The Angry Brick

Welcome to The Angry Brick—a no-nonsense guide built for Boston building owners, managers, and trustees who want to understand the facade inspection ordinance before it bites them. This isn’t city boilerplate. It’s the version written for the person holding the liability, the budget, and the emails from the condo board asking, “Do we really have to do this?”

Note from Bruce: I build software. I created this page to inform my team on the requirements for creating a client portal to compliment the software we build for Building Restoration Services (BRS) in Boston. If you happen to come across this page and you need help with a facade inspection, my contact details are in the footer of this site. I can put you in touch with someone from the Sciences team at BRS.

The information provided on this page is intended for educational purposes only. While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy and clarity, the insights, diagrams, and recommendations offered on this page do not constitute formal engineering, architectural, or legal advice. Owners, trustees, and property managers should consult with licensed professionals before undertaking any repair, structural modification, or restoration activity.

Boston Facade Inspection Guide: What Every Building Owner Needs to Know (But Usually Misses)

Why this ordinance matters more than you think.
Boston’s updated Facade Ordinance (Section 9-9.12) was created to prevent structural failures and protect the public from hazards like falling masonry and deteriorating facade elements. It requires periodic inspections of exterior walls and appurtenances for many mid- and large-sized buildings, particularly those over 70 feet in height or exceeding certain volume thresholds. While most owners are aware of the general requirement to “get an inspection,” many overlook critical procedural and timing details that can have serious financial or legal consequences. What follows is a breakdown of commonly missed requirements, misunderstood classifications, and overlooked opportunities—each one presented with practical context to help owners, managers, and stakeholders avoid penalties, reduce risk, and turn mandated inspections into long-term building intelligence.

Drone use is permitted—but not a replacement for hands-on inspection.
Boston allows the use of drones, telescopic photography, and digital imaging—but only as supplemental tools. To comply with the ordinance, a licensed professional must perform a tactile, close-range inspection from scaffolding, swing stage, or boom lift on a representative portion of the building. This hands-on work is essential for detecting issues like cracking, spalling, or delamination that drones can’t confirm. Relying only on drone footage—even high-resolution video—will not meet the requirement.

Unoccupied buildings require more frequent inspection.
If your building is vacant and over 35,000 cubic feet in volume, you're subject to annual facade inspections—not the five-year cycle that applies to occupied buildings. This clause often catches owners off guard, especially those holding properties in transition or awaiting development. Because unoccupied buildings can deteriorate quickly without routine observation, the city enforces a higher inspection cadence to reduce the risk of unnoticed hazards.

Recently renovated buildings may be exempt—but only for a limited time.
A building that’s been substantially improved in the last five years can qualify for a 10-year exemption from facade inspections. But “substantially improved” has a specific meaning, and the exemption isn’t automatic. Owners must document the scope of improvements clearly, including dated permits, contractor records, and material upgrades. Without proof, enforcement officers may still demand an inspection—or issue penalties for noncompliance at sale or during refinancing.

There’s a filing fee—and a deadline for payment.
Once your inspection is complete, the city requires a $200 filing fee—due within 30 days of submitting the report. It’s a small but time-sensitive requirement that’s often overlooked, especially when the report moves between engineering consultants, facilities teams, and legal departments. Missing the deadline can stall processing or trigger late notices, creating a paper trail of administrative red flags.

Inspectors must review previous reports—not just current conditions.
The Registered Professional conducting your inspection must review all prior facade reports on file. If a previously identified defect was flagged but never corrected, it must be re-inspected and verified. This means you need to maintain an organized archive of inspection history—including reports, repair documentation, and completion records. For new building owners, it also means you inherit the inspection legacy of previous owners—whether it was managed well or not.

Unsafe conditions must be reported within 12 hours.
If your inspector identifies an unsafe condition—one that poses a risk to life or property—they are legally required to report it to the Commissioner within 12 hours. There’s no grace period or interpretation window. The clock starts the moment the condition is observed, not when the report is written. Owners must be prepared to act immediately, with a protocol in place for protective measures and emergency communications.

“Safe with Repair” still means action is required.
This classification doesn’t mean you’re off the hook. It means the facade isn’t currently dangerous, but defects have been identified that could become unsafe if left unaddressed. The inspection report will specify the corrective timeline. If you ignore it or delay, the condition can be reclassified as unsafe during the next cycle—or sooner if there's a complaint or visible deterioration. “Safe with Repair” is a call to act, not a badge of safety.

Noncompliance carries serious financial consequences.
Every violation of the ordinance—whether it’s a missed deadline, a skipped inspection, or failure to act on reported conditions—can trigger fines of $300 per day, per infraction. These accumulate rapidly, and enforcement under Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40U means they can attach to property records or become obstacles in future sales or financing. A single missed inspection cycle can become a five-figure problem in under two months.

Understanding these overlooked requirements is key to true compliance.
Doing the bare minimum is no longer enough. True compliance means understanding timelines, managing inspection history, and acting on findings with urgency and clarity. If your inspection strategy consists of simply “hiring someone to do it,” you’re vulnerable. The most prepared owners treat this as a systems-level obligation, not a transaction.

Define your expectations before the drone flies.
Many inspectors and drone operators follow generic procedures unless told otherwise. You should define your own spec sheet that includes resolution requirements, photo overlap percentages, metadata standards, and file naming conventions. This ensures the inspection captures useful, reusable data—not just blurry images and vague reports. A simple checklist shared before flight can prevent costly rework and ensure compliance and comparability.

Coordinate your drone team and engineer.
The person flying the drone and the person signing the inspection report are often not the same person. If they aren’t aligned on expectations, the resulting report can be incomplete or noncompliant. A 15-minute pre-flight call to coordinate elevation zones, angles, and scope can prevent days of follow-up—or worse, the need to redo the flight altogether.

Schedule the inspection around the sun.
The quality of light can be the difference between spotting a hairline crack or missing it altogether. Harsh shadows can obscure elevation details, while glare from low sun angles can distort surfaces. Whenever possible, schedule inspections for neutral light conditions—early morning or overcast days—and document the light angle and time for repeatability in future inspections.

Capture overlapping images to ensure coverage.
High-quality inspections require 70–80% overlap between adjacent images in both horizontal and vertical axes. This overlap enables 3D reconstruction, photogrammetry, and AI-assisted analysis. Without it, you’re left with visual gaps that weaken the ability to monitor deterioration over time—or worse, provide cover for missed defects.

Capture multiple angles per elevation.
Straight-on images are good—but not enough. Oblique or 45° angles help reveal depth-based issues like bulging, bowing, and spalling around windows, cornices, or other recessed features. Request multiple perspectives for each zone so subtle flaws don’t go unnoticed.

Standardize resolution and camera specs.
You can’t compare images over time if the quality keeps changing. Require a minimum image resolution (20MP or higher), log the camera model and lens specs, and ensure standoff distances are consistent across all elevations. These seemingly small details make or break your ability to detect trends over time.

Record environmental conditions.
A stain might look like water damage in one photo and mold in another—depending on temperature, humidity, and lighting. That’s why your drone or inspection team should record basic environmental data for each elevation. These details should be embedded in image metadata or logged during the inspection process for accurate interpretation later.

Own the flight path waypoints.
Flight paths—also called waypoints—control how your building is captured. Without them, future inspections are inconsistent, making comparison difficult or impossible. Request the waypoint log in an open format like KML, GPX, or CSV, and store it in your permanent records. This is one of the most powerful, yet underused, assets in the entire inspection process.

Use the same waypoints in future inspections.
Repeatability is key. When you capture the same elevation from the same angle, distance, and path, you can clearly see what’s changed over time—and how fast. Without this control, you’re comparing apples to oranges, and actionable insights disappear.

Request full archive access—not just a final report.
Most vendors only deliver a PDF report and a handful of images. But the real value is in the raw data: all original photos, camera metadata, waypoint logs, annotations, and condition assessments. Insist on receiving everything, and store it in a structured, backed-up location.

Use a consistent file naming structure.
Even great data is useless if you can’t find it. Create a consistent naming scheme for files and folders—such as Building_Elevation_Level_Angle_Date.jpg—and make sure everyone follows it. Structured data makes it easier to compare inspections, hand off information between vendors, or run machine learning models later.

Ask for an annotated condition map.
Written reports are useful—but they’re no substitute for a visual. Ask your provider to annotate elevation drawings or image mosaics with color-coded zones and defect labels. This makes it far easier to communicate priorities to boards, insurers, or contractors.

Use AI-assisted defect detection where possible.
AI tools can scan thousands of images and flag potential defects faster than any human team. Even if you’re relying on a licensed engineer for final sign off, AI adds a layer of speed and redundancy—and in some cases, it catches what humans miss.

Structure inspection data for future AI training.
Even if you’re not using AI yet, start capturing your data in a way that could feed machine learning tools later. Ask for image folders labeled by defect type and severity. This small step today makes it possible to train custom AI models in the future without recreating your dataset.

Seed a multi-year maintenance plan from the inspection.
Your facade inspection doesn’t just support compliance—it’s a strategic planning tool. Use it to build a rolling 3–5 year maintenance plan, broken into phases by cost, elevation, or severity. This creates predictable budget cycles and supports long-term asset preservation.

Leverage inspection records with insurers and boards.
Insurers and boards are more cooperative when you can demonstrate active risk management. A well-organized archive of annotated inspections can help you justify reserve funds, negotiate better insurance rates, or expedite project approvals with a visual narrative of care.

Centralize and preserve your archive.
Store your full inspection archive in a cloud-based, searchable folder system, sorted by year, elevation, and data type. Fragmented records—spread across email inboxes and local drives—lose value over time. Centralization turns your inspection into an enduring resource, not a one-time event.

Treat each building elevation as its own inspection zone.
Every facade is unique, with different materials, exposure, and structural history. When you inspect by elevation—North, South, East, West—you can document and manage each zone with appropriate precision, without lumping them together generically.

Divide each elevation into a grid.
Grids bring order to complex surfaces. Rows align with floors, and column space across bays or windows. This structure allows you to track inspection coverage, organize image capture, and label defects with clarity and repeatability.

Break the grid into smaller cells.
Each cell represents a specific square of wall surface. When you find a defect, you don’t say “middle of the east wall.” You say “East elevation, Cell D3.” It’s this level of precision that turns inspections into tools for targeted repair and planning.

Capture each cell with strategic imagery.
At a minimum, each cell should be photographed both straight-on and at an angle. Overlap is essential. This dual-view structure supports everything from photogrammetry to 3D modeling—and helps reveal surface deformation and detail you can’t see from one angle alone.

Embed metadata in every image.
Images without context are meaningless. By embedding GPS coordinates, timestamps, camera tilt, and environmental data, you allow engineers—and machines—to interpret the images accurately. This metadata becomes vital when comparing reports over time.

Annotate each image or cell with condition status.
Safe. Safe with repair. Unsafe. Each cell should be reviewed and labeled. This transforms raw photos into structured information, enabling trend analysis, forecasting, and project planning.

Use structured data to build higher-order models.
Once you have a grid of images, conditions, and locations, you can build heatmaps, elevation mosaics, and 3D models. These tools let you visualize defect clusters, track degradation, and identify where to focus next.

Repeat the inspection the same way each time.
Every inspection should follow the same grid, image angle, time of day, and camera settings. Repeatability enables direct comparisons. It’s the difference between guessing—and knowing—what’s changed.

Insist on data in portable formats.
Your archive should be future-proof. Request images in open formats (JPG, PNG, TIFF), waypoint logs in CSV or KML, and annotations in readable layers. Avoid proprietary formats that lock you into one vendor’s ecosystem.

Own your inspection data.
If your inspection firm keeps the raw files, flight paths, and logs, you are dependent on them for every future reinspection. Insist on full data rights. Ownership gives you the ability to switch providers, train AI, run your own analysis, or reuse the data across other systems.

Inspection Requirements for Exterior Wall and Facade Assessments

A reference document for building owners to provide to inspection vendors and drone teams.

This document defines the minimum expectations for facade inspections.
To ensure consistency, ordinance compliance, and long-term usability of inspection data, building owners should provide these baseline requirements to any third party conducting a facade inspection—whether by physical means, drone, or hybrid methodology. These standards are designed to support both regulatory and strategic objectives, including risk management, maintenance planning, and asset valuation.

All inspections must comply with applicable facade ordinances.
Vendors must be familiar with local requirements, including Boston’s Section 9-9.12 ordinance. Specifically, inspections must include a physical (hands-on) assessment of a representative portion of the facade, performed by a licensed architect or engineer. Use of drone or digital imaging technology is permitted, but not as a substitute for required tactile inspections.

Each elevation must be inspected as a separate surface.
The building must be divided by elevation (north, south, east, west, or other structural segmentation), and each elevation must be clearly identified in reports and imagery. This ensures proper sunlight scheduling, defect tracking, and compliance with documentation standards.

A consistent grid and cell structure must be used for data capture.
Each elevation should be divided into a logical grid of rows and columns. These grids define cells—small rectangular facade zones that are individually photographed and, if necessary, annotated. This structure supports comprehensive coverage and repeatable time-series analysis.

Image capture must include both orthogonal and oblique views.
Every cell must be captured using images taken straight on (90°) and at an angle (e.g., 45°). Oblique images are essential for detecting protrusions, bowing, and surface anomalies not visible in frontal views. Overlap between images should be approximately 70–80% in both horizontal and vertical directions.

All images must include complete metadata.
Each image file must retain original metadata, including GPS coordinates, date and time, camera angle, resolution, environmental conditions (temperature, humidity, wind), and drone orientation (if applicable). Loss of metadata is considered a failure to meet requirements.

Flight path and waypoint data must be provided to the owner.
If a drone is used, the vendor must deliver the exact waypoint file (in KML, GPX, or CSV format). This ensures future inspections can replicate the same standoff distance, angles, and coverage areas. Vendors must not withhold or obscure this data.

Environmental conditions must be recorded and disclosed.
For each elevation, the inspection team must log relevant environmental data at the time of image capture. This includes light angle, weather conditions, and any factors that may influence image quality or defect visibility.

Naming conventions and file structure must be consistent.
Image files must follow a consistent naming pattern that includes building name, elevation, level, angle, and date (e.g., MapleSt_East_L3_45deg_2024-04-10.jpg). Deliverables must be organized by elevation and stored in clearly labeled folders.

Vendors must deliver the full archive, not just the report.
The building owner must receive all raw image files, condition annotations (if any), waypoint files, and inspection reports in their original form. Summarized PDFs are not sufficient. The intent is to build a long-term, navigable archive of facade condition data.

Condition mapping is encouraged whenever feasible.
When defects are identified, the vendor should provide a visual elevation map or annotated images showing the exact locations and classifications (e.g., Safe, Monitor, Repair). These annotations must correspond to the cell grid used for image capture.

AI tools may be used, but results must be transparent.
If artificial intelligence or machine learning systems are used to triage defects or assist in annotation, those outputs must be clearly disclosed and delivered alongside human assessments. All AI-derived conclusions must be reviewed and verified by a licensed professional.

Timelines, safety protocols, and access methods must be documented.
For any inspection that requires physical access to the facade, vendors must disclose access methods (e.g., lifts, swing stages, rope access), adhere to OSHA-compliant safety protocols, and provide a work schedule in advance.

The building owner retains full rights to all inspection deliverables.
All data collected as part of the inspection is the property of the building owner and must be turned over in full. Vendors may not claim intellectual property rights over data, images, flight paths, or annotations unless explicitly negotiated in writing.

Failure to meet these requirements may result in rejection of the inspection.
Any inspection that does not conform to these requirements—particularly with respect to hands-on access, data delivery, or metadata loss—may be deemed incomplete or invalid, and subject to rejection or rework at the vendor’s expense.