Alyssa Castillo
A property inspection report is a structured record of a building’s condition at a particular point in its development or ownership. It documents what was inspected, what was found, where each issue is located, how serious it is and what must happen next. For property developers, the report should also establish responsibility, support rectification and preserve evidence that the work was completed correctly.
Morta.com allows developers to carry out property inspections within the same system used to manage project delivery, quality, compliance, handover and defects. Inspection findings can be recorded against the relevant property or location, supported by photographs, assigned to the responsible party and followed through to completion. This prevents the inspection report from becoming another static document that records problems without helping the delivery team resolve them.
The quality of a property inspection report depends on more than the number of photographs it contains. A report can be extensive and still be difficult to use if the observations are vague, locations are inconsistent or corrective actions have no owner. The strongest reports are written with the next decision in mind. Someone who was not present during the inspection should be able to read the report and understand what happened, why it matters and what evidence is required before the issue can be closed.
Try Morta for FreeA property inspection report is a formal account of observations made during an inspection of a building, unit, site or defined area. Depending on the stage of development, it may cover workmanship, condition, compliance, completion status, defects, health and safety concerns or readiness for handover.
Property inspections can take place throughout the development lifecycle. During construction, they may be used to examine work before it is concealed or to confirm that a package has reached the required standard. Near completion, inspections usually focus on incomplete work, visible defects, testing records and whether the property is ready for occupation or handover. During the defects period, the report provides evidence of issues raised after completion and records whether the contractor has corrected them.
This differs from a general home inspection commissioned by a buyer. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors describes a house survey as an expert account of a property’s condition that highlights problems clearly. Its guidance on the types, costs and benefits of house surveys also explains that different levels of investigation are appropriate for different properties.
A developer’s report is usually more operational. It must help the project team manage quality, contractual obligations and handover across one property or an entire development. It may also need to provide an audit trail for investors, funders, warranty providers, building control professionals or future asset managers.
Before inspecting a property, define the purpose of the visit. A report prepared during structural works should not follow the same scope as a pre-handover inspection. The evidence required, the competence of the inspector and the consequences of a missed issue will be different.
The inspection may need to confirm that work complies with approved drawings and specifications. It may be assessing whether a contractor’s package is sufficiently complete to support a payment recommendation. It may be identifying defects before practical completion, verifying that earlier defects have been corrected or documenting the condition of a property before acquisition.
The scope should state which building, plot, unit, floor, room or external area will be inspected. It should also identify any exclusions. If a roof void, service riser or locked room cannot be accessed, that limitation belongs in the report. Otherwise, a reader may assume that no issue was found when the area was never examined.
The depth of inspection should reflect the property’s age, construction type, development stage and known risks. The RICS description of a Level 3 Home Survey, for example, requires a thorough inspection of the inside and outside of the main building and permanent outbuildings. The construction and significant visible defects are then recorded in detail.
For a property developer, the principle is straightforward. The report should be designed around the decision it is expected to support. A broad instruction to inspect the property does not define a reliable scope.
A useful property inspection starts before the inspector enters the building. The latest drawings, specifications, room data sheets, schedules, approved samples and previous inspection reports should be reviewed in advance.
This material provides a benchmark against which the work can be assessed. Without that context, an inspector may identify visible damage but miss a dimensional error, incorrect product, omitted component or departure from the approved design.
Previous defects should also be examined. Recurring issues may point to a wider workmanship or coordination problem. If water penetration has appeared in several units beneath the same construction detail, inspecting the next property as an isolated case could conceal a systemic failure.
The report should identify the documents used during the inspection and their revision status. Construction information changes regularly, so simply referring to a drawing is not enough. If the inspection was conducted against a superseded revision, the record needs to make that clear.
This preparation becomes easier when the development’s files, property inspections and defect records are connected. Morta software keeps property information within the wider project environment, helping the team work from a consistent record instead of searching through email attachments and separate folders before every visit.
Every property inspection report needs enough identifying information to stand as a reliable project record. This includes the development and property reference, the exact area inspected, the date and time, the inspection type and the people present.
The report should name the inspector and explain their role. Where a specialist judgement is required, the relevant competence should also be clear. A general visual inspection cannot confirm every aspect of structural, electrical, fire or mechanical performance. Some observations will require investigation or certification by a suitably qualified professional.
Weather can also be relevant. Rainfall may help reveal problems with drainage, roofs and external envelopes, while dry conditions can limit what can reasonably be observed. The condition of the property should be noted where access, temporary works, stored materials, poor lighting or ongoing construction restricts the inspection.
These details may appear administrative, but they give the findings context. A photograph without a reliable date, location or property reference is weaker evidence than it first appears. The reader should never have to infer which unit was inspected or whether the observation was made before or after remedial work.
Consistency reduces the chance of missing an area and makes property inspection reports easier to compare across several plots or units. The route through the property should follow a defined logic that suits the development.
For a residential unit, the inspection might begin with external areas and the building envelope before moving through the entrance, circulation spaces, living areas, bedrooms, bathrooms, kitchen, storage and service locations. A larger commercial property may be organised by floor, zone, system or construction package.
The inspection should consider the relationship between components rather than treating every finish separately. A stain beneath a window may appear to be a decorating issue, but the underlying cause could involve the sealant, sill, cavity tray or external drainage detail. Recording only the stained paint would direct the contractor towards the symptom rather than the source.
During construction, attention should be given to work that will soon become inaccessible. Fire stopping, waterproofing, insulation, reinforcement and concealed services are difficult or expensive to verify once covered. The inspection record should therefore capture the relevant evidence at the correct point in the programme.
NHBC explains that new-build inspections can take place at key stages, at intermediate points or in response to specific risks. Defects found during those visits are recorded as Reportable Items, allowing findings to be monitored and assessed consistently.
The developer should apply the same principle internally. The inspection regime should respond to construction risk and programme sequence rather than waiting until every finish is visible at the end of the development.
A property inspection report must describe each finding precisely enough for somebody who was not present to locate and understand it.
A description such as “wall damaged” is inadequate because it does not identify the wall, the type of damage or its extent. A stronger observation would state that the painted plasterboard finish on the corridor-facing wall of Bedroom 2 contains a horizontal crack approximately 600 millimetres long, positioned above the door head.
The report should distinguish an observation from a conclusion. Moisture staining may be visible, but the source may not yet be confirmed. Unless the inspector has sufficient evidence, the report should not present an assumed cause as fact. It can record the condition, identify the potential risk and recommend further investigation.
Measurements should be included where they add meaning. This may cover dimensions, levels, crack widths, moisture readings or distances from a fixed reference point. The instrument used should be recorded when the result depends on specialist testing or measurement.
Language should remain factual. Descriptions such as “terrible workmanship” express dissatisfaction but offer little technical value. The report should explain the observable departure from the drawing, specification, approved sample or expected standard.
This level of clarity matters when an issue is assigned to a contractor. It reduces disagreement over what has been reported and gives the developer stronger evidence if the matter remains unresolved.
Photographs should help the reader confirm the observation and locate it within the property. A close-up may show the defect clearly, but it can become meaningless if there is no wider image showing where it is.
Useful photographic evidence usually includes an orientation image and a detailed image. The first places the issue in context. The second captures the defect, measurement or non-compliant detail. An annotation or reference can be added where the subject is not immediately obvious.
Each image should remain linked to the correct inspection item. Saving hundreds of photographs in a general folder and later pasting selected images into a report creates opportunities for mislabelling. It also makes it difficult to establish which image shows the original condition and which shows the completed repair.
Date, time and location data can be important for certain compliance records. NHBC notes that photographs required for the Building Regulations England Part L report must be digital and have geolocation enabled so that the location, date and time can be confirmed.
Not every inspection requires geolocation, but the underlying principle remains valuable. Photographic evidence should be identifiable, current and capable of being traced back to the relevant property and inspection.
Not every defect has the same consequence. A minor cosmetic mark should not be managed in the same way as a fire safety concern, water ingress or an unstable component.
The property inspection report should use a defined priority system understood by the project team. The categories might distinguish immediate safety action, significant defects affecting compliance or performance, incomplete work preventing handover and minor items that can be resolved through normal snagging.
Whatever language is chosen, each category must have a clear meaning. Labels such as high, medium and low are only useful if the project has agreed what response each one requires. A high-priority finding may demand immediate notification and access restriction, while a lower-priority issue may be included in planned rectification works.
Serious findings should not wait for the completed report to be circulated. The Health and Safety Executive’s guidance on thorough examinations and inspections of lifting equipment states that serious defects must be reported immediately to the responsible dutyholder, followed by a written report.
Although that guidance concerns lifting equipment, the reporting principle applies more widely. Where an inspector identifies an immediate risk to people, property or compliance, the first action is to escalate and control the risk. Writing the formal record follows that intervention.
An inspection report is incomplete if it records a defect without identifying what should happen next. Each actionable finding should be assigned to the contractor, consultant or internal team member responsible for responding.
The required action should be specific. A general instruction to rectify the issue can leave the solution open to interpretation. Where appropriate, the report should refer to the relevant drawing, specification clause, approved sample or manufacturer’s instruction.
A target date should consider the severity of the issue and its relationship with the programme. A defect that will prevent follow-on work or delay handover may require a faster response than an isolated cosmetic issue in an unfinished area.
Ownership should also be visible to the developer. Sending the complete property inspection report to several contractors can create uncertainty about which party is responsible for each item. Assigning findings directly improves accountability and gives management a clearer view of overdue actions.
This is one of the practical advantages of using property development software for inspections. In Morta, an issue can be recorded, assigned and monitored within the project instead of being copied manually between a report, spreadsheet, email and separate defect tracker.
A contractor marking a defect as complete does not prove that the issue has been resolved. Closure should be based on evidence and, where necessary, a reinspection by the developer’s representative.
The corrective work should be checked against the original finding. If the defect concerned water ingress, repainting the affected surface would not demonstrate that the source had been corrected. If a component was installed incorrectly, a photograph of the surrounding finished area may not provide enough evidence of the repair.
The closure record should include the completion date, supporting photographs, comments from the person verifying the work and any relevant test result or certificate. If the repair is rejected, the item should remain open with the reason documented.
This creates a complete chain from identification to resolution. It also protects the quality of handover information. Without closure evidence, teams may repeatedly debate whether a defect was corrected, hidden or removed from the report for administrative convenience.
Where the same defect appears repeatedly, the developer should investigate whether a broader corrective action is required. Repeated failed sealant joints, damaged finishes or missing fire-stopping evidence may indicate a process problem across several properties. The inspection data should help reveal that pattern before handover.
Pre-handover property inspections should confirm whether a building or unit has reached the required standard for completion. They should not become the first serious quality review of the project.
NHBC states that a pre-handover inspection is required on all plots within its inspection process. The purpose is to ensure that new homes are completed in accordance with NHBC Standards and, where NHBC acts as the building control approver, to confirm compliance with Building Regulations.
By this stage, earlier inspection findings should already have been resolved or clearly controlled. The pre-handover report can then concentrate on completion, function, finish, documentation and any remaining defects.
The developer should also confirm that manuals, certificates, commissioning records, warranties, asset information and statutory documentation are available where required. A property may appear physically complete while the evidence needed to operate, sell or occupy it remains incomplete.
For higher-risk buildings in England, the importance of accurate and current building information is reinforced by the golden thread requirements. Government guidance on building control approval for higher-risk buildings states that accurate information should be gathered during construction to update the building’s golden thread.
A good property inspection report contributes to that wider record. It shows what was checked, what was discovered and how the development team responded.
Property flipping involves a different scale of work, but the need for disciplined inspections remains. A seemingly minor issue discovered after acquisition can affect the refurbishment budget, programme and resale margin.
Before purchasing, inspecting a property should establish its visible condition and identify areas requiring specialist investigation. The report may cover the roof, structure, signs of damp, drainage, services, windows, external fabric and previous alterations. It should also state clearly where the inspector could not gain access or where opening-up would be required to reach a reliable conclusion.
During refurbishment, the developer should inspect work before making payments and before important details are concealed. At completion, the final property inspection report can confirm that defects have been corrected and that the property is ready for marketing, occupation or sale.
A property inspection report should not be used as a substitute for specialist advice. Structural movement, asbestos, electrical systems, gas installations, drainage failures and fire safety concerns may require qualified professionals. The developer’s responsibility is to recognise when a visual observation needs to be escalated rather than attempting to diagnose every issue through a general inspection.
For a new developer, this process also creates better data for future property flipping projects. Inspection findings can be compared with the original scope and budget, helping to identify which defects were predictable and which assumptions need to improve.
A completed PDF has limited value if its findings cannot be analysed. Across a development, inspection data can show which plots have the most open defects, which contractors respond slowly and which types of failure appear repeatedly.
This information can influence package reviews, contractor meetings, payment decisions and future procurement. It can also reveal whether inspections are taking place early enough to prevent repeated work.
Consistent reporting is essential for that analysis. If one inspector refers to water damage, another to damp and another to a leak, related findings may never be recognised as a common problem. Standard categories and location references make the data easier to compare while still allowing each observation to be described properly.
For corporate developers, the same approach supports reporting across several projects. Senior management can examine the concentration of critical issues, overdue actions and handover readiness without reading every individual property inspection report.
The objective is to make inspection evidence usable while commercial and operational decisions can still be influenced. A report that disappears into a folder after circulation cannot provide that visibility.
Creating a reliable property inspection report manually requires the inspector to gather project details, record locations, take and organise photographs, describe defects, assign responsibility, set deadlines, monitor responses and compile the final document. The process becomes harder when reports are stored separately from the drawings, contractors, properties and handover records to which they relate.
Morta.com brings those steps into the developer’s existing project workflow. Teams can complete property inspections, record evidence, assign defects and follow rectification through to closure within one connected platform. The inspection history remains attached to the relevant project, property and location, creating a clearer record for quality management and handover.
Once the inspection has been completed, the property inspection report can be produced at the click of a button. The developer receives a structured report based on current inspection data without rebuilding it manually from photographs, spreadsheets and email updates.
If you want to manage property inspections properly without adding more administration to your developments, book a discovery call with Morta today.
© 2026 Morta. All rights reserved.
