Colorado Does Not License Home Inspectors

Nothing to look up, and that is the whole answer

Colorado issues no state credential for home inspectors. There is no board, no examination, no education requirement, no insurance minimum and no register. The Division of Professions and Occupations, which runs the state's licence lookup for regulated professions, does not cover home inspectors, so a search there returns nothing for a reason that has nothing to do with the individual inspector.

It is worth stating this flatly, because hedged phrasing does real harm here. A buyer who reads that Colorado inspectors are not required to be licensed in most cases will go hunting for the exception, and will keep hunting. There is no exception at state level.

The 2017 bill that would have changed it, and what became of it

The most recent serious attempt at regulation was Senate Bill 17-038, which would have required home inspectors to register with the Department of Regulatory Agencies and to carry liability insurance and a $10,000 surety bond. The bill's own summary recorded the baseline: under current law, home inspectors are not subject to regulation by any state agency. The Senate Finance Committee postponed the bill indefinitely on February 9, 2017, and no later Colorado enactment establishing licensure has followed.

The date is the useful part of that history. Anything suggesting that Colorado licensure is imminent, or that a registration scheme now exists, is describing a bill that died nine years ago rather than current law.

The law that applies when there is no licensing law

With no occupational statute, three bodies of general law fill the space. The inspection agreement is a contract, and its terms — scope, exclusions, what happens if something is missed — are the terms that govern the engagement. Negligence law supplies a duty to perform the service with reasonable care. The Colorado Consumer Protection Act addresses deceptive practices, which is a different question from an inspection that was performed honestly but incompletely.

The sharpest difference from a licensing state is not the entry standard. It is the forum. In a licensing state, a buyer with a grievance has a regulator that can investigate and discipline a credential, and that process costs the complainant little. In Colorado there is no administrative destination for that complaint, and the realistic route is contractual or civil.

One consequence follows directly. Because no statute sets a standard of practice for Colorado inspections, the scope of the work is whatever the agreement and the inspector's chosen standard say it is. Many inspectors adopt a national association's standards voluntarily and reference them in the agreement; that reference is worth reading, because it defines what the inspector undertook to examine and what they were entitled to leave alone. In a licensing state, that document is the backdrop to a state-set floor. Here it is the floor.

Local rules are the exception worth one phone call

Colorado's silence is at state level. Local building departments set their own requirements for permits and municipal inspections, and those requirements vary from one jurisdiction to the next. They are worth a call when an inspection is tied to permitted work, and worth one anyway if you want to know what the municipality expects.

Keep the two services distinct while you do it. A municipal building inspection checks compliance with the codes the jurisdiction has adopted, on behalf of the jurisdiction. A private home inspection reports the condition of a house to the person paying for it. Passing the first tells a buyer very little about what the second would find.

Verification without a state record

In Colorado, vetting is document-based rather than record-based. Four things can be checked before you hire:

• a certificate of insurance, showing whether errors and omissions cover is in force and at what limit, not only general liability;
• the pre-inspection agreement, read in advance rather than signed on the doorstep;
• a redacted sample report on a house of comparable age and size;
• association membership, understood for what it is — a private credential with private rules and private enforcement.

None of these is a licence, and none of them is worthless. A sample report in particular reveals scope, thoroughness and writing quality in a way no credential number ever does: how defects are described, whether photographs are tied to locations, and whether the summary distinguishes a safety issue from a maintenance item. Ask as well how long the inspection is expected to take for a house of your size and age, and whether the roof, the attic and the crawlspace are entered or observed from a distance. Those answers vary far more between inspectors than any credential does.

What a licence would have proved anyway

It is worth being precise about what licensure establishes, because buyers go wrong in both directions here. In the states that license, the credential certifies that the holder cleared an entry threshold — hours, an examination, sometimes supervised inspections, sometimes an insurance minimum — and remains in good standing. It does not certify diligence on the day, report quality, or whether the inspector went into the crawlspace.

So an inspector working in Colorado without a state credential is not thereby unqualified, and an inspector holding one in a neighbouring state is not thereby competent. What Colorado's position does is move the entire assessment onto the buyer, which makes the sample report, the agreement and the insurance certificate more important rather than less. Nothing here is legal advice.

Frequently Asked Questions