Is paying an attorney to read a title commitment worth it when title insurance already exists

Consider a purchase of a small mixed use building where the title commitment comes back with fourteen exceptions on Schedule B, most of them unfamiliar to a buyer reading it for the first time. It's common to hear that the title company has already reviewed it or that the policy covers everything, from an agent or mortgage broker respectively. An attorney might quote around $850 to read the commitment, the survey and the recorded documents behind the exceptions, and deliver a written opinion on what's actually a problem. The case for paying: title insurance pays for defects it covers, and Schedule B exceptions are specifically the list of things the policy does not cover. If one exception describes an easement running through the middle of the parking area, the policy offers no help, and the only party whose job it is to flag that before closing is someone hired specifically for that purpose. What gets excepted, how exceptions are worded, and which ones can be removed by endorsement all vary by state and by underwriter. The case against: the title company has read it, the lender's counsel has read it for the lender, and $850 on a deal where two other parties are already looking at the same page can be paying for a third opinion on largely standard language. Most exceptions on most commitments are utility easements and subdivision plat restrictions nobody has ever contested. A real encroachment typically shows up on the survey, not the commitment. For a first purchase over $500k, the $850 is worth spending, because a written opinion from a party with no incentive to keep the deal moving is meaningfully different from a party whose job description already includes reading the same document.