1 building being split between 2 owners

[BSSTG]

Greetins all,

Here's the deal. We have a bank building in our downtown area that was built in the sixties. Some years later they enlarged the bank with an annex. Some time rolls along and the annex is no longer occupied by the bank but by a title company. Now they want to split the property up by replatting thereby separating the old from the newer sections of the building. Presently there is a doorway between the 2 sections. There are no firewalls, barriers, or anything else to separate fire areas. Both occupancies are obviously Group B.

I don't think any fire separation is neccessary since we are talking Group B and the building is not particurly large. Am I correct?

Thanks for the input folks

Byron

 

[Coug Dad]

Re: 1 building being split between 2 owners

To be considered as two totally separate buildings a fire wall or party wall would be needed to separate the two. In reality, they are looking to separate the buildings for tax and ownership purposes, but it would still be considered as one building from a building code standpoint. Typically, this is recorded on the deeds for both properties so future purchasers know that there is an attached condition and it could impact what they may be able to do with their property in terms of expansion or replacement. If the two buildings share any utilities, there would also need to be a joint use agreement spelling out who is responsible for the utilities and maintaining the building(s) in a code compliant condition.

Some code officials might opine that the two buildings must be fully separated with a fire wall. That is not always realistic and the code offers the avenue above to facilitate the separation. This approach is similar to what is done in covered mall buildings where the mall is owned by one developer and the anchor stores are independantly owned.

 

[cda]

Re: 1 building being split between 2 owners

so there will be a property line down the middle or somewhere??

what does your city say about that??

most utility companies want seperate services for each building/ space

waht does building code say about one building against another??? with a property line only between them??

in some other words would you let them build the same building today with the property line in the same place???

 

[texasbo]

Re: 1 building being split between 2 owners

Actually, in my opinion, I don't think this is a similar situation to a covered mall building. The code requires protection between anchors and the mall, and mall buildings have additional life safety features built in (sprinklers, smoke control, very wide, unobstructed exit paths, etc.) that your average old bank building with a property line slapped down the middle doesn't have.

Does the code assume an inherent risk between property owners? I think so. Otherwise, there would be no requirement for rated walls/protected openings based on distance to property lines, and there would be no Sec 705.1.1 Party Walls, requiring walls built on property lines to be built as fire walls with no openings.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Re: 1 building being split between 2 owners

Forget the property line and tell them to Condo the building no fire speration required.

 

[JBI]

Re: 1 building being split between 2 owners

Party wall. Seal the openings with rated construction.

If it were one owner on two lots maybe a different answer.

 

[brudgers]

Re: 1 building being split between 2 owners

Condo is the cheapest option.

Fee simple will open up a big can of cost-prohibitive wrigglers.

 

[north star]

Re: 1 building being split between 2 owners

mtlogcabin,

Wouldn't condo's require a re-zoning of the property ( i.e. - commercial to residential )?

I would be in the ' opining camp ' of fully separating the buildings, because of the

re-platting [ separating ] of the property. Also, if they want the benefits of ownership

and taxes, then install the required levels of protection and you can have it.

 

[brudgers]

Re: 1 building being split between 2 owners

"Condominium is a form of ownership not occupancy."

That's NFPA 101.

"The ick" could never write something that clear and concise.

Instead, they would publish a "Condominium Subdivision Code" and revise it every three years.

 

[texasbo]

Re: 1 building being split between 2 owners

mtlogcabin,

Wouldn't condo's require a re-zoning of the property ( i.e. - commercial to residential )?

I would be in the ' opining camp ' of fully separating the buildings, because of the

re-platting [ separating ] of the property. Also, if they want the benefits of ownership

and taxes, then install the required levels of protection and you can have it.

Condominium arrangements are commonly done with commercial buildings, and are a private sales/ownership arrangement that should have no bearing on the zoning/land use, unless you've got a really, really screwed up zoning ordinance.

Condo would be by far the best option in this situation.

 

[MarkRandall]

Re: 1 building being split between 2 owners

I agree with the condo concept. 1 lot, 1 building with two owners based on the condominium papers. 2 lots, 2 buildings and two owners is going to require fire walls and other upgrades which may be next to impossible to achieve in an existing building (achievable, but probably not feasible).

 

[Mac]

Re: 1 building being split between 2 owners

I just went through a similar procedure. Fortunately New York State has a code interpretation that allows just what I think you describe:

"One building with portions under separate ownership may remain in place over an interior lot line without the construction of a party wall"

An existing apartment house can be converted to HOA, without the need to provide rated walls or floors between the units.

 

[BSSTG]

Re: 1 building being split between 2 owners

Well it looks like a done deal. They are going to go the firewall route and replat. All utilities are being gone through to make sure they're separate. Fortunately, they already have separate water and sewer taps as well as electic meters. Phone lines need to be separated.

However, I still think it's a lot of trouble to go through and intuitively, I see that it serves no purpose other than to alleviate future occupancy issues and such.

I do need to make sure that required egress is not traversing through a doorway between the 2 tenant spaces that is going to be closed up as part of the firewall. Other than that, it should be ok.

BS

 

[texasbo]

Re: 1 building being split between 2 owners

Jeezus, this thread reminds me of some EPIC arguments I used to have on the old ICC boards with a gentleman from Minnesota or Wisconsin, or one of those other cold-ass northern states. It was a little unnerving; he wouldn't post for literally months, and then the topic would come up about somebody slapping a lot line down the middle of some old clapped out warehouse, I'd spout off my opinion, and he'd come swooping down out of the snowy northern skies, talons extended like a Code Eagle, and proceed to rip me apart.

Then you wouldn't hear from him again, sometimes a year or more, until a similar topic came up, and I posted my opinion. It was like his sole purpose was to argue that specific topic, and then only with me.

I'm telling you, it was spooky. I was almost afraid to respond to the O.P. this time around...