Due diligence will only go so far, though. Last time we bought, our surveyor was clear that there were parts of the property they would not be able to inspect, and obviously they could not give any assessment of the state of those parts. For example, they weren't allowed to move the seller's furniture to check underneath or behind it, and naturally there would be structures and services that couldn't be inspected without taking floors up or the like. We have since identified several significant defects that were missed as a result of those limitations, but there is nothing either we or our surveyor could realistically have done to anticipate them given there were no visible warning signs in accessible areas.

Some were - we knew we needed a new furnace, and needed to get our fascia repainted, but others, like having our waterline freeze, weren't things I don't think the inspector can look for. Ultimately the inspector can only see what they see, and you're taking on responsibility for the rest.

Information asymmetry between buyers and sellers is pretty high. Most home "inspectors" rely upon referrals from agents, so they tend to provide favorable inspections. And their agreements usually indemnify them against recourse. Many buyers don't realize this and think that their stamp of approval is valid.

You can always try to find someone you can relatively trust to do an inspection but a good contractor can be just as hard to find, and finding one willing to take a day out of his busy schedule to checkout the home you're interested in can be difficult.