NEC Feeder Routing in Individually Owned Townhomes

[jar546]

Regarding individually owned townhouses (not apartments under single ownership), NEC Section 230.3 prohibits service conductors from passing through an adjacent unit. However, considering electrical feeders are protected by an overcurrent device at their source, could someone clarify the specific NEC articles and relevant interpretations that address or implicitly prohibit a feeder for one townhouse unit from passing through the interior space (e.g., walls, ceiling, slab) of an adjacent, separately owned townhouse unit, accounting for considerations such as access for maintenance, firestopping, and the distinction between single-owner multi-family and individually parceled properties? Florida, for example, requires a townhome by definition to have its own property lines. I understand the IRC does not. When townhomes are built, I rarely see anything other than electric meters and service disconnects at the front of each unit. However, if in an apartment situation, they decide to put all the meters on one side of 4 units, for example, is it code compliant or appropriate to run the feeders through other units to get there? It makes no sense because you now have power inside a unit that it does not have control over.

 

[Joe.B]

I know what you're getting at, and I agree, it's a problem. Prerequisite question: Do you consider each individual townhouse unit to be its own building, or are they one building divided up into multiple units?

[RB] TOWNHOUSE. A building that contains three or more
attached townhouse units.
[RB] TOWNHOUSE UNIT. A single-family dwelling unit
m a townhouse that extends from foundation to roof and that
has a yard or public way on not less than two sides.

230.2 Number of Services. A building or other structure
served shall be supplied by only one service unless permitted
in 230.2(A) through (D). For the purpose of 230.40, Exception
No. 2 only, underground sets of conductors, 1/0 AWG and
larger, running to the same location and connected together at
their supply end but not connected together at their load end
shall be considered to be supplying one service.

By that argument I would say that 230.3 doesn't apply. The opposing argument could say that 230.2(B)(1) would be an effective work-around to this problem.

(B) Special Occupancies. By special perrmss1on, additional
services shall be permitted for either of the following:
(1) Multiple-occupancy buildings where there is no available
space for service equipment accessible to all occupants
(2) A single building or other structure sufficiently large to
make two or more services necessary

Unfortunately for that argument, feeders are not specifically included in the definition of service equipment. I think it would be a stretch to consider a feeder to be an accessory, and the NEC doesn't define accessory or accessories.

Service Equipment. The necessary equipment, consisting of
a circuit breaker(s) or switch(es) and fuse(s) and their accessories,
connected to the serving utility and intended to constitute
the main control and disconnect of the serving utility. (CMP-10)

Webster Dictionary:
accessory
plural: accessories
1a: an object or device that is not essential in itself but adds to the beauty, convenience, or effectiveness of something else
auto accessories
clothing accessories
b: a thing of secondary or lesser importance : adjunct

I think it would be a hard sell, depending on what side of the argument you want to be on.

 

[Joe.B]

if in an apartment situation, they decide to put all the meters on one side of 4 units, for example, is it code compliant or appropriate to run the feeders through other units to get there? It makes no sense because you now have power inside a unit that it does not have control over.

To answer your question more directly, I think that yes, it's code compliant. Further, I think code requires it. I also agree, it makes no sense.


Unless you're a home builder, developer, or politician trying to promote the construction of more affordable housing.... Then it makes perrrrrrfect sense...

 

[steveray]

It makes no sense because you now have power inside a unit that it does not have control over.

Does anyone REALLY have control over electricity?

 

[BN4537]

You aren't allowed to have multiple feeders at all unless by special permission per 225.30(C). If a jurisdiction wanted to make that permission conditional on making the feeder "outside the building" per 230.6, I think they could do that without any problems if it was a standard policy. The benefits are obvious.

Most people forget that having multiple feeders is not allowed by right in the code except in a few cases, it's by special permission from the AHJ.

 

[jar546]

You aren't allowed to have multiple feeders at all unless by special permission per 225.30(C). If a jurisdiction wanted to make that permission conditional on making the feeder "outside the building" per 230.6, I think they could do that without any problems if it was a standard policy. The benefits are obvious.

Most people forget that having multiple feeders is not allowed by right in the code except in a few cases, it's by special permission from the AHJ.

I agree with BN4537’s point in post #5: “You aren't allowed to have multiple feeders at all unless by special permission per 225.30(C).” That’s right—NEC 225.30(C) makes it clear:
1) Only one feeder is allowed to supply a building unless the AHJ grants special permission.
2) Running a feeder through another townhome without that permission isn’t code-compliant—multiple feeders are not allowed by default

 

[steveray]

It's not a feeder if it is not serving/supplying the building it is running through....IMO

You would be better off citing "nearest the point of entrance to the "building"" in a multibuilding structure.....But it is all thin with no real safety gain..But makes Floridas case for property lines that much more attractive...

225.32 Location.

The disconnecting means shall be installed either inside or outside of the building or structure served or where the conductors pass through the building or structure. The disconnecting means shall be at a readily accessible location nearest the point of entrance of the conductors.

 

[Joe.B]

I agree with BN4537’s point in post #5: “You aren't allowed to have multiple feeders at all unless by special permission per 225.30(C).” That’s right—NEC 225.30(C) makes it clear:
1) Only one feeder is allowed to supply a building unless the AHJ grants special permission.
2) Running a feeder through another townhome without that permission isn’t code-compliant—multiple feeders are not allowed by default

Are you considering each townhome unit a separate building?

 

[BN4537]

It's not a feeder if it is not serving/supplying the building it is running through....IMO

That is an important distinction. Since the building is not "served" by the feeder, it doesn't count as an additional feeder for that building in the context of 225.30, if they are truly separate buildings.

NEC definition for "Building" is as follows - A structure that stands alone or that is separated from adjoining structures by fire walls.
"Structure" is still "that which is built or constructed" as in the I-codes.

So if you have a true IBC fire wall, not a fire barrier or fire partition or an IRC "fire resistance rated wall assembly", and the feeder only passes through but does not supply that "building" that is separated by the true fire wall, and the permanent plaque or directory per 225.37 is installed at all disconnects serving that "building", then you would not need special permission and the install would be compliant with a feeder serving another building passing through the first building.

True fire walls are fairly rare around here, so this rarely comes up, but is important to note.

 

[Joe.B]

That is an important distinction. Since the building is not "served" by the feeder, it doesn't count as an additional feeder for that building in the context of 225.30, if they are truly separate buildings.

NEC definition for "Building" is as follows - A structure that stands alone or that is separated from adjoining structures by fire walls.
"Structure" is still "that which is built or constructed" as in the I-codes.

So if you have a true IBC fire wall, not a fire barrier or fire partition or an IRC "fire resistance rated wall assembly", and the feeder only passes through but does not supply that "building" that is separated by the true fire wall, and the permanent plaque or directory per 225.37 is installed at all disconnects serving that "building", then you would not need special permission and the install would be compliant with a feeder serving another building passing through the first building.

True fire walls are fairly rare around here, so this rarely comes up, but is important to note.

And if that's the case, you're no longer in the Residential Code, you're in the Building Code.

Back to the Definitions:

[RB] TOWNHOUSE. A building that contains three or more
attached townhouse units.
[RB] TOWNHOUSE UNIT. A single-family dwelling unit
m a townhouse that extends from foundation to roof and that
has a yard or public way on not less than two sides.

 

[jar546]

Even when something technically complies with the NEC, it doesn’t mean we should ignore the bigger picture. In townhouse developments where each unit is individually owned and sits on its own lot, running feeders or any wiring through another unit is not just a code issue. It’s a legal and property rights issue, and it needs to be treated like one.

If a builder routes electrical feeders from a bank of meters and disconnects on the outside of one end unit, then runs those feeders through the basements of the other townhouses to get to their panels, that’s a problem. It might pass inspection under the NEC if certain conditions are met, but the jurisdiction has an obligation to think beyond the code and prevent long-term problems.

Let’s say I own that end unit. The builder stuck the disconnects and meters for five other units on the side of my home. I’d want a recorded easement giving those other owners and the utility the right to access that wall. I’d also want compensation or at least some acknowledgment that infrastructure for the whole row of homes is sitting on my property. Without that, I could block access legally or be stuck with liability I never agreed to.

This is not the same as an apartment building on one lot. In that case, it’s all under common ownership and none of this matters. But when the homes are fee-simple townhouses with separate parcels, you’re dealing with private property rights. If there’s no easement and no agreement, it becomes a mess later.

I’ve seen this play out. Owners find out someone else’s feeder is running through their ceiling or foundation wall. Meter techs show up and are told they can’t access the equipment. Renovations get blocked because a neighbor's wiring is in the way. Real estate deals fall apart. People start threatening lawsuits. All because nobody caught it during review or asked the basic question: does this cross onto someone else’s property?

The code doesn't fix that. The NEC isn't going to stop that kind of conflict. That’s our job.

Every shared utility crossing a property line needs an easement. Every time a builder proposes stacking all the meters and service equipment on one home, it needs to trigger a review. We need to ask who owns the wall and who has the right to access it. If there’s no legal agreement, the answer should be no. Not without one.

This isn’t about being difficult. It’s about protecting people who live there and stopping problems before they start.

 

[steveray]

This is not the same as an apartment building on one lot. In that case, it’s all under common ownership and none of this matters.

What about when it "goes condo?"

 

[jar546]

What about when it "goes condo?"

When it goes condo, the exterior will be part of the common or limited common element, and there will have to be an HOA that will handle that. Yet another reason to require separate services for each townhouse.

 

[wwhitney]

Even when something technically complies with the NEC, it doesn’t mean we should ignore the bigger picture. In townhouse developments where each unit is individually owned and sits on its own lot, running feeders or any wiring through another unit is not just a code issue. It’s a legal and property rights issue, and it needs to be treated like one.

Agreed. Would be the same with water pipes and gas pipes. What legal or property rights requirements would apply to any of those?

It might pass inspection under the NEC if certain conditions are met

Articles 215 and 225 lack anything like NEC 230.3 "Service conductors supplying a building or other structure shall not pass through the interior of another
building or other structure." So I'm not aware of any conditions the NEC would put on the practice of running a feeder (no devices, just cable or conduit) through one townhome unit to another townhome unit.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[ICE]

230.6 Conductors Considered Outside the Building. Conductors shall be considered outside of a building or other structure under any of the following conditions:
(1) Where installed under not less than 50 mm (2 in.) of concrete beneath a building or other structure
(2) Where installed within a building or other structure in a raceway that is encased in concrete or brick not less than 50 mm (2 in.) thick
(3) Where installed in any vault that meets the construction requirements of Article 450, Part III
(4) Where installed in conduit and under not less than 450 mm (18 in.) of earth beneath a building or other structure
(5) Where installed within rigid metal conduit (Type RMC) or intermediate metal conduit (Type IMC) used to accommodate the clearance requirements in 230.24 and routed directly through an eave but not a wall of a building

 

[Joe.B]

Even when something technically complies with the NEC, it doesn’t mean we should ignore the bigger picture. In townhouse developments where each unit is individually owned and sits on its own lot, running feeders or any wiring through another unit is not just a code issue. It’s a legal and property rights issue, and it needs to be treated like one.

If a builder routes electrical feeders from a bank of meters and disconnects on the outside of one end unit, then runs those feeders through the basements of the other townhouses to get to their panels, that’s a problem. It might pass inspection under the NEC if certain conditions are met, but the jurisdiction has an obligation to think beyond the code and prevent long-term problems.

Let’s say I own that end unit. The builder stuck the disconnects and meters for five other units on the side of my home. I’d want a recorded easement giving those other owners and the utility the right to access that wall. I’d also want compensation or at least some acknowledgment that infrastructure for the whole row of homes is sitting on my property. Without that, I could block access legally or be stuck with liability I never agreed to.

This is not the same as an apartment building on one lot. In that case, it’s all under common ownership and none of this matters. But when the homes are fee-simple townhouses with separate parcels, you’re dealing with private property rights. If there’s no easement and no agreement, it becomes a mess later.

I’ve seen this play out. Owners find out someone else’s feeder is running through their ceiling or foundation wall. Meter techs show up and are told they can’t access the equipment. Renovations get blocked because a neighbor's wiring is in the way. Real estate deals fall apart. People start threatening lawsuits. All because nobody caught it during review or asked the basic question: does this cross onto someone else’s property?

The code doesn't fix that. The NEC isn't going to stop that kind of conflict. That’s our job.

Every shared utility crossing a property line needs an easement. Every time a builder proposes stacking all the meters and service equipment on one home, it needs to trigger a review. We need to ask who owns the wall and who has the right to access it. If there’s no legal agreement, the answer should be no. Not without one.

This isn’t about being difficult. It’s about protecting people who live there and stopping problems before they start.

You correctly pointed out that this is not a code issue, it's a civil/legal issue. To do it right, there needs to be easements.

This brings to light that local conditions really highlight regional needs. It would seem appropriate to have a local ordinance that helped clarify, specific to the needs of your community.

 

[jar546]

You correctly pointed out that this is not a code issue, it's a civil/legal issue. To do it right, there needs to be easements.

This brings to light that local conditions really highlight regional needs. It would seem appropriate to have a local ordinance that helped clarify, specific to the needs of your community.

Absolutely agree.

 

[TheCommish]

In my jurisdiction the lot line is not required between the units of the Town home, if a condo the exterior and land is controlled by the association, the inter of the unt is owned by the residents.

So setting aside lot lines, or other issues. Can the wire from the meter bank for a 6 untit Town home rune through the interior of other Town homes.

The utilities do not want 6 separate meter locations

 

[Joe.B]

In my jurisdiction the lot line is not required between the units of the Town home, if a condo the exterior and land is controlled by the association, the inter of the unt is owned by the residents.

So setting aside lot lines, or other issues. Can the wire from the meter bank for a 6 untit Town home rune through the interior of other Town homes.

The utilities do not want 6 separate meter locations

I would go further and argue that code requires this.

230.2 Number of Services. A building or other structure
served shall be supplied by only one service unless permitted
in 230.2(A) through (D)...

 

[jar546]

I would go further and argue that code requires this.

230.2 Number of Services. A building or other structure
served shall be supplied by only one service unless permitted
in 230.2(A) through (D)...

If I put a 6-pack meter stack on a building with a single 600A service disconnect, that is only one service. If I install a 6-pack meter stack on the end of a townhouse with 6 service disconnects, that is still one service that feeds the meter packs. I am not sure 230.2 affects this.

 

[Joe.B]

If I put a 6-pack meter stack on a building with a single 600A service disconnect, that is only one service. If I install a 6-pack meter stack on the end of a townhouse with 6 service disconnects, that is still one service that feeds the meter packs. I am not sure 230.2 affects this.

I was responding to:

The utilities do not want 6 separate meter locations

That's why I was saying code requires this. It's one building, you can only have one service. You're going to have to have feeders running to each unit. How are you going to get those feeders to each unit without going through, or at least on, another unit?

 

[wwhitney]

230.2 Number of Services. A building or other structure
served shall be supplied by only one service unless permitted
in 230.2(A) through (D)...

But you could have an 8 unit townhouse, with a single service that supplies 8 sets of service entrance conductors per 230.40 Exception No 1. So each unit could have its own meter mounted on the unit.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[jar546]

I was responding to:

That's why I was saying code requires this. It's one building, you can only have one service. You're going to have to have feeders running to each unit. How are you going to get those feeders to each unit without going through, or at least on, another unit?

Now I see your angle.

For all intents and purposes, even lately, including one of the newer (less than 10-year-old) townhouses I lived in that was an apartment, each townhouse had its own electrical service meter/disconnect on the front of the unit. It just makes sense and eliminates a lot of headaches down the road as a developer or landlord. I did, however, about 6 years ago, do an inspection out in the Glades in south Florida (where alligators are afraid too), where they put all of the services at the end of one of the townhouses. They were apartments all on one lot, and since they were slab on grade, the feeders were in conduit under the slab.

 

[Genduct]

230.6 Conductors Considered Outside the Building. Conductors shall be considered outside of a building or other structure under any of the following conditions:
(1) Where installed under not less than 50 mm (2 in.) of concrete beneath a building or other structure
(2) Where installed within a building or other structure in a raceway that is encased in concrete or brick not less than 50 mm (2 in.) thick
(3) Where installed in any vault that meets the construction requirements of Article 450, Part III
(4) Where installed in conduit and under not less than 450 mm (18 in.) of earth beneath a building or other structure
(5) Where installed within rigid metal conduit (Type RMC) or intermediate metal conduit (Type IMC) used to accommodate the clearance requirements in 230.24 and routed directly through an eave but not a wall of a building

I think ICE nailed it down
The real issue is having the Feeder ( or is it really the service) for the unit accessible to "Others" who may feel that they could "Bootleg"" a connection for some electric use Paid By Others"All of the options cited in ICE's list make it difficult to tamper with someone else's electric.
If there was a problem and the separate service had a problem then the conductors in conduit, could be pulled back out, without having access to someone else's Property or unit

This also proves how difficult the NEC is to discern their intent or the reason behind the Code passage. It is a Building Code and concerns about ownership, like Condo (with an HOA) or Fee Simple and do you have an easement or any other Legal concerns that some attorney charges $400 per hour to figure it out should not be considered as having 1st place. all Codes are based on SAFETY to include Public safety. It has been like that for several hundred years in English Common Law. Hence Police Powers ( minus the guns) The Great London Fire may have been the real beginning of codifying the rules we use to build stuff

The list that Ice shared seems to answer those concerns. Well Done