I'm looking at purchasing a house here in Orange County, CA that is 2 story stucco, about 10 years old, and has weep screed around entire perimeter. A patio was installed in the backyard (9.5 years ago) which is 45 ft x 15 ft and is covered with tile. The base of the stucco wall that intersects the patio surface is 30 feet in length. The patio has no arbor, no pergola, no awning, or covering. The patio surface is sloped to 1/4 inch per foot.
An inspection report says that the tile on the patio is only 1 inch below the stucco wall's weep screed, but that there should be 2 inches of clearance. The weep screed shows no sign of degradation nor excessive rust, though there are spotty areas of rust discoloration. There have never been any water intrusion events into the house from any outside area, let alone from the patio area, and there are virtually no signs of past water intrusion events. The inspection report is otherwise innocuous in that repairs to other deficiencies in the house can be made very easily and relatively inexpensively. Removal and replacement of the patio and tiling would cost tens of thousands.
Should the deficient weep screed clearance be a deal breaker for me? Even though there have been no water intrusion events over 9.5 years, is it reasonable or unreasonable to expect there will be no water intrusion events from the patio in the future? Or can I live with it as a technical violation? I am not asking anyone to stake their professional career on answering a forum question, and I understand and accept all of the usual disclaimers. Also, please give your response without any regard to sentimentality, as there is no emotional element to the purchase.