• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Existing non-complying conditions (stairs)

N

nealderidder

Sawhorse
Joined
Dec 7, 2010
Messages
394
Location
Sacramento, CA
I've got an existing office building in CA, two stories, around 48k SF per story, type III-B. There are three existing exit stairs. No change in occupancy is proposed (was a B and will be a B).

The TI that we have permitted and under construction does not propose any changes to the existing stairs. We've got the exit width we need for the proposed uses upstairs (mostly B with a large training room classified as an A, it was tight but the width is OK).

We've got an inspector telling us that the existing stairs are not in compliance with current code (riser height, landing depth, handrail) and all need to be torn out and re-built.

I've always had the impression that an existing non-complying condition would be allowed to continue if it is not being altered (it isn't). I'm looking for the code provisions that gave me this impression and came up with the following, I'm paraphrasing:

101.4.2 (Existing Building Code): Occupancy of an existing building shall be permitted to continue w/o change except as covered by this code and the CFC...

104.10 - Wherever practical difficulties are involved...code official may grant modifications...

301.1 Exception 1 - Alterations (but we're not altering) complying with laws in existence at the time the building was built shall be considered in compliance unless building is undergoing more than a limited structural alteration (it isn't).

403.1 Stairs are not required to comply with 1011 where existing space does not allow reduction of pitch... If handrails are required to comply with 1011.11... they are not required to comply with 1014.6 for extensions...

Regarding accessibility - our path to the new spaces on the second floor is via an accessible elevator.

And per 410.6 exception 2 - Accessible MOE is not required in an existing building.

Any thoughts in general on when an existing non-complying stair that isn't being altered can be required to be re-built?

Thanks
 
In 30 years I have never had to rebuild any exit stairs in an existing previously approved building regardless of their deficiency with current codes.
 
Do the stairs comply with the the code in effect when the stairs were built? Have the stairs been modified between the time that they were built and now?

Did the inspector express a particular concern? Perhaps the A occupancy is large enough that a jacked up stairway is bothersome. There is a presumably educated, experienced inspector doing what inspectors do. An issue with stairs should not be discounted solely on the implementation of the building code.

I am more of a nuts and bolts guy so the design, layout and do we comply or not is above my pay grade. Were I wound up about a group of stairways I would write the correction and let the heavy thinkers sort it out. I am after all, quite busy with inspecting smoke and CO alarms.
 
Last edited:
ICE said:
Do the stairs comply with the the code in effect when the stairs were built? Have the stairs been modified between the time that they were built and now?

Did the inspector express a particular concern? Perhaps the A occupancy is large enough that a jacked up stairway is bothersome.
Click to expand...

I'm waiting on the builder to let me know exactly what deficiencies we're talking about. Will follow up when I get that info.
 
TheCommish said:
What are the current rise and run? what level of alteration is the project classified as? Is the building official considering

View attachment 6401
Click to expand...

Understood that an unsafe condition would trump everything else but these stairs can't be that out of compliance. I've been up and down them several times and they didn't "feel" out of compliance. They are 45" wide, have 80"+ headroom everywhere and the risers can't be more than a quarter inch off if anything. I'm trying to get the particulars now...

CA hasn't adopted chapters 7,8,9 of the Existing Building Code so I don't thin the Alteration Levels come into play.
 
@ ~ @ ~ @
" 45" you say? Sounds tight to me. How many sq. ft. per floor? "
Click to expand...

From Post # 1: I've got an existing office building in CA, two stories, around 48k SF per
story, type III-B. There are three existing exit stairs. No change in occupancy is proposed
(was a B and will be a B).

* & * & * & *
 
ADAguy said:
45" you say? Sounds tight to me. How many sq. ft. per floor?
Click to expand...

There isn't a lot of extra capacity but we do have three of these at 45" so we can get a pretty big crowd down the stairs. But this particular question isn't about capacity, the inspector is having issues with riser and tread dimensions.
 
If the building complies with the code in effect at the time it was permitted and the new occupancy would have been allowed under the original code then no change is required. An existing building in compliance with the code under which it was permitted cannot be deemed unsafe.

If there was a deficiency with respect to the original code then it should be allowed to be repaired per original code.

Let us assume that you live in California and contain an older home. Almost by definition the older building does not comply with the seismic design requirements for new buildings. Would your house be considered unsafe?
 
nealderidder said:
There isn't a lot of extra capacity but we do have three of these at 45" so we can get a pretty big crowd down the stairs. But this particular question isn't about capacity, the inspector is having issues with riser and tread dimensions.
Click to expand...


Does the inspector have a supervisor???

There is always the appeal process
 
Ice

Unreinforced masonry buildings and soft story wood buildings are exceptions provided for by the California Legislature. If you are considering other buildings please explain why they were considered unsafe and what state law allowed the local jurisdiction to require the upgrade.

In California there is a state law applicable to residential occupancies, which states that if the building was in compliance with the building code under which it was permitted the building cannot be forced to be upgraded unless the Legislature allowed it to happen. We have a problem in California where local jurisdictions enforce and adopt local amendments where they do not have the authority.
 
Thanks for the input on this. I had a conversation with the Building Official and he stepped in to correct the inspector. The existing stairs will remain as is.
 
I am working on a similar apartment project in CA and had the same comments from plancheck. The stairs are open risers > 4" but were allowed when the project was originally approved. We are welding and repairing some of the broken concrete treads and their steel supports. I cited Section 401 of CA Existing Building Code and they accepted that for the repair work and backed off of requiring the entire stair being rebuilt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top