However, if Seller does not supply you with the certificate, it is the Buyer's responsiblity to "satisfy" their need-to-know. To have a tank inspection in SF costs around $400. To remove a "found" tank, it will cost a Seller around $10K. So for a buyer without the certificate from the Seller, it is worth spending the $400. But yes... all is negotiable.
I am personally doing a re-finance, and after 14 years in my Presido Heights 1908 house, the lender actually asked me to provide them with a Underground Tank Inspection certificate. So again, it is good to have.
From my understanding, it generally is not part of an inspection contingency, unless noted in the "additional terms"... But if a tank is found...it sure can be a deal stopper...with a lot of negotiation to ensue.
McGuire Real Estate/Lombard St
Mcguire Real Estate
360 Primrose Rd, Burlingame, CA 94010
I recently ordered one for a buyer and it cost $90.
If it's a multiple offer situation, pay for it yourself because t's usually only $100-150 and any edge you can get in trying to ratify the contract is to your advantage.
Many sellers will have a tank inspection prior to going on the market, and include the result in their disclosures, but they are not obligated to do so.
If the seller doesn't provide the inspection, then by all means the buyer should have the inspection during the inspection contingency period. In this case, the inspection would be at the buyer's expense, but well worth it. The contract even has a clause in in advising the buyer to make sure the tank inspection is done.
Feel free to contact me with any questions, or if you'd like more details.
"UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS (â€œUSTsâ€). The parties acknowledge that Article 21 of the San Francisco Health Code requires owners of real property in San Francisco with USTs located on or immediately adjacent to the Property to file a plan for their closure within thirty (30) days of discovery. If Seller has not provided Buyer with a written report by a licensed contractor specializing in USTs stating that no such tanks can be located, then Buyer is advised to conduct Buyerâ€™s own professional inspection, which Seller shall permit. If the inspection reveals the existence of USTs, then Seller shall, at Sellerâ€™s expense, remove them and complete any necessary remedial work to the Property prior to Close of Escrow. Buyer may be responsible for USTs found after Close of Escrow."
If no inspection has been done and you do not conduct one prior to close of escrow, then you run the risk of being stuck with the cost of the removal as the new property owner if a tank does exist.
Your agent should be on top of this as a part of the inspections and disclosures.
Oggi Kashi - 415.690.3792 direct
Broker Associate, Paragon Real Estate Group CA DRE 01844627
All data from sources deemed reliable but subject to errors and omissions, and not warranted.
If there is any chance the porperty could have one the buyer should get the inspection. I guess in closing there is no "typical" right now so it is completely open for negotation as to who pays for the inspection. The current owner has to pay for the removal if there is a tank in the ground.
Normally this is paid by the seller and in SF, is normally done as a part of the pre-sale process.
Hope this helps.
Rich Bennett, Realtor in SF since 2002
Zephyr Real Estate