Every building official and inspector has heard it: "Why are you the only jurisdiction that makes us do that?" or "I just did the same thing on other projects outside your jurisdiction, and it passed inspection." These statements reveal a deeper issue than mere differences in interpretation—they expose a widespread failure of some jurisdictions to enforce even the minimum standards of the building codes. Whether by choice or ignorance, this lack of enforcement undermines the integrity of the entire system and creates significant challenges for those who uphold their responsibilities.
This isn’t about gray areas or subjective interpretations of ambiguous code sections; it’s about jurisdictions that simply don’t enforce the code. The reasons vary. Some lack properly trained staff who understand the codes. Others actively choose not to enforce certain provisions, either to avoid conflict with contractors or to foster a more "developer-friendly" reputation. Regardless of the motive, the result is the same: jurisdictions that enforce the minimum standards as written are painted as the bad guys, while contractors flock to areas where enforcement is lax, further perpetuating the problem.
The frustration is real for those of us who take our jobs seriously. Building officials enforcing the minimum standards are not doing so to create barriers; we’re doing it because those standards exist to protect public health, safety, and welfare. When neighboring jurisdictions don’t enforce those same standards, it creates a perception that we’re overstepping or being unreasonable. In reality, we’re just doing our jobs.
The issue also highlights a gap in contractor education and training. Many contractors learn about codes the hard way—by failing inspections. While that might be an effective way to teach someone a lesson, it’s not a sustainable solution for improving the industry. Better education and training could help contractors understand why codes exist and how they should be applied. Unfortunately, many contractors see codes as hurdles to clear rather than as guidelines to ensure safety and quality. This mindset only exacerbates the problem when they encounter varying levels of enforcement from one jurisdiction to another.
Some states have implemented centralized binding and non-binding interpretation procedures to promote consistency, but these efforts only address part of the issue. Interpretation isn’t the core problem here—enforcement is. A jurisdiction that chooses to ignore certain provisions of the code, whether out of ignorance or deliberate policy, undermines the very foundation of building safety. It also erodes trust in the system as a whole. If contractors can shop around for lenient jurisdictions, it incentivizes noncompliance and penalizes those who follow the rules.
The solution isn’t simple, but it starts with accountability. Jurisdictions must be held to the same standards they expect of contractors and developers. That means ensuring building departments are properly staffed, adequately trained, and held responsible for enforcing the code as written. It also means advocating for statewide consistency in enforcement, not just interpretation. While interpretations can clarify ambiguities, they can’t fix jurisdictions that refuse to enforce the basics.
At the same time, the construction industry needs to prioritize education. Contractors who understand the codes and their intent are less likely to rely on jurisdictional loopholes or complain about "that one jurisdiction" enforcing the rules. Codes exist for a reason, and contractors who embrace them as part of the process—not as an obstacle—are better equipped to deliver quality work.
In the end, inconsistent enforcement harms everyone—contractors, building officials, and the public. Those of us trying to uphold the minimum standards shouldn’t be vilified for doing so. Instead, the focus should be on raising the bar for enforcement across the board. If every jurisdiction enforced the code as it’s written, those frustrating "why are you the only ones?" questions would disappear, and the industry as a whole would be better for it.
This isn’t about gray areas or subjective interpretations of ambiguous code sections; it’s about jurisdictions that simply don’t enforce the code. The reasons vary. Some lack properly trained staff who understand the codes. Others actively choose not to enforce certain provisions, either to avoid conflict with contractors or to foster a more "developer-friendly" reputation. Regardless of the motive, the result is the same: jurisdictions that enforce the minimum standards as written are painted as the bad guys, while contractors flock to areas where enforcement is lax, further perpetuating the problem.
The frustration is real for those of us who take our jobs seriously. Building officials enforcing the minimum standards are not doing so to create barriers; we’re doing it because those standards exist to protect public health, safety, and welfare. When neighboring jurisdictions don’t enforce those same standards, it creates a perception that we’re overstepping or being unreasonable. In reality, we’re just doing our jobs.
The issue also highlights a gap in contractor education and training. Many contractors learn about codes the hard way—by failing inspections. While that might be an effective way to teach someone a lesson, it’s not a sustainable solution for improving the industry. Better education and training could help contractors understand why codes exist and how they should be applied. Unfortunately, many contractors see codes as hurdles to clear rather than as guidelines to ensure safety and quality. This mindset only exacerbates the problem when they encounter varying levels of enforcement from one jurisdiction to another.
Some states have implemented centralized binding and non-binding interpretation procedures to promote consistency, but these efforts only address part of the issue. Interpretation isn’t the core problem here—enforcement is. A jurisdiction that chooses to ignore certain provisions of the code, whether out of ignorance or deliberate policy, undermines the very foundation of building safety. It also erodes trust in the system as a whole. If contractors can shop around for lenient jurisdictions, it incentivizes noncompliance and penalizes those who follow the rules.
The solution isn’t simple, but it starts with accountability. Jurisdictions must be held to the same standards they expect of contractors and developers. That means ensuring building departments are properly staffed, adequately trained, and held responsible for enforcing the code as written. It also means advocating for statewide consistency in enforcement, not just interpretation. While interpretations can clarify ambiguities, they can’t fix jurisdictions that refuse to enforce the basics.
At the same time, the construction industry needs to prioritize education. Contractors who understand the codes and their intent are less likely to rely on jurisdictional loopholes or complain about "that one jurisdiction" enforcing the rules. Codes exist for a reason, and contractors who embrace them as part of the process—not as an obstacle—are better equipped to deliver quality work.
In the end, inconsistent enforcement harms everyone—contractors, building officials, and the public. Those of us trying to uphold the minimum standards shouldn’t be vilified for doing so. Instead, the focus should be on raising the bar for enforcement across the board. If every jurisdiction enforced the code as it’s written, those frustrating "why are you the only ones?" questions would disappear, and the industry as a whole would be better for it.
