• 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.

New Build or Level 3 Alteration?

RLGA

RLGA

SAWHORSE
Staff member
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
3,646
Location
Phoenix, AZ
I have a hypothetical situation that coincidentally mimics an actual problem that a friend of mine is currently experiencing.

Suppose an existing home is demolished from the top of the slab up (i.e., slab and footings remain), and a new home is built upon the existing foundation. Would you consider this a new building (entirely subject to the IRC) or a Level 3 Alteration (i.e., work area is more than 50% of the building)?

Additional Information:
  • The IEBC allows, by exception, the use of the IRC or the IEBC for single-family detached homes.
  • All new work will comply with the IRC.
  • The size of the home (area and height) does not increase.
  • Structural materials will be virtually identical to the original structure (i.e., wood framing).
Thoughts?
 
Are you (theoretically) limited by electrical service, or any other utility? I'm not very familiar with the IEBC because up until about a year ago CA didn't adopt most of it. One thing that jumped out at me was allowances for existing utility design, at least off the top of my head. For example you may not have to do the two SABC's in the kitchen, or the dedicated 20amp laundry or bathrooms, depending on when it was built. Certainly, could avoid the EV charger, and the 240 GFCI's if that's an issue. If it were CA, the sprinklers might be a deal breaker too.
 
Joe.B said:
Are you (theoretically) limited by electrical service, or any other utility? I'm not very familiar with the IEBC because up until about a year ago CA didn't adopt most of it. One thing that jumped out at me was allowances for existing utility design, at least off the top of my head. For example you may not have to do the two SABC's in the kitchen, or the dedicated 20amp laundry or bathrooms, depending on when it was built. Certainly, could avoid the EV charger, and the 240 GFCI's if that's an issue. If it were CA, the sprinklers might be a deal breaker too.
Click to expand...
To my knowledge, utilities are not limited.

To add complexity to the situation, the "new building" status apparently triggers other zoning considerations that add cost to the project. Planning/Zoning is supposedly using the Building Department's "new building" determination as a basis for applying these additional zoning requirements.
 
New work complies with new construction, foundation can stay provided it sufficient to support the new construction
 
TheCommish said:
New work complies with new construction, foundation can stay provided it sufficient to support the new construction
Click to expand...
Would you consider this a straight compliance with the IRC or compliance with the IRC through the IEBC as an existing building?
 
RLGA said:
Would you consider this a straight compliance with the IRC or compliance with the IRC through the IEBC as an existing building?
Click to expand...

There is no existing building. You tore it down. There's nothing left to alter.

If you left even just the outside, perimeter walls you could try to pass it off as a level 3 alteration, but when there's nothing left but a slab -- then it becomes new construction.

Definitions (Phoenix 2024 IEBC):

[A] Alteration: Any construction or renovation to an existing structure other than a repair or addition.

[A] Addition: An extension or increase in floor area, number of stories, or height of a building or structure.

A] Repair: The reconstruction, replacement or renewal of any part of an existing building for the purpose of its maintenance or to correct damage.

[A] Existing Building: A building erected prior to the date of adoption of the appropriate code, or one for which a legal building permit has been issued.

[A] Existing Structure: A structure erected prior to the date of adoption of the appropriate code, or one for which a legal building permit has been issued.
Click to expand...

I haven't figured out why for alterations they mention existing "structures" while for repairs they talk about existing "buildings," and for additions they mention both. I'm sure there's a reason, but I'm not seeing it. Irrespective of that semantic puzzle, what you are describing doesn't appear to fit the definition of addition, alteration, or repair. So ... it's new construction.
 
steveray said:
Level 3 alteration and new meets new:

702.7​

New work shall comply with the materials and methods requirements in the International Building Code, International Energy Conservation Code, International Mechanical Code and International Plumbing Code, as applicable, that specify material standards, detail of installation and connection, joints, penetrations and continuity of any element, component or system in the building.
Click to expand...

Heh, heh --

Since there's nothing left except the slab, everything that will be constructed has to meet the IRC for new construction anyway so the question is moot. Nonetheless, I would not classify it as a Level 3 (or any other kind of) alteration, since there's nothing left to alter.
 
Yankee Chronicler said:
Heh, heh --

Since there's nothing left except the slab, everything that will be constructed has to meet the IRC for new construction anyway so the question is moot. Nonetheless, I would not classify it as a Level 3 (or any other kind of) alteration, since there's nothing left to alter.
Click to expand...
The foundation is part of the building....It is not a new building....Just like our radon requirements....Only new dwellings:

AF101.2​

All newly constructed detached one- and two-family dwellings and townhouses shall be provided with radon mitigation preparation.....

So when they replace the foundation, it would make a lot of sense to do the radon stuff, but I can't make them....
 
steveray said:
The foundation is part of the building....It is not a new building....Just like our radon requirements....Only new dwellings:
Click to expand...

1757475282274.png

You can't live, sleep, cook or eat in a slab. I remain of the opinion that if everything is removed down to the slab and foundation, anything you build on that foundation is new construction.
 
Yankee Chronicler said:
Doesn't apply. It's not (IMHO) an alteration.



That's a repair. By definition.
Click to expand...
So now you are saying they can put it back exactly like it was...Balloon framing and crazy knob and tube covered in insulation?

401.2 Repairs Compliance​

The work shall not make the building less complying than it was before the repair was undertaken.

I'll call it a Level 3 Alteration.....

Additionally, I would say repairs are limited to one part of a structure...When it is conveinient for me....

[A] REPAIR. The reconstruction, replacement or renewal of any part of an existing building for the purpose of its maintenance or to correct damage.
 
Let me add a twist here.

What if the home was in a zoning district that required certain site elements that were not required at the time of the original construction, and the ordinance grandfathered buildings that existed prior to the adoption of the ordinance? Would this be considered an "existing building" or a "new building" for the purpose of the zoning requirements?

Just so everyone understands, there was a habitable building before demolition began. The site was not purchased with only a slab-on-grade. The original permit was for significant demolition, but retaining some of the structure to incorporate into the new construction. However, the condition of the planned remaining construction apparently was compromised (I'm unsure of the condition, but I suspect termites, water rot, or both). The city is now referring to it as a "new build" and not an "existing building," and is subject to all the requirements of the IRC (even though it will allow the reuse of the slab and footings). Because the building department is calling it a "new build," the planning department now wants the site to comply with all the applicable zoning restrictions.
 
The new conditions for a "new build" was the situation I was imagining. So does the ordinance define either "new build" or "existing building"? I imagine if they did then the question wouldn't be being asked. If it doesn't then what metric do they use to make the determination? And is it arbitrary? FWIW, I am in the existing building camp, since a foundation is part of a building, and the IEBC doesn't define it with any percentages or specific elements. Sounds like the city is going to push their agenda, so if there is no defined language they will define it in favor of themselves, leaving little room for negotiation except for the legal kind. On the other hand, is leaving a foundation only simply a way to circumvent the rules, thereby leaving the city to aggressively deny that it makes it an existing "building" because they see it too often?

Either way, if it is not defined, it should be. I wish I could say I am surprised a governing body would either overlook the fact that it should be defined, or that they purposely didn't define it so they could move the goal posts to suit their agenda.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top