• 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

10 SFR homes on 1 lot as rental units & Accessibility

jar546

jar546

Forum Coordinator
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
11,063
Location
Somewhere Too Hot & Humid
If you have one lot that has 10 SFRs planned specifically as rental units, not to be sold (no separate PCNs) what accessibility requirements would apply, if any?

Oh, they are all 4 stories. I just added this info.
 
Last edited:
Are they built as SFR under the IRC? If so, no requirement for accessibility is required by IRC Section R320.1.

My only question is in that you mention rental units. If they are transient lodging, then it may be a hotel/motel situation, which get's an answer out of the IBC that is a bit different.

2018 IRC Section R320.1 Scope
Where there are four or more dwelling units or sleeping units in a single structure, the provisions of Chapter 11 of the International Building Code for Group R-3 shall apply.
 
Last edited:
In CA it would fall under CBC (not CRC) and the would have to follow chapter 11A housing accessibility. To the best of my knowledge anyways...
 
If in the scope of the IRC then no accessibility. IRC does not say anything about lots as far as I know. In PA their is a loophole, if no one actually lives there or gets mail there you can call them a "Vacation Cottage" and not need a permit or any inspections.
This loophole was originally made for simple hunting cabins but some mansions were built this way. Just need to fill out a form, not have a mail box, need a portable fire sprinkler and smoke alarm and your set. But you could never sell it as a SFD. Must stay a Vacation Cabin forever.
 
Joe.B said:
In CA it would fall under CBC (not CRC) and the would have to follow chapter 11A housing accessibility. To the best of my knowledge anyways...
Click to expand...

True, but even then, if if was privately funded and they were all detached single family residences, then none of them could be considered a "covered multifamily dwelling" requiring accessibility. See 1120A.1 item #1.

Jar546, can you confirm that (a) none of the SFRs are considered public housing, and (b) they are all physically detached from each other?
 
Rick18071 said:
If in the scope of the IRC then no accessibility. IRC does not say anything about lots as far as I know. In PA their is a loophole, if no one actually lives there or gets mail there you can call them a "Vacation Cottage" and not need a permit or any inspections.
This loophole was originally made for simple hunting cabins but some mansions were built this way. Just need to fill out a form, not have a mail box, need a portable fire sprinkler and smoke alarm and your set. But you could never sell it as a SFD. Must stay a Vacation Cabin forever.
Click to expand...
Only in PA!?
 
Yikes said:
True, but even then, if if was privately funded and they were all detached single family residences, then none of them could be considered a "covered multifamily dwelling" requiring accessibility. See 1120A.1 item #1.

Jar546, can you confirm that (a) none of the SFRs are considered public housing, and (b) they are all physically detached from each other?
Click to expand...
I cannot confirm that this is or is not public housing but the area it is in leads me to believe this is an investment property. In Florida, for example, you are not considered a Townhouse unless you are on your own lot. The code is silent for single-family residences.
 
jar546 said:
I forgot to mention these are all 4 story SFRs.
Click to expand...
4 stories homes are out of the scope of the IRC. These would be R-3 in the IBC. No accessibly required per 1103.2.3 even if used for transient:

1103.2.3 Detached dwellings. Detached one- and two-family
dwellings, their accessory structures and their associated
sites and facilities are not required to comply with
this chapter.

DWELLING. A building that contains one or two dwelling
units used, intended or designed to be used, rented, leased, let
or hired out to be occupied for living purposes.
 
Yikes said:
True, but even then, if if was privately funded and they were all detached single family residences, then none of them could be considered a "covered multifamily dwelling" requiring accessibility. See 1120A.1 item #1.
Click to expand...
I see how they might avoid accessibility requirements within the buildings by not being multifamily, but I think the overall site would still require accessibility features, if it were in CA anyways. 1.9.1.2 Application - See Health and Safety Code commencing with Section 19952. "All privately funded public accommodations, as defined, and commercial facilities, as defined, shall be accessible to persons with disabilities as follows..."
 
No clear on what SFR is but glean that this is a four story residential like structure? Also don't understand if each story is one dwelling unit or if there are four dwelling units in each structure? maybe send a sketch of what you mean? If this is more that four dwelling units like a R-3 apartment structure then all ground floor units will be covered by the fair housing act which is a federal law. if there is an elevator going from the ground to the fourth floor then all of the units will be covered by the fair housing act. If it is publicly funded by federal, state, county, funding even if just one dollar the dwelling units will also require a percentage to be in ANSI A117.1 compliance. This is all regardless of what state laws are in effect for disabled unless they are more stringent.
 
The fair housing act guide (FHAG) states: "Page 9495 right column - Costs of Adaptation - Comment A few commenters requested clarification on who incurs
the cost of making a unit adaptable for a disabled tenant.
HUD FHA Response. All costs associated with incorporating the new design and construction requirements of the Fair Housing Act are borne by the builder.
 
Joe.B said:
I see how they might avoid accessibility requirements within the buildings by not being multifamily, but I think the overall site would still require accessibility features, if it were in CA anyways. 1.9.1.2 Application - See Health and Safety Code commencing with Section 19952. "All privately funded public accommodations, as defined, and commercial facilities, as defined, shall be accessible to persons with disabilities as follows..."
Click to expand...
The obvious question is, what portion of a private housing development is a "public accommodation"?
CBC 202 defines "PLACE OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION" as "A facility operated by a private entity whose operations affect commerce and fall within at least one of the following categories:".
It goes on to list 15 categories, none of which are applicable to single family residences.

That said, if one of the homes becomes a "model home" for purposes of attracting renters and/or signing leases, then the model home could fall under category 5 of 15 which is "other sales or rental establishment". I believe the same concept applies to ADA Standards for model homes in Florida (see post #1).

1647034664846.png
1647034679760.png
 
Sidewalks? Bus stop? Mail? Crosswalks? When you have a that many homes there must be some public ROW right?
 
Joe.B said:
Sidewalks? Bus stop? Mail? Crosswalks? When you have a that many homes there must be some public ROW right?
Click to expand...

Key word is PUBLIC ROW. If the sidewalk, bus stop, crosswalks, etc. are in the public right-of-way, then it becomes a city-owned ADA issue.
If the developer is dedicating and improving a public ROW, then yes, the city has the right (and responsibility) to make sure the improvements in the public ROW comply with ADA.
 
Joe.B said:
In CA it would fall under CBC (not CRC) and the would have to follow chapter 11A housing accessibility. To the best of my knowledge anyways...
Click to expand...
This is incorrect. The CBC 11A only applies to buildings with 3 or more dwelling units. 1102A.1.1
 
You may double check if your state or local jurisdiction has any requirements. There are no federal requirements for single family homes (ADA or FHA) unless they are receiving federal funding than Section 504 / UFAS will kick in. The IBC / ICC A117.1 only applies to buildings with 4 or more dwelling units (inline with the FHA). If in California, that 3 or more dwelling units. The only accessibility requirements are what state and local jurisdictions may require. The State of CO has Title IX, Article 5 where if more than 6 dwellings units are provided on the entire development (doesn't matter if they are single family or multi-family) then a portion of the dwelling units must meet certain requirements.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top