• 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

18" absolute toilet measurement in FHA?

Y

Yikes

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Messages
3,062
Location
Southern California
2010 ADAS 604.2 allows 16-18" from CL of toilet to a side wall.
CBC 11B-604.2 allows 17-18", which is what we typically show on our plans. This gives the installer ± 1/2" of construction tolerance.

However, the FHA Design Manual page 6.5 (see below) says 18" is an "absolute" (the minimum and the maximum), leaving 0.0" for tolerance!
Does this mean that any installation that is off by say, the width of a human hair, is in violation of the Fair Housing Act?

1648599098075.png
 
That is because the FHA Design Manual was last revised in 1998--a lot has changed since then.

The CFR considers compliance with ANSI A117.1-2009 to be in compliance with the Act along with the IBC (up to the 2018 edition) as a safe harbor document. My suggestion is to forget the FHA Design Manual (which is not written in a mandatory language like a standard or code and is very much outdated) and comply with the IBC and ANSI A117.1, which do allow tolerances.
 
The Massachusetts Architectural Access Board, the governing regulation for accessible in MA public buildings dimensions between 2 inches and 36 inches is 1/2 inch 521 CMR 2.4.4 b.
 
Yikes said:
Does this mean that any installation that is off by say, the width of a human hair, is in violation of the Fair Housing Act?
Click to expand...
Only if the inspector is very anal, or you made him made!! ;)

I personally will give up to 1/2, maybe an inch. Some time the plbg. is of a little to. I like to be a little flexible but other are not.
 
RLGA said:
That is because the FHA Design Manual was last revised in 1998--a lot has changed since then.

The CFR considers compliance with ANSI A117.1-2009 to be in compliance with the Act along with the IBC (up to the 2018 edition) as a safe harbor document. My suggestion is to forget the FHA Design Manual (which is not written in a mandatory language like a standard or code and is very much outdated) and comply with the IBC and ANSI A117.1, which do allow tolerances.
Click to expand...
The CASp says the CFR did not make ANSI A117.1-2009 a safe harbor until 3/8/2021, so any project designed prior to that has to follow FHA.


my250r11 said:
Only if the inspector is very anal, or you made him made!! ;)

I personally will give up to 1/2, maybe an inch. Some time the plbg. is of a little to. I like to be a little flexible but other are not.
Click to expand...
It's not necessarily a building inspector issue; it a question of liability for FHA lawsuits.
 
So where do you measure from. What if the tile baseboard projects little pass the wall or anything else projecting from the wall like a baseboard heater or a windowsill?
 
my250r11 said:
Only if the inspector is very anal, or you made him made!! ;)

I personally will give up to 1/2, maybe an inch. Some time the plbg. is of a little to. I like to be a little flexible but other are not.
Click to expand...
Don't forget the lawyer that will eat you alive. There is generally no tolerance unless specifically noted when it comes to accessible features either from a local or state, or using the ADA manual. Install and design wisely!!
 
bill1952 said:
So FHA sort of rules out the foldable rails with more space between wall and toilet?
Click to expand...
No, the FHA design manual still allows a fold-down bar when the toilet is not next to a wall.
The thing is, FHA does not define how far away a toilet has to be from a side wall in order to not be considered as "next to" the wall.
20 inches? 20 feet?
The FHA Design Manual is well-intentioned, but when it was crafted it I don’t think they anticipated the extent to which it could be manipulated in the extreme by lawyers looking to shake down owners and builders.
 
18" absolute is the safest option. I could argue that 18" min is allowed dependent on the scenario. I cannot argue for 16"-18" (or 17"-18" if in CA) if the FHA applies though. This is a key area where the most stringent applicable standard should be followed. The FHA also provides zero discussion on tolerances so you have to assume that no tolerance is allowed (which is dumb also).

History: So when 18" was written back in the 80's, we did not have these lawsuits that we have today. No one understood what liability they were creating. Absolute dimensions create lawsuits. Up until the 2016 CBC 11A (I believe), it also said 18" absolute but has been revised to be 17"-18" to try and help but it's null until HUD updates. All dimensions should state a minimum, maximum, or provide a range like 16"-18". Very few absolute dimensions are left in standards that have been updated. Transfer showers are still 36"x36" hard dimensions.

Drive-by litigators will stick to 18" absolute because it's easy to win. I also know some people hired by HUD to review a complaint will review for 18" absolute, but some allow for 16"-18". Here are two lawsuits from 2020. US v. Epcon Communites (https://www.justice.gov/crt/case/united-states-v-epcon-communities-llc-sd-ohio): it calls out toilets not being 18" from adjacent side wall, in accordance with the Guidelines. But here is another one US vs. Atlantic Development Group (https://www.justice.gov/crt/case/united-states-v-atlantic-development-group-llc-sdny-0): it states that the fix for toilets should be to locate them 16"-18" from a side wall. So same year, different reviewers for HUD/DOJ, different interpretations.

Where to measure from? Always the edge of the furring wall of the bathtub (typical Spec A bathrooms; diagram on FHADM 7.36); not the edge of the bathtub. The idea is that if you do not have a side wall for a grab bar then you need the rear wall space for the tilt up grab bar. The wall mounting plates for tilt up grab bars are typically 4"x12". If you measure from the bathtub then you will not get the flat rear wall space to mount the tilt up grab bar. You can also use other methods like floor mounted or not tilt-up grab bars but the location must always meet the Grab Bar Placement diagram on FHADM 6.7.

What about 18" min? The Guidelines mention 18" min and some diagrams in the FHADM state 18" min (FHADM 7.53, diagram 2; FHADM 7.55). Why do they switch back and forth? I believe the idea is that if side wall space is available for a 24" min grab bar (hopefully extending 36" min from the rear wall but not required) is provided then the toilet must be 18" from the side wall so the wall mounted grab bar is within reach. If no side wall is available then you are allowed 18" min in order to ensure there is space for the Grab Bar Placement diagram on FHADM 6.7. I believe the toilet clear floor described in Requirement 7 does not necessarily have to be 18" from a side wall, but the centerline of the toilet must ALWAYS be 18" exact from the clear floor area per Requirement 6.

All this said, 18" absolute is the least liable, safest option. You may be able to argue for 18" min (or try to argue for 16"-18" or 17"-18") but it's going to cost you a lot of money in lawyer and court fees. You have to weigh the cost and risk of a lawsuit vs. relocating some toilets.
 
I also meant to add that there were talks of updating the FHADM and it was in peer review but now I'm hearing that that has been shelved so I wouldn't expect an update to the FHADM anytime soon.
 
Access Specialist, thanks for the background. I agree that the people who first drafted the design manual intend for it to help people, not to be used in a predatory manner.
I've also heard (don't know if it's true) that when the previous administration put a 'hold' on the development of new regulations, it had the unintended consequence of halting reform efforts to make the regs better, including much-needed clarifications.

Of course, there is not such thing in the real world as an EXACT 18" from the wall. The rounded front edge of the toilet makes it impractical to take a tangential measurement at the apex of the compound curve.
Even then, there's Zeno's dichotomy paradox, where one can approach but never arrive at an exact point...

I'm sure there's a court case out there that has established a tolerance, and of course recent safe harbor declarations would certainly be string evidence in court. But the goal of most serial litigators is not to go to court, where they will lose a discussion of tolerances; their goal to extract a settlement and move on to the next victim. For that, all they need is a sufficient dispute on toilet measurements.
 
Yikes said:
Of course, there is not such thing in the real world as an EXACT 18" from the wall. The rounded front edge of the toilet makes it impractical to take a tangential measurement at the apex of the compound curve.
Even then, there's Zeno's dichotomy paradox, where one can approach but never arrive at an exact point...
Click to expand...
The 18" is to the centerline of the toilet.

If you're in a unit you can simply follow A117.1, 16"-18". I'll have to look it up but the section of federal rules which provide for A117.1 as a safe harbor has a section below it which states the A117.1 may be used exclusively INSIDE of units.

I still want toilets at 18" absolute (or slightly less) to avoid having to make the argument to anyone who might come along and challenge. The slightly less is due to a HUD opinion that dimension ranges cannot be violated but absolute dimensions may be within industry tolerance. A typical wall should be within 1/4" by steel or wood industry standards.
 
redeyedfly said:
The 18" is to the centerline of the toilet.

If you're in a unit you can simply follow A117.1, 16"-18". I'll have to look it up but the section of federal rules which provide for A117.1 as a safe harbor has a section below it which states the A117.1 may be used exclusively INSIDE of units.

I still want toilets at 18" absolute (or slightly less) to avoid having to make the argument to anyone who might come along and challenge. The slightly less is due to a HUD opinion that dimension ranges cannot be violated but absolute dimensions may be within industry tolerance. A typical wall should be within 1/4" by steel or wood industry standards.
Click to expand...
Agreed, but we are not dealing with the real world, we are trying to avoid dealing with serial litigants who don't care about the real world.
In their world, you can measure the centerline at the back of the toilet, and also measure it at the front, rounded potion of the toilet, in case it was installed every-so-slightly askew.
 
It's a problem when bureaucrats who have never designed or built anything write regulations governing design and building.
 
All good comments and background, words of warning . Thank you, it often comes down to the judge and state you are in.
 
ADAguy said:
All good comments and background, words of warning . Thank you, it often comes down to the judge and state you are in.
Click to expand...
Agreed, and I believe that with an absolute of 18: and guidance from ADA, a client in California could count on a successful defense of 17"-18" tolerance range. The problem is, my clients don't just want to win in court - - they want to not go to court in the first place. I think any 18" absolute dimension is an invitation to a nuisance lawsuit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top