Do you really need a level 3 building survey?

Released On 16th Mar 2026

Going back into the mists of time centuries ago, if you were purchasing a property, the facility to commission a Building Survey of any type was not possible.  There were few professionals working in the building industry who would have been termed ‘surveyors’ and, more likely a prospective purchaser would have gone to a builder, an architect or a local craftsman. These inspections would have been carried out on a random basis on a general walk-around the property, with the person commissioned to provide verbal advice, pointing out issues and repairs that needed to be undertaken to deal with the property where defects were found, as they always are.

It was not until the establishment of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors in 1868 where surveying became a distinct specialism, where you could not only have the advice of a surveyor but a written report would be produced, with the RICS gradually establishing formal standards and qualifications, and with the services of a Chartered Building Surveyor now available.  These surveys became generically known as ‘structural surveys’, which was somewhat of a misnomer, as they did not just deal with the structure but many other issues associated with properties, such as finishes, services and the susceptibility of a property to a host of potential defects relating to dampness, rot and insect infestation. 

The author still remembers being in the office of a firm of surveyors in his year out from his degree, where surveys were traditionally hand-written before being given to the typist, with voice dictation yet to achieve widespread use.

Gradually, there began to be a feeling that not all properties were old enough or in sufficiently poor condition to need a full Level 3 survey, which, by now, was changing from being called a ‘structural survey’ to a ‘building survey’.

That resulted in the 1980s with the production of the Homebuyer Survey, which has now been superseded by what is generally known as the Level 2 survey.  This was regarded as a lesser report but adequate for the needs of properties that were relatively modern and should not be in such a poor state as to require the in-depth analysis that the Level 3 full building survey was able to provide.

We appear to have got to the stage now where Level 3 building surveys are used for older properties, those in poor condition or of high value, with a Level 2 survey being used for more modern properties, say those built after the 1960s, where it is anticipated that the scope of defects encountered will be much less and, hence, the need for a report that is not as comprehensive.

However, we would see this approach as being somewhat flawed for a number of reasons.  That is not to say that Level 2 surveys do not have their place, but those commissioning them should be aware of their limitations.

1. This firm would never knowingly carry out a Level 2 survey on a property built before the 1930s. The range of potential defects that could be found will not receive sufficient coverage or be dealt with in enough depth by a Level 2 survey.  This has resulted on occasion, in a loss of work, where prospective clients have gone elsewhere to have a Level 2 survey carried out on a Victorian property, which we were not prepared to take on.
2. Secondly, the Level 2 survey, by definition, does not go into the depth of detail that a Level 3 survey would.  In a Level 2 survey, you might find this statement, ‘There is a crack passing through the brickwork above the window arch’.  It gives no detail as to what might have caused the crack or what repairs might be necessary to rectify it.  A similar passage in a Level 3 survey would probably read, ‘There is a crack passing through the brickwork above the window arch caused by the deflection of the arch from the pressure of the brickwork above over time.  We do not consider that the crack is active, appearing primarily historic, and it should be monitored.  Should any further movement develop in the future, rebuilding the arch and the brickwork directly above would be the extent of remedial works required’.
3. Thirdly, the Level 2 template allows for twelve photographs.  On a Level 3 survey, we invariably take anywhere between 50 and 80 photographs, and the comment is often made by a satisfied client that the photographs were incredibly helpful.  By definition, if you only use twelve photographs, a number of defects found cannot be illustrated.

On a recent inspection of a 1980s property, not particularly neglected, we found 35 specific defects, which would have been difficult to cover comprehensively in a Level 2 survey, given its reduced scope and the template format under which it is produced.

We are not ruling out Level 2 surveys, as they have some limited use for certain properties, but it is incorrect to assume that any property built from the 1930s onwards does not need a Level 3 survey.  Given its scope, enhanced information and significantly increased photographic record, it should always be considered the best option.