• 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.

Single Occ restrooms in lieu of multi

Y

Yikes

SAWHORSE
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Messages
4,338
Location
Southern California
I have an apartment complex with a community room for 97 occupants. There’s a possibility that outside/visiting groups may also use the community room.
My client is considered providing all single-occupancy restrooms in lieu of multi-user. Can I apply the fixture count as shown below per the California Plumbing Code?

Conventional multi user restrooms per CPC 422.1 for 48 females and 48 males:

Female restroom: 2 toilets, 1 lavatory, 1 diaper changing table; Male restroom: 1 toilet, 1 urinal, 1 lavatory, 1 diaper changing table
vs.
All unisex, all single occupancy restrooms:
Restroom 1: 1 toilet, 1 lavatory
Restroom 2: 1 toilet, 1 lavatory, 1 diaper changing table
Restroom 3: 1 toilet, 1 lavatory, 1 urinal
 
arwat23 said:
I do all unisex single-user for most of my projects. Only one jurisdiction has ever questioned it before, and it'll explicitly be allowed in the 2025 CPC.

View attachment 16534
Click to expand...
I guess my question has to do with proposing the actual number of fixtures, but they are in 3 bathrooms, not 4.

So in the multi-user restrooms per CPC configuration, 2 men and 2 women could be using toilets or urinals at one time.
In the single user version, only 3 people could use them at one time (because I’ve put a toilet+urinal in one single-user restroom.. Does that still meet code?

I really want it to, because California regs for requiring diaper changing tables make the multi-user, separate sex restrooms too big for the available space.
 
Last edited:
Yikes said:
I guess my question has to do with proposing the actual number of fixtures, but they are in 3 bathrooms, not 4.

So in the multi-user restrooms per CPC configuration, 2 men and 2 women could be using toilets or urinals at one time.
In the single user version, only 3 people could use them at one time (because I’ve put a toilet+urinal in one single-user restroom.. Does that still meet code?
Click to expand...

Obviously not.

Why put a urinal in a single-occupant toilet room? I've seen a lot of single-occupant toilet rooms, all around the world (not just in the U.S.). I can't recall ever seeing one with a water closet and a urinal.
 
Yankee Chronicler said:
Obviously not.

Why put a urinal in a single-occupant toilet room? I've seen a lot of single-occupant toilet rooms, all around the world (not just in the U.S.). I can't recall ever seeing one with a water closet and a urinal.
Click to expand...
California code allows a single occupancy restroom to have both a urinal and a WC, and it is not uncommon here.
 
Yankee Chronicler said:
Why put a urinal in a single-occupant toilet room? I've seen a lot of single-occupant toilet rooms, all around the world (not just in the U.S.). I can't recall ever seeing one with a water closet and a urinal.
Click to expand...
Some possible reasons:

Th urinal is most likely using less water than the water closet.

With a urinal, users do not need to lift the toilet seat.
 
To further explain my space constraints imposed by unique California regulations:
California has a Health and Safety Code 118506 that mandates installation of a baby diaper changing table in both men’s and women’s restrooms, or in a gender neutral restroom, that serves assembly and other public uses of 60 or more occupants.
This may not seem like a big deal if you are designing outside of California: hey just put a fold-down changing table in the huge accessible WC compartment.
But no, California also has 11B-226.4 which prohibits the table from being located in the accessible compartment in a multi-user facility.

Furthermore, many CASps will say that the table when folded down cannot obstruct required circulation clearances, and its ends must have a guard or other detectable warning for the visually impaired.
Now the changing table basically needs as much space as a sink, urinal or other fixture.
 
Yikes said:
I guess my question has to do with proposing the actual number of fixtures, but they are in 3 bathrooms, not 4.

So in the multi-user restrooms per CPC configuration, 2 men and 2 women could be using toilets or urinals at one time.
In the single user version, only 3 people could use them at one time (because I’ve put a toilet+urinal in one single-user restroom.. Does that still meet code?
Click to expand...
As long as you hit the minimum required number of fixtures, you're good. A urinal in a single-user restroom still counts towards the total even though one person will occupy the room with both fixtures.
 
Yikes said:
California code allows a single occupancy restroom to have both a urinal and a WC, and it is not uncommon here.
Click to expand...

California may allow it, but IMHO it's a waste of space. Unless the fixtures inside are separated by toilet partitions, the toilet room can't be counted as two fixtures, and installing partitions would require making the space even larger. So why do it? It makes no sense from a space utilization perspective. Regardless of whether or not there's a urinal in there, a single-occupant toilet room only counts as one fixture.
 
arwat23 said:
As long as you hit the minimum required number of fixtures, you're good. A urinal in a single-user restroom still counts towards the total even though one person will occupy the room with both fixtures.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree ... but I'm not in California, and California may view things differently.

[Edit to add} I forgot that California uses the UPC, not the IPC. Therefore, California probably is different.
 
The IPC and UPC are completely different. Not apples to oranges, more like apples to steak. And it not just CA, there are several holdouts:
1758152514327.png
As @Yikes stated, it's not uncommon. It's kind of funny. If you look for them, you'll find reports "showing" why one or the other is better. In reality, it's what you're familiar with. To us there are things that IPC allows that seem crazy. To you, a single occupant bathroom with both a toilet and a urinal seems crazy.

Check out this analysis, not sure I believe it, but it's interesting:
www.linkedin.com

IPC vs UPC: Engineering Analysis of Plumbing Code Compliance Systems

Executive Summary The choice between the International Plumbing Code (IPC) and Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC) significantly impacts engineering design parameters, construction costs, and system performance. Research indicates that regional authorities increasingly accept UPC specifications due to super
www.linkedin.com www.linkedin.com
 
Yankee Chronicler said:
I have to disagree ... but I'm not in California, and California may view things differently.

[Edit to add} I forgot that California uses the UPC, not the IPC. Therefore, California probably is different.
Click to expand...
It wouldn't be California if we did things the way the rest of the century did.

The current version of our plumbing code (2022 CPC / 2021 UPC) technically requires separate facilities instead of unisex with few exceptions (CPC 422.2). That's never been enforced as long as I've been working here. Only one jurisdiction pushed back on it, and they gave up when I explained why we had 8 single-user unisex restrooms (healthcare facility, client request). All the jurisdictions usually care about is hitting the fixture count. Seems they finally realized that and changed code the 2024 UPC / 2025 CPC to include language that explicitly allows this.

Hell, they don't even enforce the urinal requirement when we use single-user unisex restroom since CPC Table 422.1, note 6 allows AHJs to modify what's required. The only time we had push back on not having a urinal, we said "all the restrooms are single-user unisex restroom. We've received complaints from women about feeling uncomfortable when there's a urinal in those rooms (which is true, clients have received complaints). Since all the rooms can only be used by one person, we removed all urinals to make visitors feel more comfortable." Approved, no other questions asked.
 
Yikes said:
I have an apartment complex with a community room for 97 occupants. There’s a possibility that outside/visiting groups may also use the community room.
My client is considered providing all single-occupancy restrooms in lieu of multi-user. Can I apply the fixture count as shown below per the California Plumbing Code?

Conventional multi user restrooms per CPC 422.1 for 48 females and 48 males:

Female restroom: 2 toilets, 1 lavatory, 1 diaper changing table; Male restroom: 1 toilet, 1 urinal, 1 lavatory, 1 diaper changing table
vs.
All unisex, all single occupancy restrooms:
Restroom 1: 1 toilet, 1 lavatory
Restroom 2: 1 toilet, 1 lavatory, 1 diaper changing table
Restroom 3: 1 toilet, 1 lavatory, 1 urinal
Click to expand...
Some jurisdictions will allow an alternate occupant load analysis using CPC Table 4-1 occupant load factors. Would that change anything for you?
 
Here's what the 2025 CPC (eff. Jan 1, 2026) looks like:

422.2 Separate Facilities. Separate toilet facilities shall be provided for each sex.
Exceptions [Not adopted for OSHPD 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5):
(1) Residential installations.
(2) In occupancies with a total occupant load of 10 or less, including customers and employees, one toilet facility, designed for use by no more than one person at a time, shall be permitted for use by both sexes.
(3) In business and mercantile occupancies with a total occupant load of 50 or less including customers and employees, one toilet facility, designed for use by no more than one person at a time, shall be permitted for use by both sexes.
(4) Separate facilities shall not be required where rooms have fixtures designed for use by both sexes and the water closets are installed in privacy compartments. Urinals shall be located in a privacy compartment [BSC & DSA-SS], as defined, or separate private area and be visually separated from the remainder of the room.
Water closet and urinal compartments shall comply with sections 422.6 and 422.7 respectively.

422.2.1 Single Use Facilities. Single use toilet facilities, bathing facilities, and family or assisted use toilet facilities shall be identified with signage indicating use by either sex.

422.2.2 Family or Assisted-Use Toilet Facilities. Where a separate toilet facility is required for each sex, and each toilet facility is required to have only one water closet, two family or assisted-use toilet facilities shall be permitted in place of the required separate toilet facilities.

It's weird that the [BSC & DSA-SS] indicator is in the middle of a sentence, not sure if that's a typo. They usually issue an Errata in October to fix typos or other errors, so I'll be looking at that again.
 
Joe.B said:
(4) Separate facilities shall not be required where rooms have fixtures designed for use by both sexes and the water closets are installed in privacy compartments. Urinals shall be located in a privacy compartment [BSC & DSA-SS], as defined, or separate private area and be visually separated from the remainder of the room.
Water closet and urinal compartments shall comply with sections 422.6 and 422.7 respectively.

It's weird that the [BSC & DSA-SS] indicator is in the middle of a sentence, not sure if that's a typo. They usually issue an Errata in October to fix typos or other errors, so I'll be looking at that again.
Click to expand...
Not a typo (I think). Everything before the BSC & DSA-SS is directly from the UPC. UPC has no definition or requirements for "privacy compartments", while CPC does, but that definition only applies to BSC & DSA-SS. I think CA has some other law about what's required for unisex multi-user compartments that are specific to those state projects. I guess if your project falls outside of BSC or DSA-SS, your compartments can be different (standard compartments)?

CPC's definition of "privacy compartment" required floor-to-ceiling panels and floor to ceiling door, or full-height walls with a regular door. Given that CBC 11B-605.5.2 allows toe clearances in urinal compartments, and urinal compartments will only be used in unisex multi-user toilet rooms, I assume this "floor-to-ceiling" requirements is specific to state projects and is intentional.
 
Hey CA folks, check out this site:

Access Toolkit - Home

Access Toolkit - Disabled Access Software and Training
www.accesstoolkit.com
It is a paid membership site, but if you email them they will give you a free trial.
lynn@accesstoolkit.com
The guy who put all this information is a PE, CASp, and an active Building Official. He does teach some classes here and there, and they are fabulous. The reason I bring it up is he has some really good info on the new CA regulations for all-gender bathrooms. Such as:
1758216243659.png
1758216361694.png
 
Joe.B said:
Hey CA folks, check out this site:

Access Toolkit - Home

Access Toolkit - Disabled Access Software and Training
www.accesstoolkit.com
It is a paid membership site, but if you email them they will give you a free trial.
lynn@accesstoolkit.com
The guy who put all this information is a PE, CASp, and an active Building Official. He does teach some classes here and there, and they are fabulous. The reason I bring it up is he has some really good info on the new CA regulations for all-gender bathrooms. Such as:
View attachment 16550
View attachment 16551
Click to expand...
Well done, he seems to have picked up all the specific issues, including that the privacy compartments compel the additional 6” in width due to lack of toe space underneath the compartment panel.

Based on real-life experience, we would stumble on the placement of accessories: towel dispensers and trash bins located at door clearances. The only sire-fire way to avoid it is to either assume all such items will be 100% recessed into wall cavities, or to draw them on the floor plans.
 
Last edited:
Yikes said:
Well done, he seems to have picked up all the specific issues, including that the privacy compartments compel the additional 6” in width due to lack of toe space underneath the compartment panel.
Click to expand...
Is the floor-to-ceiling requirement applicable to all projects with muni-user all gender facilities or just state projects with those facilities? I ask because CBC 11B-605.5.2 exception and 11B-605.5.4 allows for toe clearances in urinal compartments, and I see no reason to use a urinal compartment unless it's in an all-gender multi-user restroom.

Want to make sure I'm not missing something that changes what I wrote in #17.
 
The way I read 11B-605.5.2, there are 2 types of urinal “compartments”:
A min. 60” wide compartment with toe clearance, which is NOT considered a “privacy” compartment for purposes of California all-gender multiuser restrooms;
A min. 66” wide urinal compartment which does not provide toe clearance, but has panels that go low enough that it qualifies as a “privacy” compartment for all-gender multiuser restrooms.

I agree that in separate sex multi user restrooms, it’s a waste of space to install urinal compartments.

My understanding is that all-gender multi-user restrooms in California must either (1) have pricey compartments for urinals (not toe space) or (2) have the urinals in a separate private area. I (subjectively) assume that “separate private area” means that other occupants not using the urinals should not have to travel past the urinals to reach the other fixtures or accessories.
 
Yikes said:
The way I read 11B-605.5.2, there are 2 types of urinal “compartments”:
A min. 60” wide compartment with toe clearance, which is NOT considered a “privacy” compartment for purposes of California all-gender multiuser restrooms;
A min. 66” wide urinal compartment which does not provide toe clearance, but has panels that go low enough that it qualifies as a “privacy” compartment for all-gender multiuser restrooms.

I agree that in separate sex multi user restrooms, it’s a waste of space to install urinal compartments.

My understanding is that all-gender multi-user restrooms in California must either (1) have pricey compartments for urinals (not toe space) or (2) have the urinals in a separate private area. I (subjectively) assume that “separate private area” means that other occupants not using the urinals should not have to travel past the urinals to reach the other fixtures or accessories.
Click to expand...
That's how I read it too.
 
arwat23 said:
Is the floor-to-ceiling requirement applicable to all projects with muni-user all gender facilities or just state projects with those facilities? I ask because CBC 11B-605.5.2 exception and 11B-605.5.4 allows for toe clearances in urinal compartments, and I see no reason to use a urinal compartment unless it's in an all-gender multi-user restroom.

Want to make sure I'm not missing something that changes what I wrote in #17.
Click to expand...
The way I am seeing it is this, in the 2022 mid-cycle amendment they added 422.2 Exception 4 (eff. July 1, 2024) with the [BSC & DSA-SS] qualifier meaning it's only applicable to state owned buildings. AHJ could choose to allow these to be applied to non-state-owned buildings if the local political climate leans that way.

The 2025 reads differently as I mentioned in post 16. This makes the new exception for All-Gender restrooms "available for use" without requiring special permission from the AHJ. As you mentioned, the definition of "privacy compartment" also has a [BSC & DSA-SS] designation, but I don't think of definitions as regulatory. I think the AHJ will have to decide how they would define "privacy compartment" for themselves. If this came across my desk, I would take the [BSC & DSA-SS] definition as informative and use that as my basis for determining compliance with 422.2, Exception 4.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top