• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Doors required to be accessible, or not?

1010.1.9 Door Operation ... without special knowledge or effort
1010.1.9.5 Unlatching. one operation ( to release latch/lock)
1010.1.9.1 Hardware. without tight grasping, tight pinching, or twisting the wrist
 
1010.1.9 Door Operation ... without special knowledge or effort
1010.1.9.5 Unlatching. one operation ( to release latch/lock)
1010.1.9.1 Hardware. without tight grasping, tight pinching, or twisting the wrist
I think this is where you are confusing folks ADAguy.

Your question relates to accessibility, but again you are referring to Ch. 10 requirement. Ch. 10 is solely means of egress and does not address accessible use.

Set a fire alarm off, add some smoke, and people are not much smarter than cattle in a stampede; hence how people get trampled. The requirements of Ch. 10 are actually more stringent than the accessibility requirements of Ch. 11.
 
Similar language and intent as Chapter 10
ANSI
404.2.6 Door Hardware.
Handles, pulls, latches, locks, and other operable parts on accessible doors shall have a shape that is easy to grasp with one hand and does not require tight grasping, pinching, or twisting of the wrist to operate. Operable parts of such hardware shall be 34 inches (865 mm) minimum and 48 inches (1220 mm) maximum above the floor. Where sliding doors are in the fully open position, operating hardware shall be exposed and usable from both sides.

ADA
404.2.7 Door and Gate Hardware.
Handles, pulls, latches, locks, and other operable parts on doors and gates shall comply with 309.4. Operable parts of such hardware shall be 34 inches (865 mm) minimum and 48 inches (1220 mm) maximum above the finish floor or ground. Where sliding doors are in the fully open position, operating hardware shall be exposed and usable from both sides.
 
1010.1.9 Door Operation ... without special knowledge or effort
1010.1.9.5 Unlatching. one operation ( to release latch/lock)
1010.1.9.1 Hardware. without tight grasping, tight pinching, or twisting the wrist

I think this is where you are confusing folks ADAguy.
Your question relates to accessibility, but again you are referring to Ch. 10 requirement. Ch. 10 is solely means of egress and does not address accessible use..

ADA, if your original post is about Chapter 11 and ADA, please don't bring chapter 10 into the conversation.
Why? Because Ch. 10 concerns Means of Egress (getting out of the building), but Ch. 11 /ADA is about Access.

To put it another way, if the phrase "without special knowledge or effort" was really about getting into a building, then no door could ever have an entry lock, because entry locks require special knowledge ("which key am I supposed to use?") and effort (the extra operations to pull out the key and unlock).

If I'm wrong please let me know, and I can look forward to the day when the nearby bank decides to remove its entry door and vault door locks in the name of ADA accessibility.
 
Last edited:
I'm puzzled about these constant arguments about ADA vs. IBC. The IBC incorporates all the ADA and Fair Housing Act construction requirements, and actually exceeds them in a few cases. IBC includes churches and private clubs which are exempt from ADA because of the way the 1964 Civil Rights Act was written. ANSI A117.1 requires vertical grab bars at toilets and now requires larger toilet stalls. The only ADA requirements that aren't covered by IBC are operational issues which a building code can't address.

It might be prudent to say you are only reviewing or inspecting to IBC, but in reality you're also reviewing or inspecting to ADA unless you allow exceptions to ANSI A117.1 requirements or other provisions in the IBC that are covered by ADA.
 
Paul:

I'm also puzzled as to how ANSI is even relevant, as I understand it ANSI writes it's standards that are either incorporated within codes or not, if they are incorporated their wording stands, if they are not they are completely irrelevant. Remember how Uncle Bob used to yell: "We have a stand-alone code?" So what if ANSI requires larger toilet stalls?
 
I am required to enforce the icodes by the state not ADA. If the state made us enforce the ADA we would be checking all the existing buildings even when no construction is being done. I am not sure if the ADA makes a distinction between new construction and existing buildings. And I don't think the IEBC incorporates all the ADA or Fair Housing Act.
 
I am required to enforce the icodes by the state not ADA. If the state made us enforce the ADA we would be checking all the existing buildings even when no construction is being done. I am not sure if the ADA makes a distinction between new construction and existing buildings. And I don't think the IEBC incorporates all the ADA or Fair Housing Act.

Yes Rick, ADA does address both new and existing and unlike the "code", requires retroactive barrier removal.
The disconnect is that the Feds require compliance but did not follow through on the connection between ADAAG/ADASAD and the code, given that the code is accepted or amended by each state separately. That and making those with disabilities the policing arm and not building departments.
 
Paul:

I'm also puzzled as to how ANSI is even relevant, as I understand it ANSI writes it's standards that are either incorporated within codes or not, if they are incorporated their wording stands, if they are not they are completely irrelevant. Remember how Uncle Bob used to yell: "We have a stand-alone code?" So what if ANSI requires larger toilet stalls?
The IBC provides the scoping of when and how to apply the A117.1 standard.

BTW, ICC A117.1-2009 is not an ANSI Standard anymore. ICC owns it outright
 
I should have been clearer. I was referring to 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design (ADASAD), which is a small part of the overall ADA. The U.S. Access Board worked closely with ANSI to develop these standards, which is why they are almost identical.

As Ty said, IBC 1102.1 requires buildings and facilities to be designed and constructed to be accessible in accordance with this code and ICC A117.1. IBC chapter 11 tells what has to be accessible, and A117.1 tells how to make it accessible.

California and some other states modify this to refer to their own access code, which is probably still based on ADASAD and A117.1.

The IBC incorporates many other many NFPA, ANSI, and other standards. Chapter 16 references ASCE 7 for almost all structural design issues.
 
CBC uses the numbering system of ADASAD (with additions) but not ANSI until it meets or exceeds ADASAD, which it doesn't in certain areas.
 
But to be very clear, Rick18071 and other building officials do not - and should not - check for ADA.
They only check for the code adopted by their jurisdiction. If the code they are required to enforce happens to have been edited to match ADASAD, that is of great benefit and convenience for all involved, especially the building owners. But the local code is not ADA.

The building official becomes involved when an application is submitted for plan check / building permit, not before then.
So if there is an legally existing building that is out of compliance with ADASAD, the building official has no involvement unless and until the owner applies for some change (addition/alteration) to the building.
 
Yes, (unfortunately) that is true. It would be best if each counter had a disclaimer so indicating that as a service to customers.
Maybe even requiring it on drawings (which you can do per Chapter 1 Of the code).
 
I googled "do all doors have to be accessible" and this thread popped up. (I use google search and it often turns up threads in the awesome forum). My question was basically the same as the OP from long ago...not ADA vs. ANSI. I think I am on the right track and in agreement with the over-all theme here, but for clarification I will use an example from one of my current reviews.

I have a tenant finish in an existing core-shell. It is a typical two story office/warehouse space (a little too big to be a mezzanine). The upper floor is < 3,000sf² so IBC 1104.4 #1 does not require an accessible route to the story. Code does not exempt all accessibility on the story, just the route to it. So does the accessible route start again? I think it does, since the intent is that IF an accessible route to the story is ever provided, the elements on the story would be accessible. So if the route to an open office area is provided, it must be accessible. But what if there are two routes? IBC 1104.3 requires "at least one accessible route" to each portion of the building. Of the two routes they provide, one of them has a door that does not have maneuvering clearances, and ANSI 117.1 requires that "Doors and doorways that are part of an accessible route" shall comply. So I don't think both routes are required to be accessible, therefore the door is not required to have the maneuvering clearance, or any other portion of ANSI section 404. Any flaws in that logic?
 
What do you mean that our code must be certified? By who? All I need to know is what my state requires. I am not responsible to enforce ADASAD and don't know it.
 
Remember ANSI is a building code standard and as such is under the AHJ to determine if compliance is met where as the ADA is civil rights and nobody can make exceptions to that except how a court rules.

And the state of Montana has this language
(23) The building official may waive minor building code violations that do not constitute an imminent threat to property or to the health, safety, or welfare of any person.

So under ANSI I could approve a WC that is 18.5 inches from the wall to the center line of the WC or a tub opening that is only 59.5 inches clear opening instead of the required 60 inch minimum width but under ADA this would not be permitted

So would someone prevail in a MT local/state court where the BO gave a certificate of occupancy when these "minor" violation posed no "imminent threat" to their safety or welfare? Who knows
Construction tolerances, si! Discrimination alledged, no!
its a civil right not to be discriminated against but what constituted discrimination?
Only courts can decide.
 
What do you mean that our code must be certified? By who? All I need to know is what my state requires. I am not responsible to enforce ADASAD and don't know it.
DOJ was expected, per the ADA, if submitted to them, to certify compliance of each states codes, they lacked the manpower and budget to do do
 
Top