information must be regarded as anecdotal owing to the 

relatively small sample size and response rate, larger studies along the same lines are likely to 

yield more detailed and statistically valid insights into important issues related to housing 

durability and fitness of use. In particular, the homeowner survey adds time-experience 

information that complements the "point-in-time" condition assessment results reported earlier. 

IV. EVALUATION OF THE METHODOLOGY 

During the analysis phase of the project, several improvements to the survey methodology were 

identified. The first improvement relates to enhancing inspector consistency. 

Part of the inspection form required inspectors to check the appropriate block to indicate selected 

house and site characteristics and conditions. While this approach seems simple and 

straightforward, the results indicate that some of the inspectors experienced problems. For 

example, inspectors sometimes disagreed about the number of stories in a house. Difficult-toclassify designs, such as split foyers and walk-out basements, might have contributed to the 

confusion. Such a problem could be minimized by creating a comprehensive set of detailed, 

illustrated definitions and a survey guide to better educate inspectors before they attempt any 

field work. It is also unclear whether certain data, such as house style, are relevant to significant 

durability concerns. Thus, some assessment data may be eliminated to streamline the assessment 

process. 

The site condition assessment form offered inspectors six choices for the length of overhang: 0", 

0-6", 6-12", 12-18", 18-24", >24". Inspectors differed on the size of the overhang for 100 of 208 

houses. Approximately one quarter of those responses referenced categories that were not 

contiguous. While some of the contradictions probably resulted from differences in opinion 

about the exact size of the overhang, some of the discrepancies may have occurred because 

inspectors examined different sides of houses with different overhang lengths. Perhaps some 

inspectors were looking at end gables and others at the sidewalls. This source of error could be 

removed by modifying the survey form to require data for each side of the house. But this 

approach raises possible confusion as to what constitutes a "side" of a house for homes with 

complex plans. 

Replacing the multiple-choice approach with one that allows the inspector to write in an estimate 

might also improve the data. While such an approach would not eliminate disagreements, it 

would likely offer the analyst better insights into the magnitude of such differences. It may be 

that the disparity between the resulting point estimates will not be as great as that suggested 

when the multiple-choice categories are used. 

The next section of the site condition assessment survey is the Building Component Condition 

Visual Survey. In this section, inspectors enter a numerical score to rate the condition of each 

component. Instructional material furnished to the inspectors provided an explanation of scoring 

criteria for each component to be inspected. The criteria for some components address not only 

the condition of a component but also related construction details. For example, the siding 

assessment criteria corresponding to the "2-Good" category required the siding to be more than 

30 Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study 
six inches above grade and no rot to be present. The "4-Poor" category required siding be less 

than six inches above the finish grade but permitted rot on up to 15 percent of end joints. The 

value of a statistical analysis that attempts to relate such scores as these with other data in the 

survey is questionable. Even if the analyst were able to isolate a statistical relationship, its 

meaning would not be clear because the score summarizes changes in two different phenomena. 

If numerical grading is to be used, each category/score should be associated with only one 

variable. 

The numerical scoring section presented another problem. The criteria for scoring used words 

such as "adequate" and "sound", which call for personal judgment. Accordingly, the scores carry 

some degree of subjectivity. Since one inspector's "adequate" may not correspond to another's, 

equal scores may not reflect the same set of conditions; thus, any comparison or averaging of the 

two scores may be misleading. Because of the complexity of the grading approach, it is entirely 

possible that inspectors tended to assign ratings based more on personal judgment than on a strict 

application of multiple criteria. 

In view of the above difficulties, a simpler data collection approach focusing on key durability 

indicators is essential. Such an approach could mean the elimination of numerical scoring in 

favor of a survey where inspectors place a check in a block or provide an estimate. Such an 

example was tested on a few homes in this pilot study (see Appendix G). While the results of the 

test were also plagued by contradictory assessments, the vehicle's straightforward layout seems 

easier to follow and is less prone to omissions. Features of the streamlined approach could be 

incorporated into a new form. 

Both the site assessment forms and the telephone survey should also include a "none" and 

"unknown" response for many of the questions so that such situations could be differentiated 

from each other and from an entry left blank. 

V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 

This pilot study was intended to provide guidance for larger-scale studies of building durability 

in the at-large housing stock. As such, the study succeeded. In addition, it yielded certain telling 

findings related to durability in the housing sample: 

• Housing Characteristics 

− The size of roof overhangs decreased between the 1970s and 1990s. Eighty-two percent 

of the 1990s samples had overhangs of 12 inches or less. In the 1970s sample, only 40 

percent fell into that range. 

− The use of vinyl window frames increased to 65 percent. Wood and metal frames were 

the dominant materials in the 1970s. 

− Metal doors became the dominant door type in the 1990s, capturing about two-thirds of 

the 1990s sample. Seventy-five percent of the doors in the 1970s sample were wood. 

− Vinyl became the dominant siding material. It claimed almost two-thirds of the 1990s 

sample. 

Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study 31 
 

 

• Housing Condition 

− Site grading appears associated with foundation cracks. Seventy-three percent of houses 

on lots with surface depressions had visible foundation cracks compared with only 19 

percent for those with no identified surface depressions. 

− The occurrence of rot in newer and older homes was 22 percent and 31 percent, 

respectively. Most rot was associated with wood trim materials. 

− Masonry foundations tended to evidence cracks more frequently than concrete 

foundations. 

− Most windows and doors were rated in good or adequate condition. 

• Homeowner Survey 

− The response rate of the homeowner survey was 21 percent of the 208 houses sampled. 

− The average time of occupancy of respondents was 13 years. 

− Sixteen respondents indicated that they had performed various maintenance activities in 

recent years. 

− The most common durability problems mentioned by respondents (over half of 15 

responses) were related to water, including wet basements and leaky windows. 

− Reports of damage by natural causes covered all causes listed in the survey form; 

however, the number of responses per cause ranged from two to four. The extent or 

nature of damage was not generally reported. 

− Only one injury related to a flood was reported; the nature of the injury was not 

disclosed. 

While this study produced important insights into the state of the housing surveyed, it also 

represented an opportunity to assess different survey methods. The project was intentionally 

designed to cast a wide net. The assessment form was designed to capture data on a large number 

of residential features. In addition to the exterior components of the house, it solicited 

information on features such as driveways, sidewalks, fences, and landscaping. At the same time, 

it sought some fairly detailed information, such as how the deck material was fastened and 

whether the patio material was pervious. In addition, the form provided for alternative methods 

of gathering the needed information. 

Based on the results of the data analysis, it appears that the survey would benefit from narrowing 

the focus of the form to concentrate on the major issues that influence durability, particularly 

those that were clearly identified in the pilot study. The survey form should also be modified to 

reflect a single, objective approach that minimizes the exercise of inspector judgment. 

VI. RECOMMENDATIONS 

Important recommendations from this study include the following: 

• The lessons learned from this pilot study need to be incorporated into an improved 

assessment methodology. 

32 Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study 
• A comprehensive set of inspector training documents and training materials should be 

developed for the improved methodology. 

• A simplified, user-friendly survey form should be designed and focus on key issues as 

identified in this pilot study. 

• Techniques and procedures aimed at minimizing inspector error should be developed and 

implemented. They could include creation of a photographic record of each major 

problem encountered and quality checks of completed survey forms and prompt on-site 

follow-up to address any discrepancy identified. 

• An additional small-scale trial inspection to test the improved methodology should be 

conducted. 

• Once an efficient methodology is finalized, full-scale studies of the U.S. housing stock 

should be conducted on a regional basis. 

Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study 33 
 

APPENDIX A 

HOMEOWNER/OCCUPANT LETTER
 

September 15, 1999 

«First_Name» «Middle_initial» «Last_Name» 

«First_Name1» «Middle_initial1» «Last_Name1» 

«Address» 

«City», «State» «Zip» 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

In order to improve the design, construction, and durability of tomorrow’s housing, we need to 

know the successes and failures of yesterday’s homes. As part of discovering these successes and 

failures, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has asked the NAHB 

Research Center, Inc. (NAHB-RC) in Upper Marlboro, Maryland to conduct an evaluation of 

existing housing in the United States. As part of a pilot study in the Mid-Atlantic Region, we 

have randomly selected your house at «Address» to be included. However, your participation in 

this study is strictly voluntary. 

Within the next two weeks, an NAHB-RC engineer will attempt to contact you via telephone to 

request your participation, and to obtain some general information about your home. They then 

will be conducting a visual inspection of the exterior of your house. This exterior survey will be 

enhanced if the inspector can walk around the property and examine all sides of the house. If you 

would prefer to call us, you may contact ________________ of the NAHB Research Center at 

800-638-8556 or 301-249-4400. 

The NAHB Research Center, Inc. is an independent, not-for-profit, research organization, and 

they are not associated with any regulatory, code, or tax assessment agency. 

The survey results will be solely used as data for a general overall condition assessment of 

single-family housing, and will be blind to individual property addresses. Any information you 

provide will be kept strictly confidential. 

If you are interested in the results from this study, let us know, and we will include you in the 

final report distribution. If there are any concerns or question regarding this research please feel 

free to call me at 202-708-4370 x 5725, or NAHB-RC at 800-638-8556. 

In advance, I thank you for your participation in this research. 

Sincerely, 

William E. Freeborne 

Program Analyst 

Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study A-1 

 

 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

 

 

 

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

APPENDIX B 

HOMEOWNER/OCCUPANT SURVEY FORM
 

CONDITION ASSESSMENT SURVEY FORM
 

Phase I, Owner Survey 

Report Date __________________ Inspection ID # __________________
 

INSPECTION ADDRESS: ________________________________________________________________ 

OWNER INFORMATION: 

Name: ________________________________________________________________________________
 

Phone Number:____(____) - ____-______ Home:____(____) - ____-______
 

Owner Occupied: ____ (Y/N) 

1.)	 How long have you owned the house ____________________________________________ 

2.) Last maintenance on the following areas, if known (please list approximate year or date if within the last 12 

months). 

Component Replacement year - Date Comments 

Siding replacement 

Roofing 

Painting 

Caulking/Sealants 

Windows 

Doors 

Flashings 

Gutters/Downspouts 

3.) Any problems with the house? 

(Please list items with brief notes, such as “Patched roof after noting damp ceiling”) 

• Foundation cracking or settlement? 

• Any water leakage or standing in basement or crawlspace? 

• Noticed water stains around window casings? 

4.) Any damage by natural causes? 

Yes/No Natural Cause Insurance Claim (Yes/No) Approx Cost $ Approximate Year 

Wind 

Hail 

Flooding 

Fire

 Termites/Bugs/Ect 

Other 

5.) Any injuries directly attributable to the house? 

(Please list items with brief notes, such as “Broke arm when fell down the stairs”.) 

6.) May we arrange a time to enter the property to conduct a detailed visual exterior inspection? 

When ____________________________________ Do you want to be present? _____________ 

7.) Do you have an unfinished basement or crawlspace? 

Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study B-1 

________________________________________________________________________ 

APPENDIX C 

SITE CONDITION ASSESSMENT FORM

Report Date __________________

INSPECTION ADDRESS: ______________________________________________________ 

REPORTED AGE: _______________ DATE PURCHASED____________ PHOTO Roll ___ # ___ 

NOTED REPLACEMENT OF ROOFING, SIDING OR

WINDOWS_______WHEN_________________________

FRONT OF HOUSE FACES: __________ GENERAL DESCRIPTION: ______________________________

DRAW PLAN VIEW OF THE PROPERTY: 

PLEASE INCLUDE: 

APPROXIMATE SHAPE OF STRUCTURE

APPROXIMATE LOCATIONS OF VISIBLE DAMAGE 

SHIELDING FROM BUILDINGS / TREES

SIDEWALKS / DRIVEWAYS

GARAGES/ CARPORTS

NORTH DIRECTION VECTOR

DOORS; FRONT, REAR

DORMERS

APPURTENANCES, PORCHES, CHIMNEYS

Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study C-1 
 

 

Type of House 

SINGLE FAMILY ____ MULTIFAMILY ___ ATTACHED ___ DETACHED ___ 

RANCH ___ COLONIAL ___ TUDOR ___ TOWNHOUSE ___ OTHER ___ 

NUMBER OF STORIES: 1 ___ 1 1⁄2 ___ 2 ___ 2 1⁄2 ___ 3___ 

GARAGE ___ (Y/N) ATTACHED ___ DETACHED ___ 

BASEMENT ___ CRAWLSPACE ___ SLAB-ON-GRADE ___ UNDETERMINED ___ 

SITE CONDITIONS 

GENERAL GRADING: 

SIGNS OF PONDING ___ SURFACE DEPRESSIONS ___ 

LANDSCAPING: 

WITHIN 10’ ____ (Y/N) 

LARGE TREES ___ LARGE SHRUBS ___ COMMENTS _________________________________ 

FLOWER BEDS ___ WOOD MULCH ___ 

PATIO SLABS: 

PRESENT ___ (Y/N) ATTACHED ___ UN-ATTACHED ___ 2% = 1⁄4” IN 1 FT 

IMPERVIOUS ___ PERVIOUS ___ ≥ 2% SLOPE ___ < 2% ___ NEG ___ COMMENTS________________ 

TYPE: BRICK ____ BLOCK____ CONCRETE _____ OTHER ______________ 

CONDITION: GOOD ___ ADEQUATE ____ POOR ___ DESCRIPTION ________________________ 

RETAINING WALLS: PRESENT ___ (Y/N) APPROXIMATE HEIGHT ____ MATERIAL _____________ 

CONDITION: GOOD ___ ADEQUATE ____ POOR ___ DESCRIPTION ________________________ 

DRIVEWAYS/PARKING: PRESENT ___ (Y/N) 

OFF STREET ___ (Y/N) PERVIOUS ___ (Y/N) DISTANCE FROM HOUSE <10’ __ ≥ 10’___ 

CONDITION GOOD ___ ADEQUATE ____ POOR ___ DESCRIPTION ________________________ 

SIDEWALKS: PRESENT ___ (Y/N) PERVIOUS ___ (Y/N) SLOPE ≥ 2% ____ < 2% _____ 

WIND EXPOSURE RATING ____ (A, B, C, OR D) (ASCE 7) 

DEGREE OF WIND SHIELDING: EXCELLENT ___ NORMAL ____ POOR____ 

FOUNDATION 

MATERIAL: BRICK ____ BLOCK ____ CONCRETE ____ PIER ____ OTHER _____ 

VISIBLE EXTERIOR CRACKS ___ (Y/N) WINDOW WELLS ___ (Y/N) COVERED ___ (Y/N) 

WALK OUT BASEMENT ___ (Y/N) STAIRWELLS ___ (Y/N) 

STAIRWELL CONDITION: GOOD ___ ADEQUATE ____ POOR ___ DESCRIPTION ________________________ 

TYPE AND CONDITION OF EXTERIOR ENVELOPE 

SIDING: 

TYPE: BRICK___ VINYL ___ ASBESTOS-CEMENT ___ WOOD ___ ALUMINUM ___ STUCCO ___ 

DESCRIPTION ______________________________________ 

INSTALLATION: HEIGHT ABOVE FINISH GRADE < 6” ___ ≥ 6” ___ COMMENTS ___________________ 

ROOF: 

TYPE: GABLE ___ HIP ___ GAMBREL ___ SHED ___ OTHER ____________ 

PITCH OF ROOF <3/12 ___ 3 TO 6 IN 12 ___ > 6/12 ___ 

ROOF COVERING: COMPOSITION ___ WOOD ___ SLATE ___ TILE ___ BUILT-UP ___ 

ASPHALT SHINGLES ___ METAL ___ OTHER ___ 

COMMENTS _________________________________________________________________________ 

NUMBER OF VALLEYS ____ 

GENERAL VALLEY CONDITION(S): GOOD ___ ADEQUATE ___ POOR ____ DESCRIPTION _____________ 

C-2 Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study 
 

 

 

NUMBER OF ROOF OPENINGS ____ 

GENERAL OPENING CONDITION(S): GOOD ___ ADEQUATE ___ POOR ____ DESCRIPTION _____________ 

NUMBER OF SKYLIGHTS ____ 

GENERAL SKYLIGHT CONDITION(S): GOOD ___ ADEQUATE ___ POOR ____ DESCRIPTION ____________ 

VENTS: GABLE ___ RIDGE ___ SOFFIT ___ PLUMBING ___ THROUGH ROOF (FAN ___ TURBINE ___ PASSIVE __) 

ROOF FLASHING: ROOFING DRIP EDGES ___ (Y/N), SPACED < 1⁄4” ___ ≥ 1⁄4” ____ 

SOFFITS: TYPE , WOOD ___ METAL ____ VINYL ___ OTHER ________________________________________ 

SLOPE: HORIZONTAL ___ ANGLED _____ IF ANGLED APPROXIMATE SLOPE _______________________ 

OVERHANG: LENGTH OF OVERHANG 0” ___ 0-6” ___ 6-12” ___ 12-18” ___ 18-24” ____ > 24” ____

 SAME FOR ALL LOCATIONS ___ (Y/N) 

GUTTER/DOWNSPOUT: PRESENT ON ALL ROOFS ___ (Y/N) SIGNS OF RECENT MAINTENANCE ___ (Y/N) 

MATERIAL: ALUMINUM ___ STEEL ___ COPPER ___ PLASTIC ___ OTHER ______________ 

SPLASH BLOCKS / RUN-OFF PROVISIONS ___ (Y/N) WATER FLOW DIRECTED 2’ MINIMUM ___ (Y/N) 

COMMENTS _________________________________________________________________ 

WINDOWS: MATERIAL: WOOD ___ METAL ___ VINYL ___ OTHER ____________________________________ 

GLAZING: SINGLE ___ DOUBLE ___ TRIPLE ___ OTHER _______________________________________ 

CONDITION: GOOD ___ ADEQUATE ___ POOR ____ DESCRIPTION _______________________________ 

STORM WINDOWS: NOT PRESENT ___ WOOD ___ METAL ___ VINYL ___ OTHER __________________ 

CONDITION: GOOD ___ ADEQUATE ___ POOR ____ DESCRIPTION _______________________________ 

DOORS: (F = FRONT, R = REAR) 

MATERIAL: WOOD ___ METAL ___ VINYL ___ OTHER _______________________________________ 

CONDITION: GOOD ___ ADEQUATE ___ POOR ____ DESCRIPTION _______________________________ 

STORM DOORS: NOT PRESENT ___ WOOD ___ METAL ___ VINYL ___ OTHER _____________________ 

CONDITION: GOOD ___ ADEQUATE ___ POOR ____ DESCRIPTION _______________________________ 

DECKS , DECK PRESENT ___ (Y/N) 

MATERIAL: TREATED WOOD ___ REDWOOD ___ CEDAR ___ CAN’T TELL ___ OTHER ______________ 

SURFACE NAILED ___ SURFACE SCREWED ___ OTHER _________________ 

CONDITION: GOOD ___ ADEQUATE ___ POOR ____ DESCRIPTION _______________________________ 

FENCING PRESENT ___ (Y/N) 

TYPE, WOOD ___ METAL ___ PLASTIC ___ , DESCRIBE _______________________________________ 

CONDITION: GOOD ___ ADEQUATE ___ POOR ____ DESCRIPTION _______________________________ 

PORCH/STOOP 

MATERIAL: WOOD FRAME ___ CONCRETE ____ COVERED ____ OTHER _____________ 

CONDITION: GOOD ___ ADEQUATE ___ POOR ____ DESCRIPTION _______________________________ 

EXTERIOR STAIRS 

MATERIAL: WOOD FRAME ___ CONCRETE ____ METAL ___ OTHER ____________________________ 

CONDITION: GOOD ___ ADEQUATE ___ POOR ____ DESCRIPTION _______________________________ 

CHIMNEY STORM CAP: _____ (Y/N) 

CONDITION: GOOD ___ ADEQUATE ___ POOR ____ DESCRIPTION _______________________________ 

Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study C-3 
 

FASCIAS

 MATERIAL: WOOD ___ METAL ___ VINYL ___ OTHER ____________________________ 

CONDITION: GOOD ___ ADEQUATE ___ POOR ____ DESCRIPTION __________________________ 

WOOD ROT (INSECT DAMAGE, TERMITE, ETC.) 

Any Wood Rot Noted ___ (Y/N) 

If Yes, Describe Location(s) and Probable Cause(s): ________________________________________________ 

Any Insect Damage Noted ___ (Y/N) 

If Yes, Describe Location(s) and Probable Cause(s): ________________________________________________ 

C-4 Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BUILDING COMPONENT CONDITION VISUAL SURVEY* 

CONDITION RATINGS, 1 = EXCELLENT, 2 = GOOD, 3 = ADEQUATE, 4 = POOR, 5 = NEEDS REPLACED, 6 = NA 

BUILDING SIDE FRONT RIGHT REAR LEFT Comments 

COMPONENT CONDITIONS House Road Side Faces N S E W 

GRADING 

LANDSCAPING 

SIDEWALKS 

FOUNDATION 

PORCHES 

DECKS 

SIDING 

DOORS 

WINDOWS 

TRIM 

OPENINGS 

SOFFITS 

FASCIA 

GUTTERS 

FLASHING 

ROOF 

CAULKING 

FASCIA/SOFFIT 

SIDING/SOFFIT 

SIDING/TRIM 

SIDING/WINDOWS 

SIDING/DOORS 

SIDING/OPENINGS 

PAINT 

FASCIA 

SOFFIT 

SIDING 

TRIM 

WINDOWS 

DOORS 

*NOTE: Refer to Appendix D for a detailed description of the numeric rating system. 

Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study C-5 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX D 

RATING SYSTEM
 

Rating System Description for: Building Component Condition Visual Survey 

CONDITION RATINGS, 1 = EXCELLENT, 2 = GOOD, 3 = ADEQUATE, 4 = POOR, 5 = NEEDS REPAIRED 6 = NA 

BUILDING SIDE FRONT RIGHT REAR LEFT Comments 

COMPONENT CONDITIONS House Road Side Faces N S E W 

GRADING 

Scope: The grading is associated with the drainage characteristics of the first 10 ft of the ground in an area encompassing 

the 10 feet perpendicular and adjacent to the foundation. 

Importance: The slope of the finish grade in the 10 feet adjacent and perpendicular to the foundation establishes and 

promotes proper surface drainage for the bulk water away from the structure. This region is particularly important to 

proper drainage because it is both the area that was excavated and back filled during construction (thereby being more 

porous) and any additional water surcharge load is proportionally added to lateral structural loads resisted by the 

foundation. Saturation of the soil in this region can also hasten any decay being present, raise the micro-environment 

relative humidity, encourage insect growth, and many more problems. As a first defense for these and other potential 

problems the bulk water needs to be removed from this region within 10-foot promptly. 

CONDITION RATING DESCRIPTIONS: 

1. EXCELLENT 

SLOPE 5% (5/8” PER FOOT) OR GREATER AWAY FROM THE STRUCTURE A MINIMUM OF 10’ ADJACENT AND PERPENDICULAR 

NO VISIBLE DEPRESSIONS FOR STANDING WATER FOR THE ENTIRE PERIMETER AREA 

2 GOOD 

SLOPE 5% OR GREATER THAN 4’ ADJACENT AND PERPENDICULAR FROM THE FOUNDATION THEN, POSITIVE A MINIMUM OF 

10 ‘ TOTAL ADJACENT AND PERPENDICULAR FROM THE FOUNDATION 

EITHER PROPERLY DRAINED OR NO VISIBLE DEPRESSION FOR STANDING WATER WITHIN 10’ FOR THE ENTIRE PERIMETER. 

SLOPE 2% TO 5% 10’ ADJACENT AND PERPENDICULAR FROM THE FOUNDATION. 

EITHER PROPERLY DRAINED OR NO VISIBLE DEPRESSION FOR STANDING WATER WITHIN 10’ FOR THE ENTIRE PERIMETER 

3 ADEQUATE 

POSITIVE SLOPE 0 TO 2% 10’ ADJACENT AND PERPENDICULAR FROM THE FOUNDATION. 

LESS THAN 1 FT2

 OF WATER RETAINING DEPRESSIONS PER 10 LINEAR FOOT OF WALL 

4 POOR 

LEVEL SLOPE WITH IN THE 4’ ADJACENT AND PERPENDICULAR FROM THE FOUNDATION 

BETWEEN 1FT2

 AND 5 FT2 OF WATER RETAINING DEPRESSIONS PER 10 LINEAR FOOT OF FOUNDATION 

LESS THAN 1 FT2

 PER 20 LINEAR FOOT OF FOUNDATION SLOPED BACK TOWARD THE FOUNDATION 

5 NEEDS REPAIR 

SLOPE NEGATIVE TO LEVEL FOR MORE THAN 1FT2

 PER 20 LINEAR FEET OF FOUNDATION 

GREATER THAN 5FT2

 OF WATER RETAINING DEPRESSIONS PER 10 LINEAR FOOT OF WALL 

Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study D-1 
 

 

 

 

 

LANDSCAPING 

Scope: Landscaping is focused on the plantings that are within a 10’ zone around and above the structure. 

Importance: plantings can pose potential problems to the structure ranging from roots pushing on and below the 

foundation to the watering for the plants creating wet basements and high relative humidity micro-climates to falling trees 

and limbs introducing large impact loads. The main issues with respect to durability are: 

• Air movement around the structure to promote evaporation. 

• Air movement to crawl-space vents for proper ventilation 

• Large trees a minimum of 10 feet away to minimize impact due to root growth. 

• A means to help stabilize the moisture content of the soil within the first 10”, either shrubs, grass, impermeable 

barrier, or bushes. 

• Minimizing the introduction of excessive additional water into the region. 

1 EXCELLENT 

ALL BUSHES AND PLANTINGS ARE A MINIMUM OF 1 FOOT FROM FOUNDATION VENTS 

A MINIMUM OF 6” SEPARATION OF ALL FOLIAGE FROM THE SIDING. 

LARGE TREES (GREATER THAN 12’ TALL) ARE A MINIMUM OF 10’ AWAY FROM THE STRUCTURE 

ANY WOOD MULCH IS A MINIMUM OF 6 INCHES AWAY FROM THE SIDING 

WELL DRAINED PLANTINGS WITHOUT SIGNS OF EXCESSIVELY MOIST SURROUNDINGS WITHIN 10’ OF STRUCTURE. 

2 GOOD 

ALL BUSHES AND PLANTINGS ARE A MINIMUM OF 6 INCHES FROM FOUNDATION VENTS 

A MINIMUM OF 6” SEPARATION OF ALL FOLIAGE FROM THE SIDING. 

LARGE TREES (GREATER THAN 12’ TALL) ARE A MINIMUM OF 10’ AWAY FROM THE STRUCTURE 

LESS THAN 1 SMALL TREE (LESS THAN 12’ TALL) PER 20 LINEAR FOOT OF FOUNDATION WITHIN 10’ OF STRUCTURE 

WOOD MULCH IS A MINIMUM OF 6 INCHES AWAY FROM THE SIDING 

NO PLANTINGS WITH SIGNS OF EXCESSIVELY MOIST SURROUNDINGS WITHIN 6’ OF STRUCTURE 

3 ADEQUATE 

ALL BUSHES AND PLANTINGS ARE A MINIMUM OF 6 INCHES FROM FOUNDATION VENTS. 

A MINIMUM OF 6” SEPARATION OF ALL FOLIAGE FROM THE SIDING AT LEAST 90% OF THE STRUCTURE. 

LARGE TREES (GREATER THAN 12’ TALL) ARE A MINIMUM OF 10’ AWAY FROM THE STRUCTURE. 

LESS THAN 1 SMALL TREE (LESS THAN 12’ TALL) PER 10 LINEAR FOOT OF FOUNDATION WITHIN 10’ OF STRUCTURE. 

ANY WOOD MULCH IS A MINIMUM OF 6 INCHES AWAY FROM THE SIDING. 

NO PLANTINGS WITH SIGNS OF EXCESSIVELY MOIST SURROUNDINGS WITHIN 4’ OF STRUCTURE. 

4 POOR 

ALL BUSHES AND PLANTINGS ARE A MINIMUM OF 1 FOOT FROM FOUNDATION VENTS 

A MINIMUM OF 6” SEPARATION OF ALL FOLIAGE FROM THE STRUCTURE AT LEAST 75% OF THE STRUCTURE. 

LARGE TREES (GREATER THAN 12’ TALL) ARE A MINIMUM OF 10’ AWAY FROM THE STRUCTURE 

LESS THAN 2 SMALL TREES (LESS THAN 12’ TALL) PER 10 LINEAR FOOT OF FOUNDATION WITHIN 10’ OF STRUCTURE 

NO PLANTINGS WITH SIGNS OF EXCESSIVELY MOIST SURROUNDINGS WITHIN 2’ OF STRUCTURE 

D-2 Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study 
 

 

5 NEEDS REPAIR 

FOUNDATION VENTS ARE COVERED WITH VEGETATION. 

LESS THAN 6” SEPARATION OF ALL FOLIAGE FROM THE SIDING FOR MORE THAN 25% OF THE STRUCTURE. 

LARGE TREES WITHIN 10’ AWAY FROM THE STRUCTURE. 

MORE THAN 2 SMALL TREES (LESS THAN 12’ TALL) PER 10 LINEAR FOOT OF FOUNDATION WITHIN 10’ OF STRUCTURE. 

WOOD MULCH IS A LESS THAN 6 INCHES AWAY FROM THE SIDING. 

PLANTINGS WITH SIGNS OF EXCESSIVELY MOIST SURROUNDINGS WITHIN 2’ OF STRUCTURE. 

FOUNDATION 

SCOPE: THE CONDITION SURVEY OF THE FOUNDATION IS INTERESTED IN THE EXTERIOR CONDITION OF THE FOUNDATION 

AND ITS STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY. 

IMPORTANCE: THE FOUNDATION IS THE SUPPORT FOR THE STRUCTURE. IT NEEDS TO BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THE STRUCTURE 

WITH A MINIMUM OF DEFLECTION AND CRACKING. DISTRESS IN THE FOUNDATION IS GENERALLY SEEN IN AREAS OF REENTRANT CORNERS, FOUNDATION CORNERS, LOCATION OF SETTLEMENTS, AND OPENINGS FOR UTILITIES. 

1 EXCELLENT 

NO VISIBLE EXTERIOR CRACKS. 

ALL MORTAR PROPERLY TOOLED AND IN GOOD CONDITION. 

FOUNDATION SQUARE AND PLUMB. 

NO NOTICEABLE BULGES. 

NO ROT OR DECAY OF WOOD COMPONENTS. 

NO EFFLORESCENCE. 

ALL TIE HOLES PATCHED. 

CRAWLSPACE VENTILATION PROPERLY SCREENED AND UNOBSTRUCTED. 

2 GOOD 

CRACKS FROM RE-ENTRANT CORNERS SHORTER THAN 2 TIMES THE WALL THICKNESS 

ALL CRACKS LESS THAN 1/32” (.03125”) 

NO CRACKS IN CONTACT WITH THE FINISH GRADE 

EFFLORESCENT ON CONCRETE / MASONRY EXTENDS ≤ 1” ABOVE FINISH GRADE 

NO ROT OR DECAY OF WOOD COMPONENTS. 

≥ 50% OF ALL TIE HOLES PATCHED 

MORTAR IS SOUND 

NO MASONRY SPALLING 

Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study D-3 
 

 

3 ADEQUATE 

FOUNDATION CRACKS ARE LESS THAN 1/32” (0.03125”) WIDE AT GROUND LEVEL 

NO NOTICEABLE SEPARATION OF THE FOUNDATION AT OR AROUND OPENINGS 

NO VISIBLE ROT OR DECAY, ESPECIALLY AROUND THE CRAWLSPACE ACCESS, EXTERIOR BASEMENT ENTRANCE, OR 

BASEMENT WINDOWS. 

CRAWLSPACE VENTILATION OF APPROXIMATELY 1/150TH OF THE FOOTPRINT. 

EFFLORESCENT’S DO NOT EXTEND MORE THAN 2” ABOVE THE FOUNDATION 

NO LOOSE MASONRY UNITS 

4 POOR 

CRACKS’ RADIATING OUT OF RE-ENTRANT CORNERS ≥ 4 TIMES THE THICKNESS. 

CRACK WIDTHS ≥1/32 “ 

MORTAR CRACKS AND MASONRY SPALLING ON < 10% OF VISIBLE MASONRY 

EFFLORESCENT NOTED > 3” ABOVE FINISH GRADE. 

STABLE SETTLEMENT CRACKS ≤ 1⁄4” AT WIDEST VISIBLE POINT. 

FOUNDATION ≤ 1⁄2” IN 4’ OUT OF PLUMB. 

BULDGE ≤ 1⁄4” PER WALL 

5 NEEDS REPAIR 

CRACKS RADIATING OUT OF RE-ENTRANT CORNERS ≥ 5 TIMES THE THICKNESS 

CRACK WIDTHS ≥ 1⁄2” 

MASONRY LOOSE ON > 5% OF THE VISIBLE AREA 

FOUNDATION > 1⁄2” IN 4’ OUT OF PLUMB 

BULGE > 1⁄4” PER WALL 

EFFLORESCENT > 5” ABOVE FINISH GRADE 

ACTIVE SETTLEMENT CRACKS > 1⁄4” 

IN-ACTIVE SETTLEMENT CRACKS > 1⁄2” 

MASONRY SPALLING > 10% OF VISIBLE AREA 

> 20% OF MORTAR BED JOINTS GONE. 

SIDING 

SCOPE: THE SIDING ASSESSMENT IS FOCUSED ON THE CONDITION OF THE SIDING. REGARDLESS OF THE TYPE OF SIDING 

SYSTEM (FACE SEALED OR WIND SCREEN) THE REGIONS OF EARLIEST DEGRADATION ARE GENERALLY THE END BUT 

REGIONS, THE AREA CLOSEST TO THE FINISH GRADE, AND ANY INTERFACES WITH INTERFACES AND FEATURES. 

PURPOSE: THE SIDING SERVES TO SHED THE BULK WATER. BULK WATER GENERALLY IS DELIVERED AS RAIN BY WIND OR 

SPLASHING BUT CAN ALSO BE FROM SPRINKLERS FOUNTAINS ETC. THIS IS ONE OF THE LARGEST AND MOST IMPORTANT 

COMPONENTS IN THE BUILDING ENVELOPE. DEGRADATION MAY BE SEEN AS DECAY/ROT, LOCALIZED OR GROSS 

DEFORMATION, SPALLING, AND CRACKING, ECT. THE FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENT IS TO DIRECT THE BULK WATER AWAY 

FROM THE STRUCTURE. 

1 EXCELLENT 

D-4 Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study 
 

 

 

ALL SIDING IS IN PLACE 

SIDING IS > 6 INCHES ABOVE THE FINISH GRADE 

NO VISIBLE ROT/DECAY 

GOOD OVERLAP, INTERLOCK, SURFACE FINISH, MORTAR TOOLING ECT 

NO SURFACE FUNGUS GROWTH. 

SURFACES ARE SQUARE AND PLUMB 

2 GOOD 

ALL SIDING IS IN PLACE 

SIDING IS > 6 INCHES ABOVE THE FINISH GRADE 

NO VISIBLE ROT/DECAY 

GOOD OVERLAP, INTERLOCK, MORTAR TOOLING ETC. 

SIDING IS LESS THAN 1/8” IN 4’ OUT OF PLUMB 

WALL BULGES OF LESS THAN 1/2”. 

3 ADEQUATE 

ALL SIDING IS IN PLACE 

SIDING IS ≥ 6 INCHES ABOVE THE FINISH GRADE 

VISIBLE ROT/DECAY AT BUTT JOINTS ≤ 5% OF JOINTS, SUBSTRATE STILL SOUND. 

VISIBLE ROT/DECAY AT INTERFACES ≤ 5% OF LINEAR SEALS OF INTERFACES. 

SIDING IS LESS THAN 1⁄4” IN 4’ OUT OF PLUMB 

WALL BULGES OF LESS THAN 1”. 

SIDING MAY BE FACE NAILED AND PAINTED/SEALED. 

4 POOR 

< 1% OF THE SIDING MISSING FROM PROTECTED AREAS. 

SIDING IS LESS THAN 6” ABOVE THE FINISH GRADE. 

SIDING IS RUST STAINED 

ROT NOTED ON ≤ 15% OF THE END JOINTS AND INTERFACES BUT SIDING IS STILL SOUND. 

EITHER NO OR OBSTRUCTED WEEP HOLES (MASONRY, PURE WIND SCREENS) 

SIDING IS LESS THAN 1⁄2” IN 4’ OUT OF PLUMB 

WALL BULGES OF LESS THAN 1 1⁄2”. 

Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study D-5 
 

 

5 NEEDS REPAIR 

LESS THAN 1% OF SIDING MISSING 

SIDING IS IN CONTACT WITH THE FINISH GRADE. 

DECAY PROGRESSION AROUND NAIL HOLES SUCH THAT WATER INTRUSION IS ALLOWED. 

ROT NOTED ON > 15% OF THE END JOINTS AND INTERFACES OR SIDING SUBSTRATE IS NO LONER SOUND. 

SIDING IS BOWED AND/OR WARPED ALLOWING WATER INTRUSION. 

PORCHES 

SCOPE: PORCHES ARE INTERESTED IN THE CONDITION OF EITHER CONCRETE STOOPS OR COVERED PORCHES. THE MAIN 

POINT OF INTEREST IS TO ASSESS THE OVERALL CONDITION IN TERMS OF STRUCTURAL ABILITY TO SUPPORT THE OCCUPANTS 

AND THE ABILITY TO DIRECT THE BULK WATER AWAY FROM THE STRUCTURE. 

IMPORTANCE: PORCHES ARE THE ENTRANCE STAGING AREAS DIRECTLY ATTACHED AND/OR ADJACENT TO STRUCTURES. 

THEY ARE OFTEN IMPROPERLY CONSTRUCTED SUCH THAT THEY ALLOW BULK WATER TO REMAIN IN CONTACT WITH THE 

STRUCTURE AND PROMOTE DECAY. IDEALLY THEY SHOULD BE ATTACHED AND PROPERLY COVERED WITH A FUNCTIONING 

ROOF OR DETACHED AND FREESTANDING. SINCE THIS IS NOT NORMALLY DONE WHERE THE PORCH OR STOOP COMES IN 

CONTACT WITH THE STRUCTURE IS A PRIME LOCATION FOR DECAY. THE DECAY CAN BE SEEN AS WOOD ROT, 

EFFLORESCENCE, MOLD, ECT. 

1 EXCELLENT 

COVERED AND FLASHED 

SIDING IS A MINIMUM 6” ABOVE FINISH GRADE. 

MINIMUM OF 2% SLOPE AWAY FROM THE STRUCTURE. 

MINIMUM 18” SEPARATION OF JOIST TO THE GROUND. 

NO SURFACE CRACKS. 

PORCH AND RAILING FREESTANDING A MINIMUM OF 2” AWAY FROM THE STRUCTURE. 

NO OBSERVABLE ROT OD DECAY 

ALL WOOD IN CONTACT WITH THE GROUND IS TREATED OR NATURALLY RESISTANT 

ALL LOCATIONS OF CONTACT ARE INSPECTABLE FOR TERMITE TUNNELS. 

D-6 Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study 
 

2 GOOD 

COVERED AND FLASHED 

SIDING IS A MINIMUM 6” ABOVE FINISH GRADE. 

MINIMUM OF 2% SLOPE AWAY FROM THE STRUCTURE. 

MINIMUM 18” SEPARATION OF JOIST TO THE GROUND. 

NO SETTLEMENT CRACKS IN SLAB ON GRADE. 

PORCH AND RAILING ATTACHED TO THE STRUCTURE , FREE DRAINING AND PROPERLY FLASHED. 

NO OBSERVABLE ROT OD DECAY 

ALL WOOD IN CONTACT WITH THE GROUND IS TREATED OR NATURALLY RESISTANT 

ALL LOCATIONS OF CONTACT ARE INSPECTABLE FOR TERMITE TUNNELS. 

ALL CONTACT WITH THE STRUCTURE IS PROPERLY FLASHED. 

3 ADEQUATE 

RAIN EXPOSED ELEMENTS ARE SLOPED AWAY FROM THE STRUCTURE. 

CRACKS UP TO 1/8” IN SLAB ON GRADE. 

COVERED AND FLASHED OR OPEN AIRED. 

SIDING IS A MINIMUM 6” ABOVE FINISH GRADE. 

MINIMUM 18” SEPARATION OF JOIST TO THE GROUND. 

NO SETTLEMENT CRACKS IN SLAB ON GRADE. 

PORCH AND RAILING ATTACHED TO THE STRUCTURE IS FREE DRAINING AND PROPERLY FLASHED. 

ROT OR DECAY IS NOTED ON FLOORING AND NON-STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS IN LESS THAN 1% OF THE SURFACE, SUBSTRATE 

SOUND. 

ALL WOOD IN CONTACT WITH THE GROUND IS TREATED OR NATURALLY RESISTANT 

ALL LOCATIONS OF CONTACT ARE INSPECTABLE FOR TERMITE TUNNELS. 

ALL CONTACT WITH THE STRUCTURE IS PROPERLY FLASHED. 

4 POOR 

LEVEL TO NEGATIVELY SLOPED. 

NO RAILING IF MORE THAN 7” ABOVE FINISH GRADE. 

RAIN EXPOSED ELEMENTS ARE LEVEL TO 2% SLOPE TOWARD THE STRUCTURE. 

CRACKS < 1/2” (INCLUDING SETTLEMENT CRACKS) IN SLAB ON GRADE. 

COVERED AND FLASHED OR OPEN AIRED. 

SIDING IS LESS THAN 6” ABOVE FINISH GRADE. 

MINIMUM 12” SEPARATION OF JOIST TO THE GROUND. 

PORCH AND RAILING ATTACHED TO THE STRUCTURE. 

ROT OR DECAY IS NOTED ON FLOORING ON LESS THAN 10% OF THE SURFACE, SUBSTRATE SOUND. 

ROT OR DECAY IS NOTED ON STRUCTURAL MEMBERS < 5% OF THE SURFACE, SUBSTRATE SOUND. 

Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study D-7 
 

 

 

5 NEEDS REPAIR 

CONCRETE DIRECTLY IN CONTACT WITH STRUCTURE WOOD COMPONENTS 

LEVEL TO NEGATIVELY SLOPED. 

NO RAILING IF MORE THAN 7” ABOVE FINISH GRADE. 

RAIN EXPOSED ELEMENTS ARE LEVEL TO BACK TO THE STRUCTURE. 

CRACKS ≥ 1/2” (INCLUDING SETTLEMENT CRACKS) IN SLAB ON GRADE. 

COVERED OR OPEN AIRED. 

SIDING IN CONTACT WITH FINISH GRADE. 

PORCH AND RAILING ATTACHED TO THE STRUCTURE. 

ROT OR DECAY IS NOTED ON FLOORING ON MORE THAN 10% OF NON-STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS AND 5% OF THE STRUCTURAL 

ELEMENTS OR SUBSTRATE NO LONGER SOUND. 

DECKS 

SCOPE: DECKS ARE EXTERIOR EXTENSIONS OF THE LIVING AREA. GENERALLY CONSTRUCTED OF EITHER WOOD (PRESSURE 

TREATED, CEDAR, REDWOOD), OR MASONRY PATIOS (CONCRETE, FLAGSTONE, ETC). THE SURVEY FOCUS IS TO ASSESS THE 

STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY TO SAFELY SUPPORT THE OCCUPANTS AND DIRECT THE BULK WATER AWAY FROM THE STRUCTURE. 

IMPORTANCE: IN MILD CLIMATES DECKS ARE OFTEN USED AS EXTENSIONS OF THE LIVING SPACE AND PLACED NEXT TO THE 

STRUCTURE. THEY ARE GENERALLY OPEN AIRED STRUCTURES THAT ARE DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO AND OR ATTACHED TO 

THE STRUCTURE. DECKS ARE PROBLEMATIC SINCE THEY ARE OFTEN CONSTRUCTED OF WOOD AND BUILT IN A HORIZONTAL 

FASHION ALLOWING RAIN TO BE EASILY DEPOSITED. RAILINGS ALSO HAVE LOCATIONS WHERE WATER CAN STAND AND 

PROMOTE RAPID DECAY. THE NORMAL CONSTRUCTION METHODS ALSO CREATE LOCALIZED AREAS ON FACE ATTACHED 

DECKING WHERE WATER CAN STAND AND CREATE ACCELERATED DECAY. 

1 EXCELLENT 

LEVEL TO 2% SLOPED TO THE EXTERIOR OF THE STRUCTURE. 

FREE STANDING. 

MINIMUM OF 2” SEPARATION FROM THE STRUCTURE. 

NOT FACE FASTENED 

HAND RAILING IN PLACE. 

TREATED WOOD OR NATURALLY RESISTANT MATERIAL IN CONTACT WITH THE FINISH GRADE. 

SIGNS OF WATER REPELLENT FINISH. 

NO VISIBLE ROT OR DECAY. 

ADEQUATE SUPPORTING COLUMNS 

ADEQUATE JOIST, BOTH SPACING AND SIZE/SPAN. 

D-8 Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study 
2 GOOD 

LEVEL TO 2% SLOPED TO THE EXTERIOR OF THE STRUCTURE. 

ATTACHED TO THE STRUCTURE WITH GOOD FLASHING. 

FACE FASTENED 

HAND RAILING IN PLACE. 

TREATED WOOD OR NATURALLY RESISTANT MATERIAL IN CONTACT WITH THE FINISH GRADE. 

SIGNS OF WATER REPELLENT FINISH. 

NO VISIBLE ROT OR DECAY. 

ADEQUATE SUPPORTING COLUMNS 

ADEQUATE JOIST, BOTH SPACING AND SIZE/SPAN. 

3 ADEQUATE 

LEVEL TO 2% SLOPED TO THE EXTERIOR OF THE STRUCTURE. 

ATTACHED TO THE STRUCTURE WHIT SOME FLASHING. 

FACE FASTENED 

HAND RAILING IN PLACE. 

TREATED WOOD OR NATURALLY RESISTANT MATERIAL IN CONTACT WITH THE FINISH GRADE. 

VISIBLE ROT OR DECAY ON LESS THAN 1% OF SURFACE, SUBSTRATE SOUND. 

ADEQUATE SUPPORTING COLUMNS 

ADEQUATE JOIST, BOTH SPACING AND SIZE/SPAN 

4 POOR 

LEVEL TO 2% SLOPED TOWARD THE STRUCTURE. 

ATTACHED TO THE STRUCTURE WITHOUT FLASHING. 

FACE FASTENED 

HAND RAILING NOT IN PLACE, INSUFFICIENT HAND RAILING. 

NON-TREATED WOOD OR NATURALLY RESISTANT WITHIN 6” OF THE FINISH GRADE. 

VISIBLE ROT OR DECAY ON LESS THAN 10% OF SURFACE, SUBSTRATE SOUND. 

ADEQUATE SUPPORTING COLUMNS. 

ADEQUATE JOIST, BOTH SPACING AND SIZE/SPAN. 

Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study D-9 
 

 

5 NEEDS REPAIR 

LEVEL TO 2% SLOPED TOWARD THE STRUCTURE. 

ATTACHED TO THE STRUCTURE WITHOUT FLASHING. 

FACE FASTENED 

HAND RAILING NOT IN PLACE, INSUFFICIENT HAND RAILING. 

NON-TREATED WOOD OR NATURALLY RESISTANT WITHIN 6” OF THE FINISH GRADE. 

VISIBLE ROT OR DECAY ON MORE THAN 10% OF SURFACE OR SUBSTRATE NOT SOUND. 

INADEQUATE SUPPORTING COLUMNS. 

INADEQUATE JOIST, BOTH SPACING AND SIZE/SPAN. 

DOORS 

Scope: Doors are interested in the condition of the ingress and egress door, the sealing of these openings, and the 

structural integrity of the door and frame. 

Importance: the doors serve as the barriers and the ingress and egress points through the exterior envelope. It is therefore 

their job to be structurally sound to withstand the wind loading, protect against unwelcome ingress, and seal against the 

elements. The sealing for the elements is protection against both air infiltration and bulk water migration. While doing 

these jobs it must still remain operable as points of ingress and egress. 

1 EXCELLENT 

DOORS AND FRAMES SHOW NO SIGN OF ROT AND OR DECAY 

GASKETS ARE IN PLACE AND SEALED, INCLUDING BOTH THRESHOLD AND EDGE SEALS. 

NO VISIBLE AIR GAPS ARE NOTICEABLE. 

THRESHOLD IS SLOPED TO THE EXTERIOR A MINIMUM OF 2% (1/4” PER FOOT) 

DOORS ARE LEVEL, PLUMB, AND CENTERED IN THE FRAME. 

FRAMES ARE INTACT AND SOUND. 

2 GOOD 

DOORS AND FRAMES SHOW NO SIGN OF ROT AND OR DECAY 

GASKETS ARE IN PLACE AND BUT NOT FULLY COMPRESSED, BOTH THRESHOLD AND EDGE SEALS. 

NO VISIBLE AIR GAPS ARE NOTICEABLE. 

THRESHOLD IS SLOPED TO THE EXTERIOR A MINIMUM OF 2% (1/4” PER FOOT) 

DOORS ARE CENTERED IN THE FRAME. 

FRAMES ARE INTACT AND SOUND. 

3 ADEQUATE 

FRAMES SHOWS MINIMAL ROT AND/OR DECAY AT OUTSIDE BOTTOM ONLY. 

GASKETS ARE IN PLACE AND MAKING CONTACT OVER 90% OF THEIR LENGTH. 

THRESHOLD IS LEVEL OR SLOPED TO THE EXTERIOR LESS THAN 2% (1/4” PER FOOT) 

DOORS ARE CENTERED IN THE FRAME. 

FRAMES ARE INTACT AND SOUND. 

D-10 Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study 
 

 

4 POOR 

FRAMES SHOWS MINIMAL ROT AND/OR DECAY AT BOTTOM. 

DOORS SHOW SIGNS OF ROT DECAY EXTENDING LESS THAN 1 INCH ABOVE THRESHOLD, SUBSTRATE STILL SOUND. 

THRESHOLD SEAL IS IN PLACE, NO SIDE SEALS ARE IN PLACE. 

THRESHOLD IS LEVEL. 

DOORS ARE NOT CENTERED LEVEL AND/OR PLUMB IN THE FRAME. 

FRAMES ARE INTACT AND SOUND. 

5 NEEDS REPAIR 

FRAMES SHOWS ROT AND/OR DECAY AT BOTTOM, SPLICES, AND/OR BUTT JOINTS, . 

DOORS SHOW SIGNS OF ROT DECAY EXTENDING MORE THAN 1 INCH ABOVE THRESHOLD, SUBSTRATE STILL SOUND. 

DOOR SUBSTRATE NO LONGER SOUND. 

NO THRESHOLD SEAL IS IN PLACE, NO SIDE SEALS ARE IN PLACE. 

THRESHOLD IS SLOPED INTO THE STRUCTURE. 

DOORS ARE NOT CENTERED LEVEL AND/OR PLUMB IN THE FRAME. 

FRAMES ARE NOT INTACT AND SOUND. 

WINDOWS 

SCOPE: THE WINDOWS ASSESSMENT IS FOCUSED ON THE WINDOW FRAME, SILL, GLAZING, AND/OR STORM WINDOWS WHEN 

PRESENT. IN PARTICULAR IS THE SYSTEMS ABILITY TO KEEP WATER FROM INFULTRATING AND DIRECTING THE WATER TO 

THE EXTERIOR. 

IMPORTANCE: WINDOWS ARE OPENINGS IN THE EXTERIOR ENVELOPE THAT ALLOW LIGHT AND VENTILATION (INTENTIONAL 

AND UN-INTENTIONAL) INTO THE STRUCTURE. STRUCTURALLY THEY RESIST THE LOADS DUE TO WIND AND RAIN BY 

TRANSFERRING THE LOADS INTO THE WALL STRUCTURE THROUGH THE FRAMES. THEY HISTORICALLY ARE SOURCES OF 

BULK AND ENTRAINED WATER INTO THE BUILDING ENVELOPE. 

1 EXCELLENT 

WINDOW FRAME 

NO VISIBLE SEPARATION OF THE JOINTS AND THE FINISH IS IN TACT. IE. BUTT JOINTS, FINGER JOINTS, AND MULLIONS. 

SILL 

SLOPED TO THE EXTERIOR ≥ 5% 

GLAZING 

COMPLETE WITH NO CRACKED PANES 

NO TRAPPED CONDENSATE IN MULTI-PANED WINDOWS 

STORM WINDOWS 

PROPERLY ATTACHED, IN PLACE, AND SEALED. 

GENERAL 

NO SIGNS OF DECAY OR ROT 

ALL WEEP HOLES ARE UNOBSTRUCTED 

Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study D-11 
 

2 GOOD 

WINDOW FRAME 

NO VISIBLE SEPARATION OF THE JOINTS. IE. BUTT JOINTS, FINGER JOINTS, AND MULLIONS. 

THE FINISH MAY BE HAIRLINE CRACKED 

SILL 

SLOPED TO THE EXTERIOR ≥ 2% 

GLAZING 

NO MISSING GLAZING COMPOUND. 

COMPLETE WITH NO CRACKED PANES. 

NO TRAPPED CONDENSATE IN MULTI-PANED WINDOWS. 

STORM WINDOWS 

PROPERLY ATTACHED, IN PLACE, AND SEALED. 

GENERAL 

NO SIGNS OF DECAY OR ROT 

ALL WEEP HOLES ARE UNOBSTRUCTED 

3 ADEQUATE 

WINDOW FRAME 

JOINTS ARE SEPARATED ≤ 1/16”. IE. BUTT JOINTS, FINGER JOINTS, AND MULLIONS. 

THE FINISH MAY BE HAIRLINE CRACKED 

SILL 

LEVEL TO SLOPED TO THE EXTERIOR ≥ 2% 

GLAZING 

CRACKED AND LESS THAN 10% OF GLAZING COMPOUND MISSING. 

LESS THAN 1% CRACKED PANES, ALL PANES IN PLACE. 

MAY HAVE TRAPPED CONDENSATE IN MULTI-PANE WINDOWS. 

STORM WINDOWS 

PROPERLY ATTACHED AND IN PLACE. 

GENERAL 

MINIMAL ROT OR DECAY ( LESS THAN 5% OF JOINTS) CONCENTRATED AT JOINTS WITH THE SUBSTRATE BEING SOUND 

50% OR MORE OF WEEP HOLES ARE UNOBSTRUCTED 

D-12 Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study 
4 POOR 

WINDOW FRAME 

JOINTS ARE SEPARATED ≤ 1/8”. IE. BUTT JOINTS, FINGER JOINTS, AND MULLIONS. 

THE FINISH MAY BE CRACKED AND PEELING AT JOINTS 

SILL 

LEVEL TO SLOPED TO THE INTERIOR < 2% 

GLAZING 

CRACKED AND LESS THAN 20% OF GLAZING COMPOUND MISSING. 

LESS THAN 5% CRACKED PANES, 

LESS THAN 5% OF PANES MISSING PLACE. 

MAY HAVE TRAPPED CONDENSATE IN MULTI-PANE WINDOWS. 

STORM WINDOWS 

POORLY ATTACHED AND/OR COMPONENTS NOT IN PLACE. 

GENERAL 

ROT OR DECAY ON MORE THAN 5% OF THE JOINTS WITH THE SUBSTRATE BEING SOUND 

LESS THAN 50% OF WEEP HOLES ARE UNOBSTRUCTED 

5 NEEDS REPAIR 

JOINTS ARE SEPARATED > 1/8”. IE. BUTT JOINTS, FINGER JOINTS, AND MULLIONS. 

THE FINISH MAY BE CRACKED AND PEELING AT JOINTS 

OBVIOUS SIGNS OF WATER INGRESS. 

SILL 

LEVEL TO SLOPED TO THE INTERIOR ≥ 2%. 

GLAZING: 

CRACKED AND LESS THAN 20% OF GLAZING COMPOUND MISSING, 

MORE THAN 5% CRACKED PANES, 

MORE THAN 5% OF PANES MISSING PLACE, 

MAY HAVE TRAPPED CONDENSATE IN MULTI-PANE WINDOWS. 

STORM WINDOWS 

POORLY ATTACHED AND/OR COMPONENTS NOT IN PLACE. 

GENERAL 

ROT OR DECAY ON MORE THAN 10% OF THE JOINTS. 

THE SUBSTRATE IS NOT SOUND 

LESS THAN 75% OF WEEP HOLES ARE UNOBSTRUCTED 

Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study D-13 
 

 

 

TRIM 

SCOPE: THE TRIM ASSESSMENT IS FOCUSED ON THE CONDITION OF THE BRICK MOULDING AROUND DOORS AND WINDOWS 

PLUS THE CORNER TRIM ON BUILDING EDGES AND TRANSITIONS. IN ESSENCE THE ABILITY OF THE ELEMENT TO RESIST THE 

ELEMENTS AND RETAIN THERE INTENDED FUNCTION. 

IMPORTANCE: TRIM IS AN ESSENTIAL PART OF THE EXTERIOR ENVELOPE. IT ALLOWS SMOOTH TRANSITION FROM THE SIDING 

SYSTEM TO OPENINGS AND FEATURES. THESE SMOOTH TRANSITIONS ALLOW THE APPLICATION OF SEALANT TO HELP GUARD 

AGAINST WATER AND AIR INFILTRATION INTO THE BUILDING ENVELOPE. DEGRADATION IS OFTEN SEEN AS EROSION OF THE 

DRIP EDGE, ROT/DECAY OF JOINTS (BUTTS, MITERS, FINGER, SPLICES), AND ROT/DECAY OF THE MEMBERS THEMSELVES. 

1 EXCELLENT 

ALL TRIM IS IN PLACE. 

ALL HORIZONTAL TRIM IS SLOPED AWAY FROM THE BUILDING ENVELOPE. 

ALL HORIZONTAL TRIM HAS A DISTINCT DRIP EDGE. 

ALL JOINTS (BUTT, MITER, FINGER, ECT) ARE CLOSED 

NO VISIBLE CRACKS IN THE COATING OVER JOINTS. 

NO VISIBLE ROT OR DECAY. 

2 GOOD 

ALL TRIM IS IN PLACE. 

ALL HORIZONTAL TRIM IS SLOPED AWAY FROM THE BUILDING ENVELOPE. 

ALL HORIZONTAL TRIM HAS A DISTINCT DRIP EDGE. 

ALL JOINTS (BUTT, MITER, FINGER, ECT) ARE OPEN LESS THAN 1/16”. 

VISIBLE HAIRLINE CRACKS IN THE COATING OVER JOINTS. 

NO VISIBLE ROT OR DECAY. 

3 ADEQUATE 

ALL TRIM IS IN PLACE. 

ALL HORIZONTAL TRIM IS LEVEL. 

ALL JOINTS (BUTT, MITER, FINGER, ECT) ARE OPEN LESS THAN 1/8”. 

VISIBLE CRACKS IN THE COATING OVER JOINTS. 

ROT OR DECAY VISIBLE ON LESS THAN 5% OF JOINTS, SUBSTRATE SOUND. 

D-14 Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study 
 

4 POOR 

LESS THAN 1% OF TRIM IS MISSING. 

ALL HORIZONTAL TRIM IS LEVEL TO SLOPING TOWARD THE STRUCTURE. 

ALL JOINTS (BUTT, MITER, FINGER, ECT) ARE OPEN LESS THAN 1/4”. 

VISIBLE CRACKS AND/OR PEELING OF THE COATING OVER JOINTS. 

NO OBVIOUS BULK WATER INGRESSION. 

ROT OR DECAY VISIBLE ON LESS THAN 25% OF JOINTS. 

SUBSTRATES ARE SOUND. 

5 NEEDS REPAIR 

MORE THAN 1% OF TRIM IS MISSING. 

ALL HORIZONTAL TRIM IS LEVEL TO SLOPING TOWARD THE STRUCTURE. 

ALL JOINTS (BUTT, MITER, FINGER, ECT) ARE OPEN MORE THAN 1/4”. 

VISIBLE CRACKS AND/OR PEELING OF THE COATING OVER JOINTS. 

OBVIOUS BULK WATER INGRESSION. 

ROT OR DECAY VISIBLE ON MORE THAN 25% OF JOINTS. 

SUBSTRATES NOT SOUND. 

OPENING 

SCOPE: THE OPENING ASSESSMENT IS FOCUSED ON THE CONDITION AND DESIGN OF THE UTILITY ENTRANCES THROUGH THE 

BUILDING ENVELOPE. THE MAIN CRITERION FOR ASSESSMENT IS THE PROTECTION FROM WATER AND AIR INFILTRATION, 

SEPARATION FOR TERMITE INSPECTION, AND INTEGRITY OF THE ATTACHMENT(S) OF THE SERVICES. 

IMPORTANCE: UTILITIES BRING DESIRED SERVICES INTO THE STRUCTURE SUCH AS POWER, PHONE, PLUMBING, TV, ECT. 

THROUGH OPENINGS IN THE EXTERIOR ENVELOPE. WE WANT THESE SERVICES TO ENTER THROUGH THE OPENINGS, NOT AIR 

AND WATER INTRUSION AND POSSIBLE AVENUES FOR INSECT INFESTATION. PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH OPENINGS ARE 

GENERALLY DETAILS SUCH AS POOR CAULKING OR NO DRIP LOOP. 

1 EXCELLENT 

LINES COMING UP FROM FINISH GRADE ARE SPACED TO ALLOW INSPECTION FOR TERMITE TUNNELS. 

ENTRANCES ARE FLASHED. 

LINES ENTERING FROM ABOVE HAVE DRIP LOOPS. 

ENTRANCE HOLES ARE SEALED WITH NO VISIBLE GAPS. 

LINES ARE SECURELY FASTENED TO THE STRUCTURE WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE SEALING SYSTEM. 

2 GOOD 

LINES COMING UP FROM FINISH GRADE ARE SPACED TO ALLOW INSPECTION FOR TERMITE TUNNELS. 

LINES ENTERING FROM ABOVE HAVE DRIP LOOPS. 

ENTRANCE HOLES ARE SEALED WITH NO VISIBLE GAPS. 

LINES ARE SECURELY FASTENED TO THE STRUCTURE WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE SEALING SYSTEM 

Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study D-15 
 

 

3 ADEQUATE 

LINES COMING UP FROM FINISH GRADE ARE SPACED TO ALLOW INSPECTION FOR TERMITE TUNNELS. 

LINES ENTERING FROM ABOVE HAVE DRIP LOOPS. 

ENTRANCE HOLES ARE SEALED WITH NO VISIBLE GAPS. 

LINES ARE SECURELY FASTENED TO THE STRUCTURE. 

4 POOR 

LINES COMING UP FROM FINISH GRADE ARE NOT SPACED TO ALLOW INSPECTION FOR TERMITE TUNNELS. 

LINES ENTERING FROM ABOVE DO NOT HAVE DRIP LOOPS. 

ENTRANCE HOLES ARE SEALED WITH NO VISIBLE GAPS. 

LINES ARE NOT FASTENED TO THE STRUCTURE. 

5 NEEDS REPAIR 

LINES COMING UP FROM FINISH GRADE ARE NOT SPACED TO ALLOW INSPECTION FOR TERMITE TUNNELS. 

LINES ENTERING FROM ABOVE DO NOT HAVE DRIP LOOPS. 

ENTRANCE HOLES ARE NOT SEALED AND HAVE VISIBLE GAPS. 

LINES ARE NOT FASTENED TO THE STRUCTURE. 

SOFFITS 

SCOPE: THE SOFFIT ASSESSMENT IS FOCUSED ON THE CONDITION OF THE SOFFIT. IN PARTICULAR THE ORIENTATION OF THE 

SOFFIT, WHETHER THEY ARE VENTED, THEIR MATERIAL, AND OVERALL CONDITION. 

IMPORTANCE: SOFFITS ARE THE FINISH ELEMENTS FOR THE UNDERSIDE OF THE OVERHANGS. THEY HELP KEEP WIND DRIVEN 

BULK WATER FROM ENTERING THE BUILDING ENVELOPE ALONG THE RAFTER TAILS. THEY MAY BE INSTALLED LEVEL OR 

SLIGHTLY SLOPED AND ARE OFTEN MADE OF MATERIAL RANGING FROM PLYWOOD TO VINYL SHEETING. DEGRADATION IS 

MOST GENERALLY SEEN AROUND THE SOFFIT IN THE FORM OF WOOD DE-LAMINATION AND ROT. THE GENERAL REASONS 

FOR THIS OBSERVED DEGRADATION IS GENERALLY MOISTURE NOT DRAINING OUT OF THE SOFFIT, LEAKING ROOFS, AND 

CONDENSATION. 

1 EXCELLENT 

WELL VENTED WITH LOUVERED OR SCREENED VENTS 

SLOPED LEVEL TO 2% AWAY FROM THE BUILDING ENVELOPE 

ALL AREAS ARE ENCLOSED 

VISIBLE DRAIN HOLES 

NO VISIBLE ROT/DECAY OR DELIMITATION. 

2 GOOD 

WELL VENTED WITH LOUVERED OR SCREENED VENTS. 

SLOPED LEVEL TO 2% AWAY FROM THE BUILDING ENVELOPE. 

ALL AREAS ARE ENCLOSED 

NO VISIBLE ROT/DECAY OR DELIMITATION. 

D-16 Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study 
 

3 ADEQUATE 

VENTED WITH LOUVERED OR SCREENED VENTS. 

NOT VENTED. 

SLOPED LEVEL TOO SLIGHTLY AWAY FROM THE BUILDING ENVELOPE. 

ALL AREAS ARE ENCLOSED. 

VISIBLE ROT/DECAY OR DELIMITATION AT LESS THAN 10% OF THE JOINTS AND INTERFACES 

4 POOR 

VENTED WITH LOUVERED OR SCREENED VENTS, UP TO 10% OF SCREENS MISSING 

NOT VENTED. 

SLOPED LEVEL TO SLIGHTLY TOWARD THE BUILDING ENVELOPE 

ALL AREAS ARE ENCLOSED. 

VISIBLE ROT/DECAY OR DELIMITATION AT LESS THAN 25% OF THE JOINTS AND INTERFACES SUBSTRATE STILL SOUND 

5 NEEDS REPAIR 

NOT VENTED 

VENTED WITH LOUVERED OR SCREENED VENTS, GREATER THAN 10% OF THE SCREENS OR THE LOUVERS ARE MISSING. 

SLOPED TOWARD THE BUILDING ENVELOPE. 

ALL AREAS ARE NOT ENCLOSED 

VISIBLE ROT/DECAY OR DELIMITATION AT GREATER THAN 25% OF THE JOINTS AND INTERFACES. 

SUBSTRATES NO LONGER SOUND. 

VISIBLE ROT/DECAY/DELIMITATION AWAY FROM THE JOINTS/INTERFACES. 

FASCIA 

SCOPE: THE FASCIA ASSESSMENT IS FOCUSED ON THE CONDITION OF THE FASCIA. IN PARTICULAR THE ORIENTATIONS OF 

THE FASCIA, PRESENCE OF A DISTINCT DRIP EDGE, THEIR MATERIAL, AND OVERALL CONDITION. 

IMPORTANCE: THE FASCIA IS THE TRIM PARALLEL TO THE SIDING ALONG THE ROOF EDGE. THIS ELEMENT HELPS PREVENT 

THE DRIVEN RAIN AND WIND BORNE RUN OFF FROM ENTERING THE BUILDING ENVELOPE PAST THE END OF THE RAFTERS. IT 

ALSO HELPS PROMOTE PROPER ROOF DRAINAGE BY CREATING A DISTINCT DRIP EDGE FOR BULK WATER. DEGRADATION IS 

GENERALLY SEEN AS DELIMITATION, DRIP EDGE EROSION, ROT/DECAY AT BUT JOINTS, AND GENERAL OVERALL DECAY/ROT. 

1 EXCELLENT 

DISTINCT DRIP EDGE. 

ORIENTED PLUMB TO ± 5% FROM PLUMB. 

FASCIAS ARE COMPLETE. 

NO VISIBLE ROT/DECAY OR DELIMITATION. 

Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study D-17 
 

 

 

2 GOOD 

DISTINCT DRIP EDGE. 

ORIENTED PLUMB TO ± 20% FROM PLUMB. 

FASCIAS ARE COMPLETE. 

NO VISIBLE ROT/DECAY OR DELIMITATION. 

3 ADEQUATE 

DISTINCT DRIP EDGE. 

FASCIAS ARE COMPLETE. 

VISIBLE ROT/DECAY OR DELIMITATION AT LESS THAN 10% OF THE JOINTS AND INTERFACES 

4 POOR 

NO DISTINCT DRIP EDGE. 

FASCIAS ARE COMPLETE. 

VISIBLE ROT/DECAY OR DELIMITATION AT LESS THAN 25% OF THE JOINTS AND INTERFACES SUBSTRATE STILL SOUND. 

5 NEEDS REPAIR 

NO DISTINCT DRIP EDGE. 

FASCIAS ARE INCOMPLETE. 

VISIBLE ROT/DECAY OR DELIMITATION AT GREATER THAN 25% OF THE JOINTS AND INTERFACES. 

SUBSTRATES NO LONGER SOUND. 

VISIBLE ROT/DECAY/DELIMITATION AWAY FROM THE JOINTS/INTERFACES. 

GUTTERS/DOWNSPOUTS 

SCOPE: THE GUTTER/DOWNSPOUT ASSESSMENT IS FOCUSED ON THE PRESENCE AND CONDITION OF THE 

GUTTER/DOWNSPOUT SYSTEM. IN PARTICULAR THE SLOPE OF THE GUTTER, WHETHER THEY ARE INSTALLED, THEIR 

MATERIAL, THE PRESENCE OF GROUND DISPERSION, AND OVERALL CONDITION. 

IMPORTANCE: GUTTERS ARE ELEMENTS ATTACHED TO THE EDGE OF ROOFS TO CATCH AND DIRECT THE BULK WATER FROM 

THE ROOF AWAY FROM THE STRUCTURE. BY PROPERLY CONTROLLING THIS RUN-OFF DAMAGE DUE TO WIND BORNE BULK 

WATER AND BACK-SPLASHED WATER IS REDUCED. IN CONCERT WITH GUTTERS AND DOWNSPOUTS SPLASH BLOCKS, TILES, 

ECT FOR GROUND DISPERCEMENT ARE IMPORTANT. DEGRADATION IS GENERALLY THROUGH CLOGGING, SAGGING, PARTS 

SEPARATING, IMPROPER INSTALLATION, AND CORROSION. 

1 EXCELLENT 

INSTALLED WITH POSITIVE DRAIN (1/4” PER 10’) TO DOWNSPOUTS. 

ALL COMPONENTS INSTALLED. 

NO VISIBLE SAGS. 

DOWNSPOUTS ARE IN-PLACE 

DOWNSPOUTS DIRECT THE WATER INTO TILES OR OTHER SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE STRUCTURE. 

DOWNSPOUTS EXTEND A MINIMUM OF 10’ AWAY FROM THE STRUCTURE. 

GUTTERS APPEAR CLEAN AND FREE FROM DEBRIS. 

GUTTERS AND DOWNSPOUTS ARE ATTACHED SOUNDLY. 

D-18 Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study 
 

 

 

 

2 GOOD 

INSTALLED WITH POSITIVE DRAIN (1/4” PER 10’) TO DOWNSPOUTS. 

ALL COMPONENTS INSTALLED. 

NO VISIBLE SAGS. 

DOWNSPOUTS ARE IN-PLACE 

DOWNSPOUTS EXTEND A MINIMUM OF 5’ AWAY FROM THE STRUCTURE. 

SPLASH BLOCKS ARE USED TO DIRECT WATER AWAY FROM THE STRUCTURE A MINIMUM OF 5’ 

GUTTERS APPEAR CLEAN AND FREE FROM DEBRIS. 

GUTTERS AND DOWNSPOUTS ARE ATTACHED SOUNDLY. 

3 ADEQUATE 

INSTALLED LEVEL TO POSITIVE DRAIN (0 TO 1/4” PER 10’) TO DOWNSPOUTS. 

ALL COMPONENTS INSTALLED. 

NO LOCATIONS FOR STANDING WATER. 

DOWNSPOUTS ARE IN-PLACE 

DOWNSPOUTS EXTEND A MINIMUM OF 3’ AWAY FROM THE STRUCTURE. 

SPLASH BLOCKS ARE USED TO DIRECT WATER AWAY FROM THE STRUCTURE A MINIMUM OF 3’ 

GUTTERS AND DOWNSPOUTS ARE ATTACHED SOUNDLY. 

4 POOR 

INSTALLED LEVEL TO POSITIVE DRAIN (0 TO 1/4” PER 10’) TO DOWNSPOUTS. 

MORE THAN 90 % OF COMPONENTS INSTALLED. 

SAGS WHERE STANDING WATER MAY COLLECT, BUT NO SIGNS OF OVERFLOW ARE PRESENT. 

DOWNSPOUTS ARE IN PLACE 

DOWNSPOUTS EXTEND A MINIMUM OF 3’ AWAY FROM THE STRUCTURE. 

SPLASH BLOCKS ARE USED TO DIRECT WATER AWAY FROM THE STRUCTURE A MINIMUM OF 3’ 

GUTTERS ARE ATTACHED SOUNDLY DOWNSPOUTS MAY BE LOOSE. 

5 NEEDS REPAIR 

LESS THAN 90 % OF COMPONENTS INSTALLED. 

SAGS WHERE STANDING WATER MAY COLLECT, SIGNS OF OVERFLOW ARE PRESENT. 

DOWNSPOUTS ARE NOT IN PLACE 

DOWNSPOUTS EXTEND LESS THAN 3’ AWAY FROM THE STRUCTURE. 

NO SPLASH BLOCKS. 

GUTTERS AND/OR DOWNSPOUTS MAY BE LOOSE. 

FLASHING 

SCOPE: THE FLASHING ASSESSMENT IS FOCUSED ON THE PRESENCE AND CONDITION OF FLASHINGS. IN PARTICULAR THE 

PRESENCE OF FLASHING ABOVE DOORS AND WINDOWS, IN ROOF VALLEYS, AND TRANSITIONS WHERE REQUIRED. THE FREE 

DRAINING OF THE FLASHING IS PARAMOUNT. 

Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study D-19 
 

 

IMPORTANCE: FLASHING IS A REQUIRED AND INTEGRAL COMPONENT TO ALL SIDING AND ROOFING SYSTEMS. WHEN 

PROPERLY INSTALLED FLASHING ALLOWS ANY BULK WATER THAT GETS BEHIND THE PRIMARY SEALING SYSTEMS BE 

DIRECTED OUT AWAY FROM THE BUILDING ENVELOPE AND DRAINED. FLASHING SHOULD BE IN PLACE ABOVE ANY 

HORIZONTAL CHANGE IN THE WALL SURFACE, SUCH AS WINDOWS AND DOORS, WHERE ROOFS BLEND INTO WALLS, SUCH AS 

PORCHES, ROOF VALLEYS, AND PROTRUSIONS TROUGH THE ROOF. MOST LEAKAGE IS DUE TO OMISSIONS OF FLASHING, 

FLASHING SLOPED BACK TO INSTEAD OF AWAY FROM THE STRUCTURE, AND POORLY TREATED FLASHING EDGES. 

1 EXCELLENT 

SLOPED ≥ 5% AWAY FROM THE STRUCTURE. 

IN PLACE OVER ALL DOORS AND WINDOWS 

DISTINCT DRIP EDGES 

SPACED A MINIMUM OF 1⁄4 “ FROM HORIZONTAL ELEMENTS 

2 GOOD 

SLOPED ≥ 2% AWAY FROM THE STRUCTURE. 

IN PLACE OVER ALL DOORS AND WINDOWS 

DISTINCT DRIP EDGES 

SPACED A MINIMUM OF 1/8 “ FROM HORIZONTAL ELEMENTS 

3 ADEQUATE 

LEVEL TO POSITIVELY SLOPED (0 TO 2% AWAY FROM THE STRUCTURE) 

IN PLACE OVER ALL DOORS AND WINDOWS 

CAPILLARY BREAK BETWEEN ALL HORIZONTAL ELEMENTS 

4 POOR 

LEVEL TO POSITIVELY SLOPED (0 TO 2% AWAY FROM THE STRUCTURE) NO SIGNS OF STANDING WATER. 

IN PLACE OVER AT LEAST 90% OF ALL DOORS AND WINDOWS 

CAPILLARY BREAK BETWEEN ALL HORIZONTAL ELEMENTS 

5 NEEDS REPAIR 

LEVEL TO NEGATIVELY SLOPED (≥ 0% SLOPE TOWARD THE STRUCTURE.). 

MISSING ON MORE THAN 10 % OF DOORS AND WINDOWS 

NO CAPILLARY BREAKS BETWEEN HORIZONTAL ELEMENTS 

ROOF 

SCOPE: THE ROOF ASSESSMENT IS FOCUSED ON THE CONDITION OF THE ROOF MATERIAL, THE VALLEYS/RIDGES, AND THE 

ROOF EDGES. IN PARTICULAR, THE FOCUS IS ON CONDITION OF SHINGLES, VALLEYS, RIDGE CAPS, AND ROOF EDGES FROM A 

GROUND VISUAL SURVEY. 

IMPORTANCE: THE ROOF IS THE PRIMARY SYSTEM FOR CONTROLLING AND REMOVING BULK WATER FROM ENTERING THE 

STRUCTURE. ITS STYLE HELPS TO DIRECT AND SHED THE WATER. FAILURE GENERALLY INITIATES IN VALLEYS, 

PROTRUSIONS THROUGH THE ROOF (IE, VENTS, PIPES, FLUES ECT), AND THE EDGES OF THE ROOF (APPROXIMATELY LAST 2’ 

TO 3’). 

D-20 Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study 
1 EXCELLENT 

SHINGLES 

COMPLETE COVERAGE, NO MISSING SHINGLES 

NO NOTICEABLE SHINGLE DEGRADATION 

VALLEYS 

ALL VALLEYS ARE FLASHED OR HAVE PROPER SHINGLE TREATMENT (CALIFORNIA WEAVE, UNDERLAY AND TRIM, ETC.) 

MINIMUM 2” SEPARATION BETWEEN THE ROOFING AND THE SIDING – PROPERLY FLASHED. 

ALL MASONRY IS PROPERLY STEP FLASHED. 

RIDGE CAPS 

RIDGE CAPS ARE IN PLACE 

RIDGES ARE STRAIGHT, NO VISIBLE SAGS. 

ROOF EDGES 

ALL ROOF EDGES ARE STRAIGHT AND TRUE. 

DRIP EDGE IS INSTALLED. 

DRIP EDGE IS SPACED A MINIMUM OF 1⁄4 “ FROM THE ROOF DECKING 

2 GOOD 

SHINGLES 

COMPLETE COVERAGE, NO MISSING SHINGLES 

SHINGLE DEGRADATION IS LIMITED TO FADING AND MINOR AGGREGATE LOSS (NO BARE ASPHALT VISIBLE) 

VALLEYS 

ALL VALLEYS ARE FLASHED OR HAVE PROPER SHINGLE TREATMENT (CALIFORNIA WEAVE, UNDERLAY AND TRIM, ETC.) 

MINIMUM 2” SEPARATION BETWEEN THE ROOFING AND THE SIDING – PROPERLY FLASHED. 

ALL MASONRY IS PROPERLY STEP FLASHED. 

RIDGE CAPS 

RIDGE CAPS ARE COMPLETE AND IN PLACE. 

RIDGES ARE STRAIGHT, NO VISIBLE SAGS. 

ROOF EDGES 

ALL ROOF EDGES ARE STRAIGHT AND TRUE. 

DRIP EDGE IS INSTALLED. 

DRIP EDGE IS SPACED A MINIMUM OF 1/8 “ FROM THE ROOF DECKING 

Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study D-21 
 

 

3 ADEQUATE 

SHINGLES 

COMPLETE COVERAGE, NO MISSING SHINGLES. 

SHINGLE DEGRADATION IS LIMITED TO FADING AND MINOR AGGREGATE LOSS (NO BARE ASPHALT VISIBLE). 

MINOR CURL AT EDGE OF TABS NOTED. 

VALLEYS 

ALL VALLEYS ARE FLASHED OR HAVE PROPER SHINGLE TREATMENT (CALIFORNIA WEAVE, UNDERLAY AND TRIM, ETC.) 

MINIMUM 2” SEPARATION BETWEEN THE ROOFING AND THE SIDING – PROPERLY FLASHED. 

ALL MASONRY IS PROPERLY STEP FLASHED. 

RIDGE CAPS 

RIDGE CAPS ARE COMPLETE AND IN PLACE. 

RIDGES ARE STRAIGHT. 

VISIBLE SAGS ARE LIMITED TO AREA BETWEEN ROOF JOISTS.. 

ROOF EDGES 

ALL ROOF EDGES ARE STRAIGHT. 

DRIP EDGE PRESENT. 

4 POOR 

SHINGLES 

LESS THAN ONE % OF SHINGLES ARE MISSING. 

SIGNIFICANT AGGREGATE LOSS (BARE ASPHALT SUBSTRATE VISIBLE). 

SHINGLE CURLING AT EDGE OF TABS NOTED. 

VALLEYS 

VALLEY FLASHING IS TO NARROW 

IMPROPER VALLEY SHINGLE TREATMENT (CALIFORNIA WEAVE, UNDERLAY AND TRIM, ETC.). 

LESS THAN 2” SEPARATION BETWEEN THE ROOFING AND THE SIDING OR NO FLASHING AT WALL INTERFACE. 

MASONRY IS SURFACE FLASHED. 

RIDGE CAPS 

RIDGE CAPS MINIMAL MISSING SHINGLES (< 1%) CONCENTRATED OVER GABLES/OVERHANGS. 

RIDGES MAY BE BOWED (OR SAGGING) LESS THAN 1” PER 10’. 

ROOF EDGES 

ALL ROOF EDGES MAY BE OUT OF LINEARITY NO MORE THAN 1” PER 10’. 

NO DRIP EDGE IS INSTALLED. 

D-22 Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 NEEDS REPAIR 

CAULKING 

FASCIA/SOFFIT 

SIDING/SOFFIT 

SIDING/TRIM 

SIDING/WINDOWS 

SIDING/DOORS 

SIDING/OPENINGS 

PAINT 

FASCIA 

SOFFIT 

SIDING 

TRIM 

WINDOWS 

DOORS 

Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study D-23 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX E 

SUMMARY OF SITE SURVEY DATA
 

Orientation 

1970s 

North NorthWest North-East South South-West South-East West East Uncertain Total 

19 9 4 23 1 3 19 15 12 105 

Type 

1970s 

Detached Attached Blank Uncertain Total 

65 23 1 16 105 

Style 

1970s 

Colonial Ranch Townhouse Other Uncertain Total 

16 38 23 12 16 105 

Stories 

1970s 

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Uncertain Total 

19 6 62 0 0 18 105 

Garage 

1970s 

TRUE FALSE Uncertain Total 

40 60 5 105 

Garage Type 

1970s 

Attached Detached Blank Uncertain Total 

36 7 61 1 105 

Foundation 

Type 

1970s 

Basement Crawlspac 

e 

Slab-ongrade Uncertain Total 

51 7 31 16 105 

Ponding 

1970s 

True False Uncertain Total 

15 68 22 105 

Surface 

Depressions 

1970s 

True False Uncertain Total 

17 68 20 105 

Ten Feet 

1970s 

True False Uncertain Total 

78 6 21 105 

Large Trees 

1970s 

True False Uncertain Total 

26 55 24 105 

Shrubs 

1970s 

True False Uncertain Total 

62 13 30 105 

Flower Beds 

1970s 

True False Uncertain Total 

52 12 41 105 

Wood Mulch 

1970s 

True False Uncertain Total 

50 31 24 105 

Patio Slab 

1970s 

True False Uncertain Total 

34 48 23 105 

Slab Type 

1970s 

Attached Detached No answer Uncertain Total 

47 5 50 3 105 

Patio 

Permeability 

1970s 

Impervious Pervious No answer Uncertain Total 

49 3 49 4 105 

Patio Slope 

1970s 

<2% >+2%+ Blank Uncertain Total 

12 29 52 12 105 

Patio 

Material 

1970s 

Brick Block Concrete Other No answer Uncertain Total 

5 1 41 0 49 9 105 

Patio 

Condition 

1970s 

Good Adequate Poor Blank Uncertain Total 

10 24 8 49 14 105 

Patio 

Condition 

1970s 

Good Adequate Poor Blank Uncertain Total 

10 24 8 49 14 105 

Retaining 

Wall 

1970s 

True False Uncertain Total 

6 96 3 105 

Retaining 

Wall Height 

1970s 

16" 20" 2' 3' 6' 8' 10' Blank Uncertain Total 

0 1 3 0 1 0 1 96 3 105 

Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study E-1
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Retaining 

Wall Material 

1970s 

Brick Block Concrete Other Blank Uncertain Total 

3 1 1 4 96 0 105 

Drive parking 

1970s 

True False Uncertain Total 

95 2 8 105 

Off-Street 

Parking 

1970s 

True False Uncertain Total 

76 5 24 105 

Drive 

Permeability 

1970s 

Impervious Pervious Blank Uncertain Total 

91 5 2 7 105 

Drive Length 

1970s 

<10' >=10' Blank Uncertain Total 

65 15 2 23 105 

Sidewalks 

1970s 

True False Uncertain Total 

94 4 7 105 

Sidewalk 

Permeability 

1970s 

Impervious Pervious Blank Uncertain Total 

89 4 4 8 105 

Sidewalk 

Slope 

1970s 

<2% >+2% Blank Uncertain Total 

16 58 5 26 105 

Wind Rating 

1970S 

A B C Uncertain Total 

0 99 3 3 105 

Wind Shield 

1970s 

Excellent Normal Poor Uncertain Total 

7 86 0 12 105 

Wind Shield 

1970s 

Excellent Normal Poor Uncertain Total 

7 86 0 12 105 

Foundation 

Material 

1970s 

Block Concrete Brick Uncertain Total 

43 39 2 21 105 

Visible 

Cracks 

1970s 

Cracks No Cracks Uncertain Total 

29 56 20 105 

Window 

Wells 

1970s 

True False Uncertain Total 

7 88 10 105 

Covered 

Wells 

1970s 

True False Uncertain Total 

1 103 2 106 

Walk Outs 

1970s 

True False Uncertain Total 

20 69 16 105 

Stairwell 

1970s 

True False Uncertain Total 

16 82 7 105 

Siding 

1970s 

Vinyl Aluminum Brick Wood AsbestosCement Other Uncertain Total 

28 20 19 12 6 1 19 105 

Above 

Grade Finish 

1970s 

<6" >=6" Uncertain Total 

24 35 46 105 

Roof Types 

1970s 

Gable Hip Gambrel Other Uncertain Total 

81 2 7 7 8 105 

Roof Slope 

1970s 

<3" in 12" 3" to 6" in 

12" >6" in 12" Uncertain Total 

4 78 1 22 105 

Roofing 

Material 

1970s 

Asphalt Wood Uncertain Total 

99 1 5 105 

Number of 

Valleys 

1970s 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 14 Blank Uncertain Total 

67 5 10 2 3 0 0 0 1 0 2 15 105 

Valley 

Condition 

1970s 

Good Adequate Poor Uncertain Blank Total 

11 14 2 10 68 105 

E-2 Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Number of 

Roof 

Openings 

1970s 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Blank Uncertain Total 

3 13 25 10 13 6 3 1 1 1 7 22 105 

Roof 

Opening 

Condition 

1970s 

Good Adequate Poor Blank Uncertain Total 

19 46 1 11 28 105 

Number of 

Skylights 

1970s 

0 1 2 3 4 Blank Uncertain Total 

85 3 3 3 0 10 1 105 

Gable Vents 

1970s 

True False Uncertain Total 

64 31 10 105 

Ridge Vents 

1970s 

True False Uncertain Total 

31 60 14 105 

Soffit Vents 

1970s 

True False Uncertain Total 

46 30 29 105 

Plumbing 

Vents 

1970s 

True False Uncertain Total 

42 29 34 105 

Vent Fans 

1970s 

True False Uncertain Total 

7 87 11 105 

Turbine 

Vents 

1970s 

True False Uncertain Total 

2 100 3 105 

Passive 

Vents 

1970s 

True False Uncertain Total 

2 84 19 105 

Roof Drip 

Edges 

1970s 

True False Uncertain Totals 

14 76 15 105 

Drip Edge 

Spacing 

1970s 

<2" >=2" Blank uncert Total 

8 17 77 3 105 

Soffits 

1970s 

Wood Metal Vinyl Other Blank Uncertain Total 

38 43 12 0 2 10 105 

Soffit 

Orientation 

1970s 

Horizontal Angled Uncertain Total 

94 4 7 105 

Soffit Slope 

1970s 

Slight 20 

degrees 

25 degrees 

(Rev) 6" in 12" 3"-6" in 12" Uncertain Blank Total 

1 1 0 2 2 3 96 105 

Overhang 

1970s 

0" 0"-6" 6"-12" 12"-18" 18"-24" >24" Uncertain Total 

1 6 14 13 11 8 52 105 

Overhang 

Same 

1970s 

True False un Total 

38 26 41 105 

Gutters & 

Downspouts 

1970s 

True False Uncertain Total 

91 3 11 105 

Gutter & 

Downspout 

Maint. 

1970s 

True False Uncertain Total 

7 69 29 105 

Gutter & 

Downspout 

Mat. 

1970s 

Aluminum Steel Blank Uncertain Total 

71 11 1 22 105 

Splash RunOff 

1970s 

True False Uncertain Total 

61 13 31 105 

Water Flow 

1970s 

True False Uncertain Total 

36 22 47 105 

Window 

Frame 

1970s 

Vinyl Metal Wood Uncertain Total 

25 30 36 14 105 

Window 

Glazing 

1970s 

Single Double Uncertain Total 

32 60 13 105 

Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study E-3
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Window 

Condition 

1970s 

Good Adequate Poor Uncertain Total 

39 35 6 25 105 

Storm 

Windows 

1970s 

Metal Vinyl Not Present Uncertain Total 

30 1 62 12 105 

SW Cond 

1970s 

Good Adequate Poor Blank Uncertain Total 

11 16 3 61 14 105 

Door 

Material 

1970s 

Wood Metal Vinyl Other Uncertain Total 

67 22 0 0 16 105 

Door 

Condition 

1970s 

Good Adequate Poor Blank Uncertain Total 

34 25 4 1 41 105 

Storm Door 

1970s 

Metal Wood Vinyl Blank Not Present Uncertain Total 

55 2 6 0 23 20 106 

Storm Door 

Condition 

1970s 

Good Adequate Poor Blank Uncertain Total 

31 23 1 22 28 105 

Deck 

1970s 

True False Uncertain Total 

41 55 9 105 

Deck 

Material 

1970s 

Treated 

Wood Redwood Cedar Other Can't Tell Blank Uncertain Total 

42 2 0 1 2 55 3 105 

Deck 

Construction 

1970s 

Surface 

Nailed 

Surface 

Screwed Blank Uncertain Total 

44 1 59 1 105 

Deck 

Condition 

1970s 

Good Adequate Poor Blank Uncertain Total 

10 18 4 64 9 105 

Fencing 

1970s 

True False Uncertain Total 

63 31 11 105 

Fencing 

Condition 

1970s 

Good Adequate Poor Blank Uncertain Total 

15 28 7 31 24 105 

Porch/Stoop 

1970s 

Concrete Covered Wood Frame Other Blank Uncertain Total 

85 3 3 3 5 6 105 

Porch/Stoop 

Condition 

1970s 

Good Adequate Poor Blank Uncertain Total 

18 47 2 11 27 105 

Ext. Stair 

Construction 

1970s 

Wood 

Frame Concrete Other Blank Uncertain Total 

15 35 3 45 7 105 

Ext. Stair 

Condition 

1970s 

Good Adequate Poor Blank Uncertain Total 

12 30 4 47 12 105 

Chimney 

Storm Cap 

1970s 

True False Uncertain Total 

43 49 13 105 

Chimney 

Condition 

1970s 

Good Adequate Poor Blank Uncertain Total 

26 25 2 38 14 105 

Fascia 

Construction 

1970s 

Metal Wood Vinyl Blank Uncertain Total 

35 48 5 1 16 105 

Fascia 

Condition 

1970s 

Good Adequate Poor Blank Uncertain Total 

27 35 7 9 27 105 

Rot 

1970s 

Noted Not Noted Uncertain Total 

28 61 16 105 

Insect 

Damage 

1970s 

True False Uncertain Total 

3 101 2 106 

E-4 Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Orientation 

1990s 

North North-West North-East South South-West South-East West East Uncertain Total 

20 5 8 16 9 8 10 14 13 103 

Type 

1990s 

Detached Attached Blank Uncertain Total 

50 39 3 11 103 

Style 

1990s 

Colonial Ranch Townhouse Other Uncertain Total 

38 11 37 5 12 103 

Stories 

1990s 

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Uncertain Total 

6 0 72 4 7 14 103 

Garage 

1990s 

TRUE FALSE Uncertain Total 

40 55 8 103 

Garage Type 

1990s 

Attached Detached Blank Uncertain Total 

44 2 56 1 103 

Foundation 

Type 

1990s 

Basement Crawlspace Slab-ongrade Uncertain Total 

69 9 11 14 103 

Ponding 

1990s 

True False Uncertain Total 

11 74 18 103 

Surface 

Depressions 

1990s 

True False Uncertain Total 

10 79 14 103 

Ten Feet 

1990s 

True False Uncertain Total 

77 4 22 103 

Large Trees 

1990s 

True False Uncertain Total 

7 83 13 103 

Shrubs 

1990s 

True False Uncertain Total 

35 32 36 103 

Flower Beds 

1990s 

True False Uncertain Total 

63 7 33 103 

Wood Mulch 

1990s 

True False Uncertain Total 

64 12 27 103 

Patio Slab 

1990s 

True False Uncertain Total 

20 62 21 103 

Slab Type 

1990s 

Attached Detached No answer Uncertain Total 

28 6 62 7 103 

Patio 

Permeability 

1990s 

Impervious Pervious No answer Uncertain Total 

34 3 63 3 103 

Patio Slope 

1990s 

<2% >+2%+ Blank Uncertain Total 

4 25 63 11 103 

Patio 

Material 

1990s 

Brick Block Concrete Other No answer Uncertain Total 

5 1 26 3 64 4 103 

Patio 

Condition 

1990s 

Good Adequate Poor Blank Uncertain Total 

25 9 1 64 4 103 

Patio 

Condition 

1990s 

Good Adequate Poor Blank Uncertain Total 

25 9 1 64 4 103 

Retaining 

Wall 

1990s 

True False Uncertain TOTAL 

6 91 6 103 

Retaining 

Wall Height 

1990s 

16" 20" 2' 3' 6' 8' 10' Blank Uncertain Total 

1 0 2 3 0 1 0 93 3 103 

Retaining 

Wall Material 

1990s 

Brcik Block Concrete Other Blank Uncertain Total 

0 4 0 4 93 2 103 

Drive parking 

1990s 

True False Uncertain Total 

98 0 5 103 

Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study E-5
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Off-Street 

Parking 

1990s 

True False Uncertain Total 

86 1 16 103 

Drive 

Permeability 

1990s 

Impervious Pervious Blank Uncertain Total 

90 5 2 6 103 

Drive Length 

1990s 

<10' >=10' Blank Uncertain Total 

57 32 1 13 103 

Sidewalks 

1990s 

True False Uncertain Total 

94 5 4 103 

Sidewalk 

Permeability 

1990s 

Impervious Pervious Blank Uncertain Total 

91 3 5 4 103 

Sidewalk 

Slope 

1990s 

<2% >+2% Blank Uncertain Total 

11 65 6 21 103 

Wind Rating 

1990S 

A B C Uncertain Total 

1 87 5 10 103 

Wind Shield 

1990s 

Excellent Normal Poor Uncertain Total 

2 83 2 16 103 

Wind Shield 

1990s 

Excellent Normal Poor Uncertain Total 

2 83 2 16 103 

Foundation 

Material 

1990s 

Block Concrete Brick Uncertain Total 

22 63 1 17 103 

Visible 

Cracks 

1990s 

Cracks No Cracks Uncertain Total 

18 75 10 103 

Window 

Wells 

1990s 

True False Uncertain Total 

7 90 6 103 

Covered 

Wells 

1990s 

True False Uncertain Total 

2 99 2 103 

Walk Outs 

1990s 

True False Uncertain Total 

15 57 31 103 

Stairwell 

1990s 

True False Uncertain Total 

18 77 8 103 

Siding 

1990s 

Vinyl Aluminum Brick Wood AsbestosCement Other Uncertain TOTAL 

55 15 9 8 0 0 16 103 

Above 

Grade Finish 

1990s 

<6" >=6" Uncertain Total 

12 62 29 103 

Roof Types 

1990s 

Gable Hip Gambrel Other Uncertain Total 

100 0 1 0 2 103 

Roof Slope 

1990s 

<3" in 12" 3" to 6" in 

12" >6" in 12" Uncertain Total 

1 72 9 21 103 

Roofing 

Material 

1990s 

Asphalt Wood Uncertain Total 

98 0 5 103 

Number of 

Valleys 

1990s 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 14 

37 3 20 1 8 3 4 2 0 1 

Valley 

Condition 

1990s 

Good Adequate Poor Uncertain Blank Total 

45 6 0 11 41 103 

Number of 

Roof 

Openings 

1990s 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Blank Uncertain Total 

3 25 16 8 11 6 5 1 0 0 8 20 103 

Roof 

Opening 

Condition 

1990s 

Good Adequate Poor Blank Uncertain Total 

57 10 0 13 23 103 

Number of 

Skylights 

1990s 

0 1 2 3 4 Blank Uncertain Total 

71 11 6 2 3 8 2 103 

E-6 Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gable Vents 

1990s 

True False Uncertain Total 

28 63 12 103 

Ridge Vents 

1990s 

True False Uncertain Total 

64 22 17 103 

Soffit Vents 

1990s 

True False Uncertain Total 

58 12 33 103 

Plumbing 

Vents 

1990s 

True False Uncertain Total 

37 39 22 98 

Vent Fans 

1990s 

True False Uncertain Total 

1 100 2 103 

Turbine 

Vents 

1990s 

True False Uncertain Total 

0 100 3 103 

Passive 

Vents 

1990s 

True False Uncertain Total 

11 83 9 103 

Roof Drip 

Edges 

1990s 

True False Uncertain Totals 

13 77 13 103 

Drip Edge 

Spacing 

1990s 

<2" >=2" Blank Uncertain Total 

16 5 79 3 103 

Soffits 

1990s 

Wood Metal Vinyl Other Blank Uncertain Total 

20 44 18 1 0 20 103 

Soffit 

Orientation 

1990s 

Horizontal Angled Uncertain Total 

101 0 2 103 

Soffit Slope 

1990s 

Slight 20 degrees 25 degrees 

(Rev) 6" in 12" 3"-6" in 12" Uncertain Blank Total 

0 0 1 2 0 0 100 103 

Overhang 

1990s 

0" 0"-6" 6"-12" 12"-18" 18"-24" >24" Uncertain Total 

1 8 36 9 1 0 48 103 

Overhang 

Same 

1990s 

True False un Total 

39 15 49 103 

Gutters & 

Downspouts 

1990s 

True False Uncertain Total 

93 1 9 103 

Gutter & 

Downspout 

Maint. 

1990s 

True False Uncertain Total 

3 75 25 103 

Gutter & 

Downspout 

Mat. 

1990s 

Aluminum Steel Blank Uncertain Total 

76 17 0 10 103 

Splash RunOff 

1990s 

True False Uncertain Total 

79 2 22 103 

Water Flow 

1990s 

True False Uncertain Total 

48 12 43 103 

Window 

Frame 

1990s 

Vinyl Metal Wood Uncertain Total 

58 19 12 14 103 

Window 

Glazing 

1990s 

Single Double Uncertain Total 

2 99 2 103 

Window 

Condition 

1990s 

Good Adequate Poor Uncertain Total 

71 9 0 23 103 

Storm 

Windows 

1990s 

Metal Vinyl Not Present Uncertain Total 

2 2 85 14 103 

SW Cond 

1990s 

Good Adequate Poor Blank Uncertain Total 

15 4 0 81 3 103 

Door 

Material 

1990s 

Wood Metal Vinyl Other Uncertain Total 

24 61 5 2 11 103 

Door 

Condition 

1990s 

Good Adequate Poor Blank Uncertain Total 

73 9 0 0 21 103 

Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study E-7
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Storm Door 

1990s 

Metal Wood Vinyl Blank Not Present Uncertain Total 

28 0 7 1 52 15 103 

Storm Door 

Condition 

1990s 

Good Adequate Poor Blank Uncertain Total 

40 5 1 48 9 103 

Deck 

1990s 

True False Uncertain Total 

65 31 7 103 

Deck 

Material 

1990s 

Treated 

Wood Redwood Cedar Other Can't Tell Blank Uncertain Total 

55 1 1 0 0 31 15 103 

Deck 

Construction 

1990s 

Surface 

Nailed 

Surface 

Screwed Blank Uncertain Total 

54 5 40 4 103 

Deck 

Condition 

1990s 

Good Adequate Poor Blank Uncertain Total 

29 12 2 48 12 103 

Fencing 

1990s 

True False Uncertain Total 0 0 

40 51 12 103 0 

Fencing 

Condition 

1990s 

Good Adequate Poor Blank Uncertain Total 

22 15 2 52 12 103 

Porch/Stoop 

1990s 

Concrete Covered Wood 

Frame Other Blank Uncertain Total 

78 0 12 2 2 9 103 

Porch/Stoop 

Condition 

1990s 

Good Adequate Poor Blank Uncertain Total 

15 54 3 8 23 103 

Ext. Stair 

Construction 

1990s 

Wood 

Frame Concrete Other Blank Uncertain Total 

15 61 4 15 8 103 

Ext. Stair 

Condition 

1990s 

Good Adequate Poor Blank Uncertain Total 

52 13 4 15 19 103 

Chimney 

Storm Cap 

1990s 

True False Uncertain Total 

49 37 17 103 

Chimney 

Condition 

1990s 

Good Adequate Poor Blank Uncertain Total 

52 5 0 36 10 103 

Fascia 

Construction 

1990s 

Metal Wood Vinyl Blank Uncertain Total 

38 34 9 2 20 103 

Fascia 

Condition 

1990s 

Good Adequate Poor Blank Uncertain Total 

43 11 5 15 29 103 

Rot 

1990s 

Noted Not Noted Uncertain Total 

20 69 14 103 

Insect 

Damage 

1990s 

True False Uncertain Total 

1 101 1 103 

E-8 Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study 
 

 

 

 

 

BUILDING COMPONENT CONDITION VISUAL SURVEY RESULTS 

AVERAGE SCORES 

1970s 1990s Total 1970s 1990s Total 1970s 1990s Total 

GRADING _ FRONT 2.71 2.39 2.55 TRIM _ FRONT 2.99 2.83 2.91 SIDING/WIND _ FRONT 3.36 3.08 3.22 

RIGHT 2.11 2.10 2.11 RIGHT 2.91 2.49 2.71 RIGHT 3.36 2.96 3.19 

REAR 2.28 2.27 2.27 REAR 2.99 2.63 2.79 REAR 3.33 3.02 3.18 

LEFT 2.05 2.11 2.08 LEFT 2.83 2.57 2.70 LEFT 3.18 3.50 3.33 

AVERAGE 2.29 2.22 2.25 AVERAGE 2.93 2.63 2.78 AVERAGE 3.31 3.14 3.23 

LANDSCAPING _ FRONT 2.92 2.71 2.81 OPENINGS _ FRONT 2.86 2.55 2.69 SIDING/DOOR _ FRONT 3.28 3.13 3.21 

RIGHT 2.73 2.52 2.63 RIGHT 2.85 2.67 2.76 RIGHT 3.25 3.04 3.17 

REAR 2.79 2.34 2.54 REAR 3.07 2.71 2.87 REAR 3.24 2.93 3.08 

LEFT 2.73 2.53 2.63 LEFT 2.87 2.57 2.70 LEFT 3.16 3.11 3.13 

AVERAGE 2.79 2.52 2.66 AVERAGE 2.91 2.62 2.76 AVERAGE 3.23 3.05 3.15 

SIDEWALK _ FRONT 3.03 2.07 2.56 SOFFITS _ FRONT 2.66 2.28 2.47 SIDING/OPEN _ FRONT 3.30 2.99 3.13 

RIGHT 2.62 2.39 2.55 RIGHT 2.67 2.28 2.48 LEFT 3.27 2.86 3.07 

REAR 2.65 2.29 2.52 REAR 2.75 2.31 2.51 REAR 3.48 3.22 3.34 

LEFT 2.91 2.35 2.70 LEFT 2.75 2.24 2.48 RIGHT 3.81 3.46 3.65 

AVERAGE 2.80 2.27 2.58 AVERAGE 2.71 2.28 2.48 AVERAGE 3.47 3.13 3.30 

FOUNDATION _ FRONT 2.52 2.08 2.29 FASCIA _ FRONT 2.93 2.63 2.78 FASCIA _ 

PAINT_FRONT 3.08 2.71 2.91 

RIGHT 2.67 2.22 2.46 RIGHT 2.92 2.48 2.70 LEFT 3.07 2.55 2.83 

REAR 2.59 2.14 2.35 REAR 2.94 2.49 2.70 REAR 3.09 2.53 2.82 

LEFT 2.67 2.13 2.39 LEFT 2.89 2.40 2.64 RIGHT 3.10 2.52 2.86 

AVERAGE 2.61 2.14 2.37 AVERAGE 2.92 2.50 2.70 AVERAGE 3.09 2.57 2.85 

PORCH _ FRONT 2.80 2.25 2.52 GUTTERS _ FRONT 2.98 2.50 2.74 SOFFIT _ 

PAINT_FRONT 2.91 2.34 2.67 

RIGHT 2.86 3.00 2.91 RIGHT 2.73 2.32 2.49 LEFT 2.95 2.30 2.69 

REAR 2.93 2.60 2.79 REAR 3.02 2.41 2.69 REAR 2.97 2.25 2.64 

LEFT 2.86 2.25 2.64 LEFT 2.65 2.37 2.48 RIGHT 2.91 2.29 2.68 

AVERAGE 2.86 2.52 2.71 AVERAGE 2.84 2.40 2.60 AVERAGE 2.94 2.30 2.67 

DECK _ FRONT 2.71 3.19 2.95 FLASHING _ FRONT 3.24 3.26 3.25 SIDING _ PAINT_FRONT 2.92 2.39 2.72 

RIGHT 3.33 3.00 3.22 RIGHT 2.94 3.18 3.06 LEFT 2.91 2.32 2.67 

REAR 3.03 2.62 2.78 REAR 3.14 3.19 3.17 REAR 3.06 2.38 2.78 

LEFT 2.89 2.50 2.67 LEFT 2.94 3.10 3.02 RIGHT 2.91 2.33 2.71 

AVERAGE 2.99 2.83 2.90 AVERAGE 3.07 3.18 3.13 AVERAGE 2.95 2.35 2.72 

SIDING _ FRONT 2.63 2.18 2.40 ROOF _ FRONT 2.66 2.22 2.44 TRIM _ PAINT_FRONT 3.20 2.95 3.08 

RIGHT 2.69 2.42 2.56 RIGHT 2.67 2.18 2.40 LEFT 3.09 2.58 2.85 

REAR 2.71 2.30 2.49 REAR 2.78 2.21 2.48 REAR 3.14 2.84 2.98 

LEFT 2.78 2.42 2.59 LEFT 2.75 2.16 2.41 RIGHT 3.12 2.68 2.93 

AVERAGE 2.70 2.33 2.51 AVERAGE 2.72 2.19 2.43 AVERAGE 3.14 2.76 2.96 

DOOR _ FRONT 2.57 2.13 2.36 FASCIA/SOFFIT _ 

FRONT 3.32 2.96 3.16 WIND _ PAINT_FRONT 2.99 2.40 2.77 

RIGHT 2.93 2.14 2.57 RIGHT 3.35 2.91 3.19 LEFT 2.98 2.32 2.70 

REAR 2.83 2.28 2.52 REAR 3.32 2.92 3.14 REAR 3.06 2.42 2.80 

LEFT 2.64 2.30 2.45 LEFT 3.28 2.80 3.10 RIGHT 2.98 2.43 2.77 

AVERAGE 2.74 2.21 2.47 AVERAGE 3.32 2.90 3.15 AVERAGE 3.00 2.39 2.76 

WINDOWS _ FRONT 2.74 2.21 2.48 SIDING/SOFFIT _ 

FRONT 3.16 2.83 3.02 DOOR _ PAINT_FRONT 2.76 2.35 2.56 

RIGHT 2.80 2.24 2.53 RIGHT 3.18 2.96 3.10 LEFT 2.89 2.46 2.71 

REAR 2.81 2.15 2.46 REAR 3.31 2.90 3.13 REAR 2.92 2.43 2.69 

LEFT 2.75 2.19 2.47 LEFT 3.24 2.80 3.08 RIGHT 3.00 2.18 2.69 

AVERAGE 2.77 2.20 2.48 AVERAGE 3.22 2.87 3.08 AVERAGE 2.89 2.36 2.66 

SIDING/TRIM _ FRONT 3.49 3.23 3.38 

RIGHT 3.47 3.03 3.29 

REAR 3.51 3.03 3.29 

LEFT 3.49 2.88 3.25 

AVERAGE 3.49 3.05 3.30 

Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study E-9
 

 

 

 

 

 

BUILDING COMPONENT CONDITION VISUAL SURVEY RESULTS 

COEFFICIENTS OF VARIATION 

1970s 1990s Total 1970s 1990s Total 1970s 1990s Total 

GRADING _ FRONT 0.27 0.35 0.31 TRIM _ FRONT 0.24 0.32 0.28 SIDING/WIND _ FRONT 0.29 0.29 0.29 

RIGHT 0.60 0.53 0.57 RIGHT 0.24 0.30 0.28 RIGHT 0.24 0.32 0.28 

REAR 0.63 0.51 0.57 REAR 0.23 0.28 0.27 REAR 0.24 0.27 0.26 

LEFT 0.63 0.54 0.59 LEFT 0.20 0.27 0.24 LEFT 0.22 1.28 0.91 

AVERAGE 0.53 0.48 0.51 AVERAGE 0.23 0.29 0.27 AVERAGE 0.25 0.54 0.44 

LANDSCAPING _ FRONT 0.23 0.23 0.23 OPENINGS _ FRONT 0.27 0.26 0.27 SIDING/DOOR _ FRONT 0.30 0.31 0.30 

RIGHT 0.23 0.25 0.24 RIGHT 0.25 0.34 0.29 RIGHT 0.22 0.43 0.31 

REAR 0.27 0.25 0.28 REAR 0.25 0.27 0.26 REAR 0.22 0.31 0.27 

LEFT 0.26 0.24 0.25 LEFT 0.22 0.28 0.26 LEFT 0.22 0.41 0.32 

AVERAGE 0.25 0.24 0.25 AVERAGE 0.25 0.29 0.27 AVERAGE 0.24 0.36 0.30 

SIDEWALK _ FRONT 0.72 0.30 0.66 SOFFITS _ FRONT 0.26 0.25 0.27 SIDING/OPEN _ FRONT 0.24 0.31 0.28 

RIGHT 0.26 0.29 0.27 RIGHT 0.29 0.25 0.29 LEFT 1.18 1.48 1.31 

REAR 0.26 0.25 0.26 REAR 0.27 0.25 0.28 REAR 0.22 0.59 0.45 

LEFT 0.23 0.45 0.32 LEFT 0.25 0.19 0.25 RIGHT 0.21 0.27 0.24 

AVERAGE 0.37 0.32 0.38 AVERAGE 0.27 0.24 0.27 AVERAGE 0.46 0.66 0.57 

FOUNDATION _ FRONT 0.29 0.26 0.29 FASCIA _ FRONT 0.25 0.61 0.45 FASCIA _ PAINT_FRONT 0.30 0.36 0.33 

RIGHT 0.25 0.29 0.28 RIGHT 0.27 0.31 0.30 LEFT 0.30 0.33 0.33 

REAR 0.29 0.34 0.33 REAR 0.23 0.27 0.27 REAR 0.26 0.33 0.30 

LEFT 0.21 0.33 0.29 LEFT 0.23 0.28 0.27 RIGHT 0.23 0.38 0.30 

AVERAGE 0.26 0.30 0.30 AVERAGE 0.25 0.37 0.32 AVERAGE 0.27 0.35 0.32 

PORCH _ FRONT 0.26 0.27 0.29 GUTTERS _ FRONT 0.29 0.27 0.30 SOFFIT _ PAINT_FRONT 0.30 0.31 0.32 

RIGHT 0.13 0.27 0.19 RIGHT 0.28 0.22 0.26 LEFT 0.25 0.33 0.30 

REAR 0.23 0.36 0.29 REAR 0.31 0.28 0.32 REAR 0.27 0.35 0.33 

LEFT 0.13 0.43 0.26 LEFT 0.31 0.24 0.28 RIGHT 0.19 0.33 0.27 

AVERAGE 0.19 0.33 0.26 AVERAGE 0.30 0.25 0.29 AVERAGE 0.25 0.33 0.31 

DECK _ FRONT 0.35 0.32 0.33 FLASHING _ FRONT 0.61 0.34 0.49 SIDING _ PAINT_FRONT 0.25 0.33 0.29 

RIGHT 0.33 0.35 0.33 RIGHT 0.32 0.34 0.33 LEFT 0.19 0.33 0.26 

REAR 0.20 0.27 0.25 REAR 0.29 0.31 0.30 REAR 0.21 0.37 0.29 

LEFT 0.16 0.30 0.25 LEFT 0.28 0.32 0.30 RIGHT 0.19 0.33 0.27 

AVERAGE 0.26 0.31 0.29 AVERAGE 0.38 0.33 0.36 AVERAGE 0.21 0.34 0.28 

SIDING _ FRONT 0.30 0.31 0.32 ROOF _ FRONT 0.29 0.26 0.29 TRIM _ PAINT_FRONT 0.25 0.35 0.30 

RIGHT 0.26 0.29 0.28 RIGHT 0.29 0.24 0.29 LEFT 0.23 0.34 0.29 

REAR 0.24 0.28 0.27 REAR 0.27 0.24 0.28 REAR 0.19 0.31 0.26 

LEFT 0.28 0.26 0.28 LEFT 0.27 0.25 0.29 RIGHT 0.20 0.33 0.27 

AVERAGE 0.27 0.29 0.29 AVERAGE 0.28 0.25 0.29 AVERAGE 0.22 0.33 0.28 

DOOR _ FRONT 0.29 0.31 0.31 FASCIA/SOFFIT _ FRONT 0.27 0.26 0.27 WIND _ PAINT_FRONT 0.28 0.27 0.30 

RIGHT 0.36 0.21 0.35 RIGHT 0.24 0.25 0.25 LEFT 0.24 0.36 0.30 

REAR 0.26 0.25 0.28 REAR 0.21 0.26 0.24 REAR 0.24 0.31 0.29 

LEFT 0.32 0.29 0.31 LEFT 0.24 0.22 0.25 RIGHT 0.21 0.28 0.26 

AVERAGE 0.31 0.27 0.31 AVERAGE 0.24 0.25 0.25 AVERAGE 0.24 0.31 0.29 

WINDOWS _ FRONT 0.29 0.24 0.29 SIDING/SOFFIT _ FRONT 0.25 0.31 0.27 DOOR _ PAINT_FRONT 0.28 0.40 0.35 

RIGHT 0.28 0.26 0.30 RIGHT 0.22 0.29 0.25 LEFT 0.25 0.27 0.30 

REAR 0.25 0.20 0.27 REAR 0.19 0.24 0.22 REAR 0.21 0.29 0.26 

LEFT 0.26 0.19 0.26 LEFT 0.23 0.24 0.24 RIGHT 0.16 0.39 0.26 

AVERAGE 0.27 0.22 0.28 AVERAGE 0.22 0.27 0.25 AVERAGE 0.23 0.34 0.29 

SIDING/TRIM _ FRONT 0.28 0.29 0.29 

RIGHT 0.25 0.29 0.27 

REAR 0.20 0.26 0.24 

LEFT 0.25 0.23 0.26 

AVERAGE 0.25 0.27 0.26 

E-10 Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study 
APPENDIX F 

STATISTICAL INFORMATION
 

The statistical analysis entailed the use of Contingency Tables to organize the data and Chisquare tests to assess relationships between housing characteristics and component conditions. 

Typically the Null Hypothesis (Ho) is that there is no difference between two set of houses, 

classified according to the presence or absence of some characteristic, in terms of the proportion 

of the houses with some selected condition. In other words, membership in either housingcharacteristic group is independent of the subject condition. 

To illustrate, the frequency of visible foundation cracks was examined in relation to the type of 

foundation material. The Null Hypothesis was that houses with block foundation do not differ 

from those with concrete foundation in terms of the proportion of foundations with visible 

cracks. The alternative hypothesis (H1) is that the occurrence of foundation cracks is not 

independent of foundation material. 

An example of a contingency table is presented below. The resulting chi-square, corrected for 

continuity, is 46.4. Based on a significance level of .05 and 1 degree of freedom, we find that we 

must reject the H0 in favor of H1. The material seems to play a role in the occurrence of visible 

foundations cracks. In fact if we look at the tabulation, we see that 65 percent of block 

foundations and only 10 percent of concrete foundation were found to have visible cracks. 

TABLE F1
 

2X2 CONTINGENCY TABLE 

VISIBLE CRACKS IN FOUNDATIONS VS. FOUNDATION MATERIAL
 

BLOCK CONCRETE TOTAL HOUSES 

Has visible cracks 35 9 44 

Has no visible cracks 19 83 102 

Total Houses 54 92 146 

However an examination of the data indicated that 2/3 of the houses with block foundations were 

built in the 1970s. A further examination of the data and Chi-square testing indicates that that the 

1970's houses have a higher proportion of cracks. These findings raised a question - Is time or 

the type of foundation material the real factor? Since most foundations of houses built in the 

1970s have block foundations, does it only appear that block foundations tend to have more 

cracks? A separate analysis of the foundation material and visible foundation cracks was 

performed for each age group. The results are tabulated in the following two tables. 

TABLE F2
 

2X2 CONTINGENCY TABLE 

VISIBLE CRACKS IN FOUNDATIONS VS. FOUNDATION MATERIAL 

1970s 

BLOCK CONCRETE TOTAL HOUSES 

Has visible cracks 21 6 27 

Has no visible cracks 14 27 41 

Total Houses 35 33 68 

Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study F-1 
TABLE F3
 

2X2 CONTINGENCY TABLE 

VISIBLE CRACKS IN FOUNDATIONS VS. FOUNDATION MATERIAL 

1990s 

BLOCK CONCRETE TOTAL HOUSES 

Has visible cracks 14 3 17 

Has no visible cracks 5 56 61 

Total Houses 19 59 78 

Chi-squares of 10.7 and 35.8 for the 1970s and 1990s data, respectively, meant that the null 

hypothesis was rejected in each case. Thus the presence of cracks is not independent of the 

foundation material in either period. These finding would seem to indicate that, while time is a 

factor in the occurrence of foundation cracks, block foundations have a higher proportion of 

cracks. 

A similar analysis relating the presence of surface depressions to the occurrence of foundation 

cracks produced similar results. A chi-square of 29.0 meant that the null hypothesis must be 

rejected in favor of the H1 that surface depressions play a role in the occurrence of foundation 

cracks. 

TABLE F4
 

2X2 CONTINGENCY TABLE 

VISIBLE CRACKS IN FOUNDATIONS VS. SURFACE DEPRESSIONS
 

HAS DEPS. NO DEPS. TOTAL HOUSES 

Has visible cracks 19 24 43 

Has no visible cracks 7 104 111 

Total Houses 26 128 154 

Statistical analysis attempted to examine the relationship of such factors as the age of the house 

or the size of the overhang to the occurrence of rot. Analysis of the data did not yield any 

meaningful insights into conditions associated with the occurrence of rot. 

Remodeling of the houses may have played a role by either eliminating or concealing rot. Casual 

observations by the inspectors indicated that many of the houses built during the 1970s might 

have been re-sided. At times trim, including soffit and fascia, had been covered with aluminum 

or vinyl sheathing or replaced. A similar situation was noted with the windows. 

Analysis of the numerical scoring data from the building component condition visual survey 

failed to yield meaningful results. Inspectors were required to provide a numerical rating for 28 

separate component categories for each of the four sides of every house. Each house was 

inspected and graded by up to three inspectors. The average of the scores across inspectors was 

computed for each component category in every house. 

In order to use the contingency table/chi-square analysis, each component score was classified as 

either "good" or "bad" based on the magnitude of the score. This binary classification allowed 

the use of 2x2 contingency tables. Unfortunately, the subsequent analysis failed to isolate any 

differences between orientation of the house and trouble with siding, paint, or front-door caulk. 

F-2 Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study 
The convention is this section is that a score of "2" means "good" and, a "3" means "adequate". 

The averaged scores tended not to exhibit much variation - they tend to be in the good end of the 

range. The average score for each of the component for the 1970s sample, the 1990s sample and 

the total sample fell in either the 2 or 3 range. The apparent reluctance to give "excellent" or 

"poor" grades made it difficult to separate out conditions that can be associated with housing 

deterioration. 

Due to these problems with the scoring data, no further analysis of the data was undertaken. 

Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study F-3 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX G 

ALTERNATIVE CONDITION ASSESSMENT FORM
 

ADDRESS: 

GRADING Slope 

5%+, 10' 

5%+,4' 

0 to 2% 

level 

negative 

NA 

LANDSCAPE Vents 

1' away 

6" away 

 covered 

NA 

FOUNDATION Cracks 

none 

less than 1/32 

 less than1/4 

less than 1/2 

no contact w/grade 

 ground level 

NA 

SIDING Plumb 

prefect 

out1/8"in 4' 

out1/4"in 4' 

out1/2"in 4' 

NA 

___ 

___ 

__ 

___ 

___ 

__ 

___ 

___ 

__ 

___ 

___ 

__ 

___ 

___ 

__ 

___ 

___ 

__ 

Depressions
 

None 

No/10' 

1 ft2 per 10' 

1 to 5 ft2 per 10' 

5 ft2 per 10' 

NA 

Large 

Trees

10' away 

Mulch 

6"away 

Re-entrant cracks 

2x wall thickness 

4x 

5x 

Bulges 

None 

< 1/4"
 

> 1/4"
 

NA 

Rot
 

none 

<5% butts 

<5% interfaces 

<15% end+interfac 

>15% end+interfac 

substrate not sound 

NA 

___ 

___ 

___ 

___ 

___ 

___ 

___ 

___ 

___ 

___ 

___ 

___ 

___ 

Moist 

Plants 

10' 

6' 

4' 

2' 

very, w/2' 

NA 

Tie holes 

all patched 

50% 

0% 

Plumb 

perfect 

<1/2 in 4"
 

>1/2 in4"
 

NA 

Bulges
 

none 

less 1/2"
 

less1" 

less 11/2"
 

water entry
 

NA 

___ 

_ 

___ 

_ 

 6" foliage 

from siding 

6" min., all 

6" min.,90% 

6" min. 75% 

6" min.,25% 

NA 

Rot
 

at entry
 

wood 

Effloures 

no 

<1"above grade 

>5" above grade 

<2"above found.
 

NA 

General
 

> 6" above grade 

< 6" above grade 

less than 6" 

weeps clogged 

rust stained 

nail hole decay 

2" sep.from roof 

Mortar

good 

cracks 

20% gone 

CMU 

spalling 

<10% 

>10% 

loose 

>5% 

NA 

Missing siding 

< 1% 

> 1% 

NA 

Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study G-1
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DOORS Rot Threshold Seals
 

none slope, ext., 2% centered sealed 

frame bottom only >2% good substr. 90% 

bottom, outside level NA no sides 

 bottom, splices, negative no seals 

joints 

door, 1" above NA NA 

thres. 

door >1" above 

thres. 

NA 
 

Sill Storms Glazing Rot 

intact 

WINDOWS Frame 

5% SLOPED attach, seals complete none 

finish cracks 2% poor attach cracked <1% >5% 

 <1/16" joint <2% NA 5%crack glass <5% 

separat. 

<1/8 >2% 10% putty gone <10% 

>1/8 NA 20% putty gone bad substrate 

peeling paint 5% glass gone NA 

weeps free NA 

rot 

NA 

SOFFITT Rot Slope FASCIA 

Drip edge 

complete 

plumb 5% 

plumb 20% 

NA 

Rot 

joints - >10% level to 2% no 

<25% level to 2% <10% 

>25% negative <25% 

substrate bad NA 25% 

non joint rot NA 

NA 

Extentions Components General 

1/4" in 10' 

GUTTERS Pitch 

10' away all sags 

0 to 1/4" 5' <90% d-spouts installed 

level 3' >90% overflows 

NA <3' loose NA 

NA NA 

ROOF Shingles Valleys Ridge Edges 

complete flashing too narrow sags, joists out of line,1"per 10' 

 fading,minor agg. improper shingles miss shingles NA 

loss 

curling at tabs masonry stepflash bow 1" per 10' 

bare asphalt NA NA 

 1% shingles 

missing 

NA 
 

G-2 Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PORCHES 

DECKS 

TRIM 

FLASHING 

OPENINGS 

Rot Railing 

none freestand,2"away 

from H 

non-structual, <1% attached to 

H.,flash,drain 

 non-structual, attached to house 

<10% 

 non-structual, no railing 

>10% 

Structural rot, <5% NA 

Structural rot, >5% Cover 

elements not sound cover and flashed 

NA cover,flashed,or
 

open air
 

covered or open 

aired 

NA 

Rot Attachment 

none Freestanding 

<1% attached w/good 

flashing 

<10% attached w/some 

flashing 

>10% attached w/o 

flashing 

NA 

Joint Coating Rot

no cracks none 

hairline cracks <5% of joints 

visible cracks <25% of joints 

peeling coating >25% of joints 

NA substrate not sound 

NA 

Slope Drip Edge
 

>5% away from
 spaced 1/4" from 

house hor.elem
 

>2% away from
 spaced 1/8" from 

house hor.elem
 

0 to 2% away capil.break from
 

hor.elem.
 

0 to 2%, no water no capil.break from 

stand H.E. 

> 0% away
 NA 

NA 

General Termites 

lines fastened w/o lines spaced for 

going inspect. 

thru sealing system not spaced 

lines fastened to NA 

house 

lines not fastened 

to H. 

NA 

Cracks(SOG) 

none 

up to 1/8"
 

< 1/2"
 

>1/2"
 

NA 

Railing
 

in place 

not in place 

insufficient 

none 

Joints 

open<1/16" 

open<1/8" 

open<1/4" 

open>1/4" 

NA 

Drip Loops 

yes 

no 

NA 

Slope
 

2% away from H.
 

level to 2% 

level to negative 

NA 

General
 

18",,joist to ground 

12", joist to ground 

treat.wood,soil 

contact 

termite inspectable
 

concrete contact 

wood 

General
 

face fastened 

not face fastened 

treat.wood in contact 

non treated,6"above 

gr.
 

inadequate columns 

inadequate joists 

NA 

General
 

all trim in place 

<1% missing 

>1% missing 

horiz.trim has drip 

edge 

no bulk water entry
 

obvious bulk water
 

entry 

NA 

In Place
 

over all Drs.+ 

windows 

over 90% Drs.+ 

windows 

missing more than
 

10% 

NA 

Entrance Holes 

sealed 

not sealed 

NA 

Siding

6"above grade 

<6"above grade 

in contact w/grade 

NA 

Slope
 

level to 2% away

level to 2% toward

NA 

Slope
 

sloped away
 

level 

sloped toward
 

NA 

Assessing Housing Durability: A Pilot Study G-3




_______________________ 

 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 

HUD USER 

P.O. Box 6091 

Rockville, MD 20849 

Official Business 

Penalty for Private Use $300 

FIRST-CLASS MAIL 

POSTAGE & FEES PAID 

HUD 

Permit No. G-795 

June 2002