Deck Replacement vs Resurfacing

Only if the substructure is structurally serviceable and compatible with the new decking. Resurfacing — replacing the deck boards and often the railing while retaining the framing, posts and footings — is a legitimate and cost-effective option when the frame is sound. It is not a way to avoid dealing with a frame that is not. The critical point is that the assessment has to happen before the decision, because the components that decide it are largely hidden beneath the existing deck boards, and the most common failure points are the ones you cannot see from above.

You do not, reliably, from the surface. The components that determine whether a frame can be reused are the ledger where the deck attaches to the house, the joists and beam, the posts at their base, the footings, and the fasteners and connectors throughout. Several of these are concealed by decking, skirting or grade. Surface indicators such as bounce underfoot, movement in the guard, or visible decay at a post base are meaningful warnings, but their absence proves nothing — ledger and fastener failures in particular can be advanced before anything is noticeable from above. A professional assessment involves removing boards and inspecting from below.

Ledger attachment and joist spacing, in roughly that order. The ledger is where the deck connects to the house, and it is the connection whose failure is both the most dangerous and the most frequently found to be inadequate on older decks — particularly where flashing was omitted and water has been entering the connection for years. Joist spacing is the second: many composite and PVC decking products require closer joist spacing than traditional wood decking, especially when boards run diagonally, so a frame built for wood may not support the product you want without adding joists.

Sometimes, and it depends on spacing and flatness rather than on the frame being wood. Composite and PVC boards typically require joists at closer centres than traditional wood decking, and running boards diagonally reduces the permitted spacing further. An older frame built at wider spacing may need joists added — sistering or infilling — which is real work but often still cheaper than full replacement. The frame also needs to be flat and true, because composite boards telegraph an uneven substructure more visibly than wood. Always check the specific manufacturer's installation requirements for the product you have chosen; they are the governing document.

Yes when the frame is genuinely sound, because you avoid demolition of the substructure, new footings, new posts and new framing — which together are a large share of a deck's cost. The saving disappears quickly if the frame needs substantial remediation. There is a point at which adding joists, replacing a ledger, remediating posts and upgrading connectors costs more than building a new structure that will then be new throughout and carry a fresh service life. A good assessment tells you which side of that line you are on rather than assuming resurfacing is automatically the economical choice.

It depends on the extent of the work. Replacing deck boards alone is generally a maintenance operation, while structural work — replacing a ledger, adding or replacing joists, altering posts or footings, or changing the deck's size or height — is permitted work. Boise publishes a specific deck submittal checklist requiring a framing plan, elevations and section views, and requires structural calculations stamped by an Idaho licensed engineer for decks taller than six feet above grade or for designs or materials not addressed in the IRC. Since a resurfacing project frequently turns into structural work once the boards come off, confirm the position with the jurisdiction issuing your permit.