• 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.

2024 IRC Existing Stairways

BN4537

BN4537

SAWHORSE
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
995
Location
Kansas
Section 318.7.9 of the 2024 IRC states, in it's entirety, that “Alterations to existing stairs shall not be required to comply with the requirements of this code where the existing space and construction does not allow a reduction in pitch or slope.”

And that is it. Nowhere does it specify, or adjacent sections specify, that the requirements of the code you are not required to comply with are limited to slope and head height.

As written, do you agree that this would mean that you could not enforce handrails, guardrails, risers with more than 3/8" variance, egress width, fire protection on the bottom of the stairs, etc.? That wasn't the intent, surely.

I am asking because we are going through code adoption and we could amend this section a little to meet intent without compromising other requirements.
 
BN4537 said:
As written, do you agree that this would mean that you could not enforce handrails, guardrails, risers with more than 3/8" variance, egress width, fire protection on the bottom of the stairs, etc.? That wasn't the intent, surely.
Click to expand...
Correct...they don't want you to have to blow the house apart to "fix" the rise and run....
 
  • Like
Reactions: SDS
BN4537 said:
As written, do you agree that this would mean that you could not enforce handrails, guardrails, risers with more than 3/8" variance, egress width, fire protection on the bottom of the stairs, etc.? That wasn't the intent, surely.

I am asking because we are going through code adoption and we could amend this section a little to meet intent without compromising other requirements.
Click to expand...

No, I don't agree. The intent is to not require a replacement stair to be a 7:11 stair where the original was an 8:9 stair. Keeping the new [replacement] stair within the existing footprint doesn't prevent providing compliant handrails, guards, protected soffit, and limiting variations in riser height to 3/8".

If that's not clear, then your jurisdiction probably should amend it in adoption.
 
It must just be me. "Intent" is not code, but at some point, a building official just needs to grow a spine and make the right things happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top