• 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

Condo conversion requirements?

J

james245

Registered User
Joined
Jul 14, 2016
Messages
18
Location
Florida
Hello everyone,

Our client is looking at a typical, existing three-story, wood-framed, non-sprinklered, 24-unit apartment building, surrounded by an expanse of parking lot on all sides, that was originally constructed in the late 80's in central Florida. It has open, common hallways and stairways serving each of the 12 units on either side of the building (two total). It is my understanding that, along with the original construction, attempts were made at providing separation between units (i.e., gyp. board can be seen in the attic along the length of the building, dividing it in half, and also along the width of the building, dividing it in half). It was reportedly converted to condos around 2005, but no official paperwork/permits/etc. were ever completed with the building department, at that time. They are curious as to what all of the building code requirements would have been, at that time, for the condo conversion to occur.

I am relatively new to this, but I thought it would be a good idea to do a bit of investigation first. This was an R-2 occupancy (apartments) and was being converted to an R-2 occupancy (condos), so no change of occupancy. There are no repairs, alterations, or additions occurring either. So, if I understand it correctly, the Existing Building Code would not come into play, in this instance.

My question is, then, assuming the building had no deficiencies at the time of its initial construction, and no existing deficiencies at the time the conversion occurred (I know... big assumptions), what specifically would have been required to have been done to the building for the conversion to occur (i.e., fire sprinklers, one-hour walls between all units, two-hour walls between all units, additional noise insulation, independent utility meters, etc.)? Are the only changes that needed to occur related to the Fire Code, or would other codes come into play as well?

Thanks in advance for your assistance.
 
Last edited:
Understood...

According to the property appraiser, the units all have different parcel ID's, and each of the units have been sold to different owners, some multiple times, since the date of the conversion... if that helps one way or the other.
 
To expand on steveray's creation of property lines separating one unit from another are not lot lines but lines indicating the limits of ownership. As such, wall constructed on line separating condominion ownership would not need to be fire (or party) walls.

When the dwelling unit is located on a separate parcel of land, lot lines defining the parcel exist and the requirements for fire separation must be met.
 
Different parcel ID's would indicate that the "dwelling unit is located on a separate parcel"... correct?
 
Yes...lot lines is the correct IBC terminology...The parcel ID might be an assessor's term which may not reflect a legal "lot line"...But it does make things more complicated to decipher...
 
Condominium is a form of ownership, not a type of occupancy (per se).
Since each unit is owned individually, each unit owner pays property taxes on their portion of the building, but...
There are also 'common' portions involved that typically are assessed to a Home Owners Association (the stairs, common hallways, grounds surrounding the buildings, etc.). Those taxes are normally paid for via HOA fees/dues that each owner pays to the HOA.
Can't speak for Florida but here in NYS there are a number of legal filings to create a condominium and HOA. The intent is to protect the individual unit owners from the HOA and to protect the HOA from individual owners. The laws also provide for means and methods to resolve disputes, etc. via a prospectus that is an integral part of the process.
Sounds like your municipal attorney needs to weigh in.
 
JBI, thanks for your response. I wasn't actually concerned about "legal filings", per se... just the requirements for the physical building.

So, if I understand it correctly, if there is a legal "lot line" between them, we would be looking at something like Table 602, which would require a one-hour "fire-resistance rating" because the "fire separation distance" is less than five feet... and, I am assuming, also looking at something like Section 711, which would also require a one-hour rated horizontal assembly (on the ceiling) between adjacent units?

Anything else? For example, what about around the corridors (breezeways) on either side of the building, and their associated stairways (i.e., means of egress)? Additionally, would there be requirements for more noise insulation, or independent utility meters?
 
There won't be 'lot lines' as that term is defined/used in the Codes. For one thing you can't put a 'lot line' horizontally between first and second floor units, only vertically.
Each owner only owns/controls their individual unit (the term 'in fee simple' is commonly used), while the 'property' is owned by the HOA (held in 'common ownership').
Simply view it as an R-2, Permanent Multiple Dwelling, for Building Code purposes they are not really much different than an apartment building.
 
james245 said:
Understood...

According to the property appraiser, the units all have different parcel ID's, and each of the units have been sold to different owners, some multiple times, since the date of the conversion... if that helps one way or the other.
Click to expand...
 
Well sounds like the answer has already been answered.

If this building is located in s city/county/state that has an adopted building code.

They should have been involved in the conversion process and looked at any code issued than.


Have you done an open records request for any paperwork on this property??
 
The jurisdiction has essentially reported that they were not "involved in the conversion process, and [did not look] at any code issues then". That's part of the reason why this exercise is being undertaken now.

We have not formally done "an open records request"; however, in speaking with two different individuals in permitting, they are unable to find any information/paperwork documenting that the condo conversion occurred. That being said, online permitting information refers to units in the building as an "apartment" prior to the date of conversion, and as a "condo" after the date of conversion.

Still a bit confused, though, based on the above responses. Again, per my prior posts,

1. Would it be correct that one-hour vertical and horizontal rated assemblies are required between the individual units?

2. With respect to the breezeways between units, would anything need to be done above and beyond what is necessary for apartments?

3. Would there be any additional requirements, such as noise insulation upgrades or individual utility meters?

Thanks again for your responses.
 
Still a bit confused, though, based on the above responses. Again, per my prior posts,

1. Would it be correct that one-hour vertical and horizontal rated assemblies are required between the individual units? Yes the same requirement for apartments when the building was constructed not the current code requirements. The condo conversion does not trigger code updates.

2. With respect to the breezeways between units, would anything need to be done above and beyond what is necessary for apartments? No

3. Would there be any additional requirements, such as noise insulation upgrades or individual utility meters? No and utility meters should have been covered in the condo documents.

Don't get to hung up on this. The code considers it an R-2 occupancy regardless of the condominium association ownership documentation
 
Ok... so it sounds like the short answer is, if there were no existing deficiencies, nothing needs to be done.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JBI
Sounds like the city knows something???


Looks like should have been involved in dividing up ownership? Not building code wise, but other city paperwork wise.


Is there a hoa or owner of the common areas ??

Not sure why sprinklers should not have been required.
 
This is a state real estate law issue, condo conversions typically require compliance with a state mandated process. This assumes that as previously noted that this is change of ownership issue. It basically required the filing of a Tract map identifying the individual units and HOA documents.

There is an HOA, no?

What of title reports for changes of ownership of individual units and the inclusion of HOA requirements?
 
I can't go into too much of the specifics, related to our involvement, other than we are working on behalf of the owner.
 
If it has been a legal condo since 2005

Sounds like you are good to go

Trying to sell it or in the process and buyer has code questions.

Suggest you pay a building consultant to study the property and dig through paperwork ,,,,

Money well spent !!!!!

Without seeing the property and knowing the rules in that area, hard to give a good answer.
 
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0718/0718.html

718.507 Zoning and building laws, ordinances, and regulations.—All laws, ordinances, and regulations concerning buildings or zoning shall be construed and applied with reference to the nature and use of such property, without regard to the form of ownership. No law, ordinance, or regulation shall establish any requirement concerning the use, location, placement, or construction of buildings or other improvements which are, or may thereafter be, subjected to the condominium form of ownership, unless such requirement shall be equally applicable to all buildings and improvements of the same kind not then, or thereafter to be, subjected to the condominium form of ownership. This section does not apply if the owner in fee of any land enters into and records a covenant that existing improvements or improvements to be constructed shall not be converted to the condominium form of residential ownership prior to 5 years after the later of the date of the covenant or completion date of the improvements. Such covenant shall be entered into with the governing body of the municipality in which the land is located or, if the land is not located in a municipality, with the governing body of the county in which the land is located.
History.—s. 1, ch. 76-222; s. 6, ch. 80-3.

If you are a local AHJ you have no say in how ownership is defined and you can not impose a regulation upon a condo that you would not be placed upon an apartment complex that changes ownership.
 
Read between the lines gang, it could be that the seller performed some un-permitted or no HOA prior approval work that a buyer has found to be not up to code. Maybe it was pointed out by a home inspector.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top