Jump to content

Stucco siding brought onto the roof shingles??


Recommended Posts

My client had an inspection done and the inspector noted the following in the roof section: The shingles are touching stucco siding in various areas around the home.

When we questioned the roofing company that recently installed the roof he said...

"There is a flashing behind the stucco, and under the shingles, and the shingles are installed as close to the walls as possible. The shingles touching the wall should not have any issue in the future. The shingles have to be installed tight as they can for prevention of leaks.”

Is this the proper way to do this? Should we accept this or is there a differnet manufacturer install requirement with shingles? Is this going to be an issue later?

thx!

roof photo 2.jpg

roof photo 1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's hard to tell from your photos if the flashing is interlaced into the shingles, though I do see one photo of a kickout behind the left end of the gutter in the last photo. If the flashing protruding from beneath the stucco is interlaced in the shingles on the slope, I don't see an issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Kristie Brown said:

My client had an inspection done and the inspector noted the following in the roof section: The shingles are touching stucco siding in various areas around the home.

When we questioned the roofing company that recently installed the roof he said...

"There is a flashing behind the stucco, and under the shingles, and the shingles are installed as close to the walls as possible. The shingles touching the wall should not have any issue in the future. The shingles have to be installed tight as they can for prevention of leaks.”

Is this the proper way to do this? Should we accept this or is there a differnet manufacturer install requirement with shingles? Is this going to be an issue later?

thx!

The stucco is not terminated properly - a roofer wouldn't know that. 

1. Water wicks up the stucco from the roof surface. 

2. Debris can't wash out of that little gap. 

3.  There are plenty of authoritative sources that state that the stucco should be at least 2" above the roof surface.  It should also terminate with a weep screed.

stucco1.GIF

stuccoroof.jpg

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course you're correct, Bill.

Once you enumerated those issues, they all came back to me. I'd completely forgotten them. Apparently, the stroke affected more than my physical health.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Kristie Brown said:

@Bill Kibbel Thanks so much Bill! I guess my next question is what are the risks, knowing that it was done this way? What kind of damages could occur?

Water can wick up behind the stucco and rot the wall. 

The installation in your picture is dead wrong, but it's not the roofer's fault, it's the stucco installer's fault. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The roofer can't fix it. You need a stucco contractor to fix it. They'll need to cut back the stucco to about a foot above the roof, install building paper, lath, & weep screed, and lay in new stuco. 

The roofer did the best he could with what he was given. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking at that photo, it appears the stucco guy might have tried to install flashing - he just didn't know the proper specs or technique. One can see a slight difference in the stucco that extends about the height of conventional roof flashing up the stucco wall a height of about 4 inches. It's kind of wavy at the height of about 4 inches.

How old is this house and how many re-roofs has it had? There have been times I've seen roofers hack back the stucco, leaving a rough bottom edge, interlace flashing, and then the stucco was restored by someone, showing that slight variation on the surface of the stucco. Other times, roofers installed flashings flat against the stucco and then someone, using fiberglass scrim, laid fresh stucco on top, sort of like an E.I.F.S. termination (which is also supposed to end 2" above the surface).

If one looks closely at the joint where the stucco meets the roof, at a couple of places the bottom of the stucco is perfectly straight as if it terminates on top of a piece of flashing. It's still wrong, but there might be flashing there. The question is, if there is flashing there, did the roofer interlace the new shingles in the existing flashings or just shove the new shingles beneath? If the latter, wind-driven water blown between the shingles and flashings will reach the wall felt and drain down that wall. On one house I found where they did that, the wall framing directly below had been badly damaged by rot. Not always though. In my area we have deeper overhangs than shown in the picture, and if a joint is on the leeward side of a house, they won't suffer any infiltration until someone gets up on that roof with a pressure washer and directs the water directly toward that joint.

Stucco is technically waterproof, and when I've scanned it on a dry day with a Protimeter, it read dry except where moisture had accumulated behind the wall in sheathing, and that was only revealed by scanning the wall from below because it would detect the flashings if scanned on the stucco near that joint. That was how I discovered the rot in that aforementioned wall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi @hausdok The home was built in 85. We do not know how old the stucco work is or how many roofs have been put on. The roofing company said "There is a flashing behind the stucco, and under the shingles, and the shingles are installed as close to the walls as possible." So apparently there is some flashing. It is unclear as to how far it goes up and the question is does it really matter. It will still wick and eventually cause damage. Right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It won't necessarily wick up the wall and cause damage. There are thousands of stucco homes around here (Seattle area) that were built a hundred years ago, before uniform standards for stucco became standard, where through-wall flashings, head flashings, and clearances were not observed, and most are doing fine, despite this being a very damp environment. At least, as far as I've seen they are doing fine.

One never knows what may happen. However, the key thing to know in your case is whether the shingles are interlaced in flashing as they proceed up the slope, so that the roof drains shingle, flashing, shingle, flashing, shingle, flashing until emptying into a gutter or running off the edge. If there is one long piece of flashing with the shingles just shoved underneath and pushed as far inward as possible, it's not likely to repel all water - especially if it's on a windward side of the roof.

If each row of shingles is overlapped by a flashing before the next row - the roofer interlaced the shingles in pre-existing individual flashings, it could drain fine - even though the stucco goes all the way to the surface of the flashings/shingles - without wicking. Stucco is essentially a modified mix of Portland cement and, even if it does wick a little bit of water, if it is done well, it should dry out. The stucco applicators have their own association, and they conducted a study where they sprayed water on a stucco wall continuously for days while observing moisture levels at the back. They found that stucco is essentially waterproof, so if there is a proper mix, proper substrate and the flashings drain, things in the wall should remain dry.

There will be a layer (hopefully a double layer) of building paper behind that stucco. If you've just had the roof installed recently, you are probably on your third cover, so any issues should have shown up with earlier covers. The guy that applied the second layer might have cut back the stucco, installed flashings, and then had the stucco restored (improperly) at the bottom, and that's why I see what I think is something going on with the bottom of that stucco. That doesn't mean there won't be an issue with this cover, since the roofer could have just shoved the shingles under the flashings instead of interlacing them (if there are many individual flashings), but one would think problems would have developed with the original and/or second cover long before now.

Does the stucco need to be fixed if the shingles are interlaced in flashings on those slopes? Well, we're home inspectors - of course we're going to tell you it does because that's the ideal, but every one of us has seen homes, where things were done wrong decades ago, that have never developed any issues. In the end, that's ultimately your decision. Do note though, that if you don't correct it and go to sell your home, a home inspector is likely to criticize the way that stucco terminates and posit that some wicking may have occurred or be occurring, and that will likely throw a wrench into any sale until the issue is dealt with. So, correct it now and spend now, while you have time, or wait till sale and then deal with that expense when you're under a time limit and dealing with a lot of other issues?

IF you want to get a warm a fuzzy about it, you'll want to correct it - if not now, eventually. When/if you do that, make sure you hire a stucco contractor that's been certified competent by the Stucco Manufacturer's Association (https://stuccomfgassoc.com) so that you'll have a better chance of dealing with a real stucco professional instead of someone who doesn't even know what the standards for a good stucco application are.

I hope that we've been somewhat helpful. You'll have to take it from here. Good Luck!

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...