Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California

Sell yes. Fail to disclose, no.

A house that was properly built in 1962 should be grandfathered and thus still legal under current code. This was before the time aluminum wiring became popular (late 1960s-mid 1970s) but if by chance you have 14-ga. aluminum wiring circuits, I understand they are not legal and must be replaced. If you are thinking of suing the seller, consult a licensed electrician, then a lawyer, and watch out for the statute of limitations for fraud.

"As is" is effectively dead in California law. However, there is no duty to sell a house in any particluar minimum condition. You can sell a house that is totally condemned and unsafe to enter, much less occupy. With a very few exceptions, building codes only govern new construction work, whether a new building or alteration of a building. They have no application to existing structures that are not being renovated, reconstructed or altered. The idea that a building that is not "up to code" is somehow defective or illegal has no basis in reality. The reason "as is" is dead, however, is because there are extensive disclosure requirements in both statutes and case law. Basically anything and everything that the seller knows about that would materially affect the value or desireability of the property must be disclosed. The same is true for the seller's real estate agent, though only as to issues that a reasonably prudent real estate agent would be able to identify by looking over the property. So the question for you is whether the seller and/or their broker knew or through reasonable non-professional inspection should have known about the issues with the electrical systems. Then the next question is whether it was something that you and/or your inspector should have known about. If the answer to the first question is "yes," and the second "no," then you have a case against the seller and their broker.