What is an inspector required to do when a component is present but not readily accessible?

Accessibility is the boundary of a visual inspection, and when a component sits beyond it the standards call for disclosure rather than improvisation. Reporting inaccessibility does two things. It tells the client that a component exists but was not evaluated, which is different from saying it is sound and different from saying nothing at all. And it defines a boundary someone can pick up later — a contractor opening the wall, or a re-inspection after the stored items are moved. The alternatives each fail in a specific way: dismantling exceeds the scope and transfers liability, assuming similarity substitutes a guess for an observation in exactly the areas where problems tend to hide, and postponing the whole inspection denies the client everything that was accessible.

The standards call for reporting that the component was not accessible. That distinguishes 'not evaluated' from both 'sound' and 'absent', and defines a boundary for follow-up.

Standards of practice limit inspection to readily accessible components and require reporting systems and areas not inspected together with the reason, so the client understands the coverage of the report.

Say You Could Not Reach It. Not inspected is a real finding — it is only useless when you leave it out.

Give the reason as well as the fact. Stored belongings can be moved and re-inspected cheaply; a component behind finished drywall cannot.

• •Moving or dismantling to gain access beyond the scope
• •Presuming inaccessible components match visible ones
• •Omitting the reason access was limited