[ulkram]

> you can do an un-permitted remodel of your downstairs, add drains, pave over the soil filter, create a massive sewage flooding problem, and sf will do... nothing. But if you were to try to tear down a house and replace it with a properly engineered multi unit dwelling... are you kidding me?

This is a really good point. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this applies to US in general; not just SF. Cities will never inspect your house unless you give them a reason (e.g. apply for a permit).

The main deterrents to un-permitted work are: 1) if you need to sell the house, buyers don't like unpermitted work, and 2) your neighbors can file a complaint.

[sokoloff]

Why should a city have standing to inspect your house without a reason? "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"

I've bought two houses in my life. Both had obviously unpermitted work; I had no issue in either case as it was generally acceptable quality of work. If a shopper for my house has a problem with unpermitted work when I go to sell, they're free to move along and find a house without any.

[geebee]

Without a reason, they shouldn't. But there's an ambiguous area in there.

For instance, my house in SF actually shares a foundation with the two neighboring houses. This was an issue when I wanted to remodel to get better ceiling heights. I'd say I'm not free to do whatever I want with a shared foundation.

Also, when you share a wall, you do have an interest in verifying that the electrical and firewall work done next to your house is up to code.

It can get out of hand, but there are a lot of reasons for permits and inspections. I don't think entering someone's house, scheduled well in advance, with a very limited agenda to simply verify that recently added wiring in a dense, crowded neighborhood with shared walls, and leaving immediately afterwards, would qualify as an unreasonable search and seizure.

[sokoloff]

You're describing an inspection of work associated with a permit. I don't think anyone reasonably objects to that.

It sounded in your earlier post that you were suggesting (or lamenting the lack of) periodic inspections for the purposes of finding unpermitted work, which I (and probably many others) would find unreasonable and likely contrary to the 4th Amendment.

[geebee]

ah. Yes that’s an issue.

My biggest lament is the pave over of the external front setback (yard), as this is the really destructive practice on s large scale. When the practice becomes widespread, The loss of soil filter really does harm to the infrastructure. This could be inspected with a simple drive by. Sf actually does enforce this on a complaint driven basis with a fine, though there’s a backlog and a quick drive through many sf neighborhoods will suggest little to no enforcement.

Entering someone’s home is a big deal. Ideally there would be strong cause and very limited scope.

On a related note, I do think that if you Airbnb, you’ve left the realm of home and entered the realm of commercial property subject to audit for public safety.

[ulkram]

I did not suggest any solutions (period inspections or what not).

I'm pointing out that the situation - that we have a set rules (zoning), but they aren't enforced - which causes people to knowingly build without a permit.

The parent comment provided legitimate reasons why cities have some zoning rules in place (shared sewage, flooding, etc..).