The riverbank or the inspections?

The trick for the builder is that THEY are the owner until final paper sign - so anything above final pre purchase inspection is not something they have to allow.

Which is why you don’t use them, or go in expecting shiny crap.

▲

hungmung 8 hours ago | parent [-]

The inspections. Actually, I think it would be legal to do so, but if the builder sells the home and they don't disclose problems with the house they'd likely be opening themselves up to a civil suit, and having a contract which severely restricts the kind of inspection you do would be strong evidence that they knew, or should have known, that something was fucked up. Lennar certainly has a team of lawyers that know more about this than I do...but a lot of this sort of thing depends on legal action costing more than it's worth...and one or two odd cases they do get might just be settled out of court and chalked up as an operating expense.

Scumbags.

	▲	bombcar 8 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Which is why I encourage pro-se suits against those types of businesses. You’ll probably lose, but you’ll harm their bottom line, and if everyone reliably did it they’d be out of business.
	▲	dawnerd 7 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Was in Oregon and my inspector said it’s sadly legal and very common to have restrictions like that. Last I heard they were being sued over that community at least.