Demolish an existing tenant improvement back to warehouse

[Ana]

Here's my question: An existing building with B use group -office, that is being returned to the landlord after demolishing all the interior space back to become a large warehouse. Would this be considered Change of Occupancy from B to S2?

 

[classicT]

Yes, it would be.

2021 IEBC​

[A] CHANGE OF OCCUPANCY. Any of the following shall be considered as a change of occupancy where the current International Building Code requires a greater degree of safety, accessibility, structural strength, fire protection, means of egress, ventilation or sanitation than is existing in the current building or structure:

1. Any change in the occupancy classification of a building or structure.
2. Any change in the purpose of, or a change in the level of activity within, a building or structure.
3. A change of use.

 

[Ana]

Yes, it would be.

2021 IEBC​

[A] CHANGE OF OCCUPANCY. Any of the following shall be considered as a change of occupancy where the current International Building Code requires a greater degree of safety, accessibility, structural strength, fire protection, means of egress, ventilation or sanitation than is existing in the current building or structure:

1. Any change in the occupancy classification of a building or structure.
2. Any change in the purpose of, or a change in the level of activity within, a building or structure.
3. A change of use.

That's what I thought; it should be returned to its original use group, and then if another tenant leases it they might use it for a different use. Thanks so much!

 

[classicT]

That's what I thought; it should be returned to its original use group, and then if another tenant leases it they might use it for a different use. Thanks so much!

I mean, I wouldn't assign the Group S-2 just because it is a vanilla shell. It can remain a Group B until another use enters the space. Whenever it becomes occupied or utilized for a specific function, the applicable occupancy should be permitted.

 

[Ana]

I mean, I wouldn't assign the Group S-2 just because it is a vanilla shell. It can remain a Group B until another use enters the space. Whenever it becomes occupied or utilized for a specific function, the applicable occupancy should be permitted.

I'm returning the entire space as it was (S2 with B accessory (it used to have some offices as accessory -less than 10% of the total sf). I mean I'm demolishing the entire office/business use group, and rebuilding the previous small office space that it was when the client leased the building from the landlord. Do you think in my code analysis I can keep the use group as B? that would simplify things for sure.

 

[classicT]

I'm returning the entire space as it was (S2 with B accessory (it used to have some offices as accessory -less than 10% of the total sf). I mean I'm demolishing the entire office/business use group, and rebuilding the previous small office space that it was when the client leased the building from the landlord. Do you think in my code analysis I can keep the use group as B? that would simplify things for sure.

If it was a Group B once before, it is likely that it can go back to being a Group B.

 

[RLGA]

Since it sounds like you are converting it back to a storage occupancy with a business accessory occupancy, then it is a change of occupancy. I cannot see why changing the occupancy would be an issue.

However, if the building owner had no tenant, it would remain a Group B occupancy shell space until a new tenant is found. Then, the occupancy would be reclassified based on that new tenant's building use.

 

[steveray]

What are you storing that it is S2?

 

[Ana]

What are you storing that it is S2?

It's just an assumption. I took Low hazard storage as an assumption, and based on IBC 2018 it's S-2. I don't know what the Owner will be storing.

 

[e hilton]

If the LL doesn’t have a new tenant, why are you building new office space? Why not demo it back to vanilla shell and let the next occupant design it their way. Most i would do would be to build one restroom.

 

[classicT]

It's just an assumption. I took Low hazard storage as an assumption, and based on IBC 2018 it's S-2. I don't know what the Owner will be storing.

S-2 isn't as common as one may think. General storage is most often a S-1.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Removing some walls doesn't necessarily cause a change in use group/occupancy. The space currently has a certificate of occupancy as Use Group and Occupancy B - Business. IF you return it to empty warehouse space, you don't know what a future tenant might store in it, so it could be S-1 or it could be S-2. If you don't know who might rent it after the interior has been "restored," why change the occupancy classification at all right now? Reclassifying it out of B doesn't mean it automatically reverts to whatever it was before. That went away when the occupancy classification was changed to B.

We're dealing with this same situation with two older buildings in town right now. They are vacant, and new owners want to prep them for future [unknown] tenants -- possibly business, possibly small mercantile. We're allowing the alterations under the IEBC. My state modified the certificate of occupancy section of Chapter 1 in the IBC to provide for a certificate of approval for work not requiring a certificate of occupancy. So when the new owner/landlord completes the plain vanilla box preparation, we'll issue a certificate of approval. When a new tenant does their fit-out, then we'll issue a certificate of occupancy. If the new tenant is a different occupancy classification, the tenant fit-out work will have to comply with Chapter 10 of the IEBC.

 

[Ana]

Removing some walls doesn't necessarily cause a change in use group/occupancy. The space currently has a certificate of occupancy as Use Group and Occupancy B - Business. IF you return it to empty warehouse space, you don't know what a future tenant might store in it, so it could be S-1 or it could be S-2. If you don't know who might rent it after the interior has been "restored," why change the occupancy classification at all right now? Reclassifying it out of B doesn't mean it automatically reverts to whatever it was before. That went away when the occupancy classification was changed to B.

We're dealing with this same situation with two older buildings in town right now. They are vacant, and new owners want to prep them for future [unknown] tenants -- possibly business, possibly small mercantile. We're allowing the alterations under the IEBC. My state modified the certificate of occupancy section of Chapter 1 in the IBC to provide for a certificate of approval for work not requiring a certificate of occupancy. So when the new owner/landlord completes the plain vanilla box preparation, we'll issue a certificate of approval. When a new tenant does their fit-out, then we'll issue a certificate of occupancy. If the new tenant is a different occupancy classification, the tenant fit-out work will have to comply with Chapter 10 of the IEBC.

The space will be restored yes but in order to restore it we need to demo all the interior and re-build the small office space that was previously in it before the tenant moved in. The tenant had demolished the small offices area and built the layout according to his needs; that's why I'm thinking it's a change of occupancy from B use group to S with accessory B because it's not only dem- we're rebuilding as well.

 

[Ana]

S-2 isn't as common as one may think. General storage is most often a S-1.

OK. The building will still qualify under the same construction type, square footage and height etc if I use S-1 so then maybe I'll use S-1.

 

[Ana]

If the LL doesn’t have a new tenant, why are you building new office space? Why not demo it back to vanilla shell and let the next occupant design it their way. Most i would do would be to build one restroom.

Only because the LL wants to return it the way it was when they leased the space to the tenant.. They might just lease it again as is after the existing tenant leaves.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

The space will be restored yes but in order to restore it we need to demo all the interior and re-build the small office space that was previously in it before the tenant moved in. The tenant had demolished the small offices area and built the layout according to his needs; that's why I'm thinking it's a change of occupancy from B use group to S with accessory B because it's not only dem- we're rebuilding as well.

You're missing the point. If I understand the situation correctly, the existing building is classified as B- Business. What it might have been at some point in the distant past is irrelevant.

So now someone wants to tear down some walls, and build a couple of other walls. That, of itself, doesn't in any way mandate a change of occupancy classification. If the landlord wants to reclassify it as S-1, that's okay -- it's their option. But that adds compliance with Chapter 10 of the IEBC to whatever else the IEBC requires for the alterations. But suppose the landlord reclassifies it as S-1, and a prospective tenant wants to do something that might be classified as M, or perhaps H-3?

Are you the code official, or the design professional? Since it isn't necessary to reclassify the occupancy in order to make the alteration, I would want to know why do that? It seems to me that it would make more sense to hold off on reclassifying until a future tenant has been identified. In fact, it seems to me that doing anything other than gutting the interior might not be a great idea. We recently had a complex of three small speculative office buildings built, each designed with minimal interiors (a single unisex toilet room, an electric closet, and a janitor's closet). New we have plans for a tenant fitout of one of the buildings, and the first sheet of the plans calls for demolishing EVERYTHING the owner just built, so the tenant can configure the space to his needs.

 

[classicT]

You're missing the point. If I understand the situation correctly, the existing building is classified as B- Business. What it might have been at some point in the distant past is irrelevant.

So now someone wants to tear down some walls, and build a couple of other walls. That, of itself, doesn't in any way mandate a change of occupancy classification. If the landlord wants to reclassify it as S-1, that's okay -- it's their option. But that adds compliance with Chapter 10 of the IEBC to whatever else the IEBC requires for the alterations. But suppose the landlord reclassifies it as S-1, and a prospective tenant wants to do something that might be classified as M, or perhaps H-3?

Are you the code official, or the design professional? Since it isn't necessary to reclassify the occupancy in order to make the alteration, I would want to know why do that? It seems to me that it would make more sense to hold off on reclassifying until a future tenant has been identified. In fact, it seems to me that doing anything other than gutting the interior might not be a great idea. We recently had a complex of three small speculative office buildings built, each designed with minimal interiors (a single unisex toilet room, an electric closet, and a janitor's closet). New we have plans for a tenant fitout of one of the buildings, and the first sheet of the plans calls for demolishing EVERYTHING the owner just built, so the tenant can configure the space to his needs.

@Ana is the OP, so indicating that they are missing the point may be a little much.

Have you considered that it is the building owner and the terms of the lease that are pushing the rebuild/restoration of the space back to original conditions? I've dealt with owners that would do exactly that. They want the space returned to its original configuration, including the CO back to the original use.

Just because it doesn't make sense to code officials doesn't mean that the tenant is not caught up in the terms of the lease. Sure, the work may be unnecessary in your perspective (a perspective I agree with and understand), but I do not see any code reason why the OP should not be able to proceed. Yes, it could prove to be an unnecessary expense and effort, but if the building owner is holding this tenant to restoring both the space and the CO, it really doesn't matter.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

@Ana is the OP, so indicating that they are missing the point may be a little much.

The OP also seemed to think that rebuilding the interior as it was before the most recent tenant would automatically cause the occupancy classification to revert to S-2.

Have you considered that it is the building owner and the terms of the lease that are pushing the rebuild/restoration of the space back to original conditions? I've dealt with owners that would do exactly that. They want the space returned to its original configuration, including the CO back to the original use.

I certainly understood that the owner wants to building restored to what it was before. I did not consider that it might be the outgoing tenant making the alterations as part of their lease close-out. I'm not sure that it matters. Physical alterations do not automatically result in change of occupancy classification and, conversely, the occupancy classification can be changed without making physical alterations.

Just because it doesn't make sense to code officials doesn't mean that the tenant is not caught up in the terms of the lease. Sure, the work may be unnecessary in your perspective (a perspective I agree with and understand), but I do not see any code reason why the OP should not be able to proceed. Yes, it could prove to be an unnecessary expense and effort, but if the building owner is holding this tenant to restoring both the space and the CO, it really doesn't matter.

I never suggested that the OP should not be able to proceed. I just wondered if this is the best time to pursue either the reclassification or the alterations.