Guidance for visualizing coastal hazards has discouraged the use of 3D visualizations because of a lack of experimental testing accounting for their effects on audiences and the potential of these visualizations to be misleading by making outcomes appear more certain than they are. Some experts continue to use model-driven 3D visualizations despite this guidance. We thus conducted a survey to better understand expert perceptions of uncertainty communication related to 3D visualization of storm impacts (flooding and damage to structures). The survey included 115 experts drawn from the Northeast USA. We selected experts with differing levels of familiarity with the visualizations tested, including experts engaged in their creation, to explain how their relationship to the process affects perceptions. We found that the experts overwhelmingly support using 3D visualizations for risk communication providing that adequate attribution, labelling, and background is provided to contextualize the visualizations. The evolution of real-world use and practice suggests further research is needed to better understand the audience interpretations of the visualizations and revise expert guidance.