• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Bathroom without heating duct

S

ssorrell

REGISTERED
Joined
Nov 19, 2024
Messages
1
Location
Indianapolis, IN
I am selling a house that was built in 1963. The master bath of this home has one exterior wall but no plumbing in that wall. The bathroom does not have a HVAC vent and I am told by the buyer's home inspector that an HVAC vent is required in the bathroom. The home is located in Marion county, inside the city limits of Indianapolis. Is the vent required by code?
 
Built in 1963? There was no International Residential Code back then. Even the CABO One- and Two-Family Dwelling Code didn't exist -- it wasn't created until 1972. This means that unless there was a local (city) code in effect in 1963, there was no code at all. Here's what the 1992 CABO code said:

1732072303706.png

1732072350811.png

Bathrooms are not habitable rooms as defined in the CABO code (in fact, bathrooms are specifically excluded from being habitable rooms), so there is no requirement for a heating duct.

Ask the home inspector to cite the code that he/she claims requires a heating duct. The code in effect doesn't count -- it has to be from the code that was in effect when the house was built, or when the bathroom(s) was/were most recently renovated.

My experience with home inspectors is that they too often attempt to justify there existence by reporting as "required by code" a wish list of things that, while nice to have, but which were not required by the code at the time of construction. And that's the only code that matters.
 
Heat in a bathroom is not required under the IRC.

2018 IRC
R303.10 Required heating.
Where the winter design temperature in Table R301.2(1) is below 60°F (16°C), every dwelling unit shall be provided with heating facilities capable of maintaining a room temperature of not less than 68°F (20°C) at a point 3 feet (914 mm) above the floor and 2 feet (610 mm) from exterior walls in habitable rooms at the design temperature. The installation of one or more portable space heaters shall not be used to achieve compliance with this section.

[RB] HABITABLE SPACE. A space in a building for living, sleeping, eating or cooking. Bathrooms, toilet rooms, closets, halls, storage or utility spaces and similar areas are not considered habitable spaces.
 
If the home inspector said it is required, I would ask him by what. In the state in which I was a licensed home inspector we could not cite or reference code, even if we were certified by the state as building officials, but in this case he couldn't do that anyway.
 
Inspector Gadget said:
Verily. We are now re-branding to "Building official" to avoid confusion.
Click to expand...

"Now"?

We were called "building official" as far back as the 1984 BOCA code. (That's the earliest I have quick access to.) That's at least 40 years. Can't help it if the public still prefers to think of us as "building inspectors."
 
redeyedfly said:
?? What is the rationale for this?
Click to expand...
Not sure what the state board had as a rationale, can't and don't want to get in their heads. But, most home inspectors were not also state certified inspectors, and in their capacity as a home inspector were not empowered to enforce, require or otherwise cite a code. We could say for example, "handrails should be provided", but not handrails are required "by code". Not my rules, just bound by them if I wanted to conduct home inspections. One reason I imgained is that any code citation would be for whatever code book the home inspector had in mind, not the code under which the house, addition, remodel was built. So saying handrails should be provided covers everything as a safety issue rather than an absolute code requirement.

I use building official in the generic sense, not the certified building official as a level of certification sense, or as THE certified building official for an AHJ. In a previous state we were called code enforcement officers, but we were sworn. Where I am now "codes" tends to be understood to be zoning related, not building related. I am sure it differs from region to region.

Maybe just expedient on my part to say building official.
 
[A) BUILDING OFFICIAL. The officer or other designated
authority charged with the administration and enforcement of
this code, or a duly authorized representative.
 
SECTION A101
BUILDING OFFICIAL QUALIFICATIONS
[A] A101.1 Building official. The building official shall have
not fewer than 10 years' experience or equivalent as an architect,
engineer, inspector, contractor or superintendent of
construction, or any combination of these, 5 years of which
shall have been supervisory experience. The building official
should be certified as a building official through a recognized
certification program. The building official shall be appointed
or hired by the applicable governing authority.
[A] A101.2 Chief inspector. The building official can designate
supervisors to administer the provisions of this code and
the California Mechanical and Plumbing Codes and International
Fuel Gas Code. Each supervisor shall have not fewer
than 10 years experience or equivalent as an architect, engineer,
inspector, contractor or superintendent of construction,
or any combination of these, 5 years of which shall have been
in a supervisory capacity. They shall be certified through a
recognized certification program for the appropriate trade.
[A] A101.3 Inspector and plans examiner. The building
official shall appoint or hire such number of officers, inspectors,
assistants and other employees as shall be authorized by
the jurisdiction. A person who has fewer than 5 years of experience
as a contractor, engineer, architect, or as a
superintendent, foreman or competent mechanic in charge of
construction shall not be appointed or hired as inspector of
construction or plans examiner. The inspector or plans examiner
shall be certified through a recognized certification
program for the appropriate trade.
[A] A101.4 Termination of employment. Employees in the
position of building official, chief inspector or inspector shall
not be removed from office except for cause after full opportunity
has been given to be heard on specific charges before
such applicable governing authority.
 
I know very few AHJ's that have adopted that appendix, though I wish SOME qualifications were adhered to. I once had a Chief Building Official try to slough his responsibility off on me, saying I was "a" building official, even if not "The" building official. It didn't fly.

Right or wrong I have always taken building official (lower case) to mean just what the IBC defines it as - a person "charged with the administration and enforcement of this code or a duly authorized representative", and Building Official or Chief Building Official (upper case) to mean the person in charge of all the other building officials. One can be a Certified Building Official, without being a Chief Building Official, and one can be a Chief Building Official without being a Certified Building Official. In most places though one can't be official at all if they wear shorts to work!o_O
 
Mr. Inspector said:
home inspectors do not know anything about codes
Click to expand...
How can you know that?

Years ago a beautiful woman came to the counter to ask questions about a house she wanted to purchase. A home inspector had noted that there was no "firewall" between the house and attached garage. She was extra special in every way and she listened intently as I explained what the wall would entail if it were built then as opposed to 1958.

She asked me what such a wall would cost to build. I told her that $400 to $1000 should be in the ballpark depending on the contractor.

She had been completely professional up to that point. Then she said, "Well I'm going to tell Mr. Smith that he will drop the price $1000 or he can kiss my azz". Needless to say, that caught me by surprise so I said, "Ya know, I don't think that's gonna work out for you". She said,"What do you me..." Half way through the word "mean" she stopped, smiled, said thank you and left the building.

Oh what a Betty she was....only blond.
 
Last edited:
Its kind of fun when a home inspector comes to look at a a house that code inspector is selling. When we purchased our previous house in the days before i was an inspector, we updated the electric service to get rid of the fuses. The electrician replaced the 3 prong outlets (Not grounded) with two prong on all the circuits that were still run in the old BX cable so it would meet code for the type of wiring. Electrical inspector came and passed the update. A couple years later the gas company came and moved the old meter from the basement to a new one on the exterior of the house. Not too long after I became a mechanical inspector we sold the house. The buyer's home inspector said we needed to replace the two prong outlets with three prong outlets, and didn't like something on the gas pipe at the old meter location in the basement. I told him that my desk was 20 feet from the inspector that approved the update and required the outlets to be as the were, he could talk to him if he wanted, and the gas pipe was done by the gas company. I wasn't going to change a thing. Sale then went of without a hitch.
 
Some years ago my late wife and I were adopting. The adoption required an inspection of our home by the adoption services agent (social worker). The house was built in 1950.

The social worker started out with telling us that "the code" required carbon monoxide detectors in all bedrooms and in the hallway. I told her that "the code" didn't exist in 1950, that the current code did not require retroactive installation of CO detectors, and that I work as a building official and I could show her the code to prove it. We went through the same thing over smoke detectors and several other things.

She quickly shifted to "Well, WE require it." For the CO detectors, we settled on buying a plug-in CO detector from Lowe's for the bedroom that the kid was going to occupy, and similar accommodations for the other "issues."

Many people, especially home inspectors, love to toss out "the code requires" to make whatever they're saying sound authoritative. In the case of home inspectors it's pernicious, because it can cost sellers a lot of money, or completely kill what should be a viable sale.
 
It's not unusual for home inspectors to wish the code required more because they are also there to make the buyer happy in order to finish up the sale. On projects I get calls from the field telling me every Tom, Dick and Angie that walked onto the site has said that something else needs to be "brought up to current code" and they're wrong because it's grandfathered or they're applying the code incorrectly based on the exemptions within the code. As long as something was done "to code" at the time it was built, it's grandfathered. Very few codes have been made retroactive - portions of the energy code, fire code and ANSI A117.1 have been enforced more retroactively and mostly in change-of-use situations - but usually when someone is claiming that something "must" be brought up to code, they're wrong - especially when the code in effect includes the Existing Building Code.

On the other hand I do get a lot of people trying to claim something is grandfathered when it was never legal - or not legal at the time it was done or since. One joker trying to claim grandfathered status for a visual shield wall 24" into a bedroom instead of a door tried to reason that the work they had done without permits was "existing" at the time they were caught, so it should be considered grandfathered. I had to stop laughing long enough to define the terms properly for them.
 
I also dislike the term Grandfathered, usually is a disguise for something done wrong some time ago and mikes it it ok on the building code side, and pre-existing nonconforming the zoning side.
 
Yankee Chronicler said:
My experience with home inspectors is that they too often attempt to justify there existence by reporting as "required by code" a wish list of things that, while nice to have, but which were not required by the code at the time of construction. And that's the only code that matters.
Click to expand...
This can be a major issue requesting current code items on an existing compliant structure when it was built. Had a homeowner ask me if the outlet in her garage was required to have a GFCI receptacle? House was a ranch style house built in 1950. She said the buyer used a home inspector and he wrote her up for a bunch of new codes like no interconnected smoke detectors. The realtor said ""You'll be taking a change of not selling the home!" So she hired an electrician and pulled permits.

The one that the home inspector gigs you on is radon, I lived in my house for 24 years before selling it and my own realtor said I needed to install a radon fan. So I'm paying for protecting someone else's family but my family didn't receive any benefit from the addition of a radon fan. Again if you want to take that chance of not selling?

Then there's the insurance company stating the breaker box needs top be replaced because of a court case in New Jersey!
 
Yankee Chronicler said:
Built in 1963? There was no International Residential Code back then. Even the CABO One- and Two-Family Dwelling Code didn't exist -- it wasn't created until 1972. This means that unless there was a local (city) code in effect in 1963, there was no code at all. Here's what the 1992 CABO code said:

View attachment 14712

View attachment 14713

Bathrooms are not habitable rooms as defined in the CABO code (in fact, bathrooms are specifically excluded from being habitable rooms), so there is no requirement for a heating duct.

Ask the home inspector to cite the code that he/she claims requires a heating duct. The code in effect doesn't count -- it has to be from the code that was in effect when the house was built, or when the bathroom(s) was/were most recently renovated.

My experience with home inspectors is that they too often attempt to justify there existence by reporting as "required by code" a wish list of things that, while nice to have, but which were not required by the code at the time of construction. And that's the only code that matters.
Click to expand...
Interesting, how do I find out what city codes were in effect back then? When did Cities start requiring building permits for additions and such? And more importantly, in St Louis county municipalities, they keep wanting to apply 2020+ codes to early 20th century construction (1906, 1920-1958 in my case)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top