Elevator in a 3 story 1969 built property (Houston Texas). Aprox 300 units

[ApartmentGuy]

Greetings! We manage a 3 story older class C multifamily property in Houston Texas. There are about 300 units, split into 2 buildings (so ~50 units per floor in building 1, ~50 per floor in building 2). A 'garden style' complex with outdoor covered walkways in front of each units door.

When we bought the property (about a year ago), one of the two elevators wasn't working. The people who worked there said it never had worked since they've been there. Shortly after buying it, the other elevator stopped working. We had a few different companies come out but no one could give a straight answer on what was wrong or what it would take to fix (best guess is a transformer. There are several ground based ones on property).

Per the managers, no one really used it as it was slow and its only 3 floors anyway. We did have one older guy who lived on the 3rd floor that we offered a ground floor unit too but that's about all that was needed. Plus, since it's been about a year, a good % of those 3rd floor tenants have cycled out and obviously all new tenants know there isn't a working elevator.

Someone claiming to speak on behalf of the tenants (but not a tenant herself), who is a Human Services Community Health Worker, claims not having an elevator is a violation of the ADA. From my quick research (which sent me here), complying with ADA only needs to be done if you're doing a significant upgrade (we are not). She claims it was part of the code complaince when it was built (in 1969) so not working means the building is out of code. While I assume it was built as an amenity (such as a pool or a gym) in that you provide it because the cost to do so is more than accounted for by the increased demand for rental units and price you can charge because you have those amenities.

BUT, I also know we don't operate on a totally free market and there are laws that need to be followed. So I figured I'd come and ask people on here that are 1000x smarter than me on such issues.

Any help would be GREATLY appreciated.

PS: For what it's worth, if we were hearing from (existing or prospective) residents that it was a big deal, I'd likely bite the bullet and just spend whatever was needed to get it done. But if no one really cares (aside from this non resident person sending a 'demand' we fix it), there is no need to add that cost to the building which ultimately is reflected in rent.

 

[Jay Smith]

Apartments not provided by a public entity are not within the scope of ADA.

 

[e hilton]

Apartments not provided by a public entity are not within the scope of ADA.

Not sure ADA would apply anyway, the activist is claiming it was not built to code ... ADA didn't exist in 1969. And it’s not being renovated, so no trigger there.

 

[Access Specialist]

Is the project subject to Section 504? Has it ever received federal funding? Is the company you work for a housing authority? Or is the entire project 100% privately funded?

If it's privately funded and the leasing office is not located on the second or third floor then the ADA most likely does not apply to the elevator. Also FHA does not apply to the project either since it was built prior to 1991.

 

[BN4537]

ADA was signed into law in 1990, so it absolutely was not part of the original code at the time of construction. Not knowing all of the facts, I am skeptical that this individual knows what they are talking about, or has the wherewithal to do anything about it.

If they do, they will be able to prove who they are, what code section(s) you are in violation of, and how it applies to you. Shouldn't be a huge deal for them if they are legit...

 

[Joe.B]

I don't have a specific reference for you but generally speaking you're not allowed to reduce accessibility. The elevator was put in for a reason (what reason may not be known and doesn't really matter) and once it's there you're not supposed to remove it, or in this case let it fall into disrepair. Had this issue come up with an ADA parking stall. The building was built before it was required, they added it voluntarily, then thought they could remove it because it was never "required." They got in trouble and were required to put it back.

Also to the defense of the tenants who live there, it's unlikely anybody is going to complain for fear of retaliation, and it's no surprise that the manager is going to claim no one uses it or wants it. A more accurate way to see that statement would be that nobody cares enough to make a stink and will deal with it. What happens if someone who's currently fine without it then gets injured? Or what if a tenant has a disabled relative who wants to visit? Surely they would want/need it then. Also think about when people move in and out, wouldn't that be easier with a working elevator?

I agree 100% that if the elevator wasn't there because it wasn't required at the time it was built, it would not be required to be added, but the fact that's it's there and you'd simply rather not maintain it doesn't seem like it will fly. IMHO

 

[Yikes]

Apartment Guy:

1. Was the property was purchased and/or facility built in 1969 using federal funds?
2. Is the property currently being operated today on behalf of a public entity (city government, housing authority, etc.).
3. Is there any business be conducted on the upper floors? For example, is there an onsite rental or leasing office on the upper floors? Is there a meeting room on the upper floors that is rented out to the public for income?

If "no" to all the questions above, then ADA does not apply, and the whole site is considered "private housing".
Also, because it was built and occupied prior to 3/13/1991, the Federal Fair Housing Act Design Manual standards do not apply to any of the units or common areas.

Please reply and let us know what you found out.

 

[redeyedfly]

I don't have a specific reference for you but generally speaking you're not allowed to reduce accessibility. The elevator was put in for a reason (what reason may not be known and doesn't really matter) and once it's there you're not supposed to remove it, or in this case let it fall into disrepair. Had this issue come up with an ADA parking stall. The building was built before it was required, they added it voluntarily, then thought they could remove it because it was never "required." They got in trouble and were required to put it back.

Also to the defense of the tenants who live there, it's unlikely anybody is going to complain for fear of retaliation, and it's no surprise that the manager is going to claim no one uses it or wants it. A more accurate way to see that statement would be that nobody cares enough to make a stink and will deal with it. What happens if someone who's currently fine without it then gets injured? Or what if a tenant has a disabled relative who wants to visit? Surely they would want/need it then. Also think about when people move in and out, wouldn't that be easier with a working elevator?

I agree 100% that if the elevator wasn't there because it wasn't required at the time it was built, it would not be required to be added, but the fact that's it's there and you'd simply rather not maintain it doesn't seem like it will fly. IMHO

This is incorrect. Pending the answers to post#4 above, ADA does not apply to apartments. And it is too old for FHA to apply. There are no FHA requirements prohibiting reduction of accessibility anyway as long as you meet the code minimums.

OP: There are probably no code requirements for you to have an elevator. Three story walk-ups are built new right now all across the country. The tenant advocate does not know what they are talking about.

 

[Joe.B]

You're all probably correct, I live in CA and it's a whole other can of worms here. And yes, pending finding out why it was installed in the first place will probably answer the question.

 

[ApartmentGuy]

Is the project subject to Section 504? Has it ever received federal funding? Is the company you work for a housing authority? Or is the entire project 100% privately funded?

If it's privately funded and the leasing office is not located on the second or third floor then the ADA most likely does not apply to the elevator. Also FHA does not apply to the project either since it was built prior to 1991.

I don't even know what section 504 is. Never received federal funding. I don't work for a housing authority.

I'm just a normal guy that buys multifmaily properties and leases them out to tenants. Started buying single family homes. then I bought an 8 unit. And I've just grown from there. My target type of multifamily property to buy is the older 2 story "garden style" properties. most were built in the 60's and considered 'class C'. This is the only one that's 3 stories. All my others are 2 stories.

 

[ApartmentGuy]

Apartment Guy:

1. Was the property was purchased and/or facility built in 1969 using federal funds?
2. Is the property currently being operated today on behalf of a public entity (city government, housing authority, etc.).
3. Is there any business be conducted on the upper floors? For example, is there an onsite rental or leasing office on the upper floors? Is there a meeting room on the upper floors that is rented out to the public for income?

If "no" to all the questions above, then ADA does not apply, and the whole site is considered "private housing".
Also, because it was built and occupied prior to 3/13/1991, the Federal Fair Housing Act Design Manual standards do not apply to any of the units or common areas.

Please reply and let us know what you found out.

Thanks so much (to you and everyone else)

1) Really doubht it was built using federal funds. In the 60's, TONS of these apartments were built by developers.
2) No. It's just regular rental units. Like, we post them for lease on MLS, or Craigslist. The "Apartment for rent" type ads
3) No business on 3rd floors.

 

[ApartmentGuy]

You're all probably correct, I live in CA and it's a whole other can of worms here. And yes, pending finding out why it was installed in the first place will probably answer the question.

Couldn't the elevator have been built the same reason the pool was built? And the gym was built? And the fountians were installed? To make the overall property more desirable to renters and help keep it full and rents up?

As far as 'reasonble accomidations' if someone was using the elevator because of a disability and were on the 3rd floor we'd happily move them to the 1st floor.

 

[Joe.B]

I'm just a normal guy that buys multifmaily properties and leases them out to tenants.

That's a very interesting statement and seems like a pretty broad definition of normal. Just my opinion, but it seems like you should do a little more research on your own and learn about some of this stuff. Seems a bit wild to invest big money in something like this without researching it a little, or paying someone who knows. No offense intended, but you're coming to a forum like this looking for free answers on a big money project. You don't want to pay for advice, you don't want to pay for elevator repairs, I'm sorry but it I get the feeling you're just fishing for the answers you want.

 

[ApartmentGuy]

That's a very interesting statement and seems like a pretty broad definition of normal. Just my opinion, but it seems like you should do a little more research on your own and learn about some of this stuff. Seems a bit wild to invest big money in something like this without researching it a little, or paying someone who knows. No offense intended, but you're coming to a forum like this looking for free answers on a big money project. You don't want to pay for advice, you don't want to pay for elevator repairs, I'm sorry but it I get the feeling you're just fishing for the answers you want.

Thanks for the feedback.

I've been buying and running apartments for 15 years and this has never come up. There wasn't anything to research as I don't know what I don't know. Meaning I wouldn't have researched the issue as I didn't even know it was an issue to research.

It would be like if someone said "you know, the fountain you have on the property is 2.5 feet deep. Technically the code says any fountain over 2 feet deep needs to have a fence around it". That would catch me out of the blue and wouldn't have been something I ever looked into because I wouldn't have known it was something to look into. And there are an infinite number of things that might be an issue.

But you're right. Before hiring a team of lawyers to research the issue I decided to google and see if her complaint had merit. That google led me here where people were asking questions. So I thought I asked. I'll normally try to look online to see if I can figure something out before just hiring someone. Is that bad? I'd assume that's pretty common (otherwise sites like this wouldn't exist)

I'm not fishing for anything. If the answer is "Of course you need a working elevator for a 3 story apartment building" then I'd tell my team to just do it regardless of the cost. But if it's not a requirement, it's not something I want to do as it's not a cost I think the tenants want to shoulder (and at the end of the day all costs to operate a building are put on the tenants)

 

[ICE]

Well of course you need a working elevator for a three story apartment building. Okay there you go...now about that fountain....

 

[ApartmentGuy]

Well of course you need a working elevator for a three story apartment building. Okay there you go...now about that fountain....

LOL well played

 

[Joe.B]

Thanks for taking the feedback and you're absolutely right, this is a good starting point. Best of luck and keep us posted as you go, it will help us learn more too. I'm definitely curious as to why the elevators were installed in the first place.

 

[ApartmentGuy]

Thanks for taking the feedback and you're absolutely right, this is a good starting point. Best of luck and keep us posted as you go, it will help us learn more too. I'm definitely curious as to why the elevators were installed in the first place.

Isn't there a good chance the elevators were installed in the first place simply to make the property a more attractive rental? Same reason they install pools and a gym. Neither are a requirement. They're done to maximize the amount of rent people are willing to pay. But I see gyms closed in some properties as the cost of upkeep isn't worth the increase in rent. Same with pools. You can close your pool and gym no problem as there is no code requiring them. I was just wondering if there was something requing an elevator. From what I've seen it seems "no" but I'll keep trying to find out for sure.

 

[Jay Smith]

Random thought not related to accessibility, you might want to see what TDLR has to say about elevators being present but not maintained.

Laws and Rules | Elevator and Escalator Safety

A collection of Texas statutes, administrative rules, and proposed rules relating to the regulation of Elevator and Escalator Safety in Texas

www.tdlr.texas.gov

 

[Joe.B]

Isn't there a good chance the elevators were installed in the first place simply to make the property a more attractive rental? Same reason they install pools and a gym. Neither are a requirement. They're done to maximize the amount of rent people are willing to pay. But I see gyms closed in some properties as the cost of upkeep isn't worth the increase in rent. Same with pools. You can close your pool and gym no problem as there is no code requiring them. I was just wondering if there was something requing an elevator. From what I've seen it seems "no" but I'll keep trying to find out for sure.

The difference between an elevator and a pool or gym is that the elevator provides accessibility. When you're discussing whether something is required by building codes it matters when it was built. What was the code at that time. You can't go around to every building and update to the current code every three years. Built to code in 1976 is different than 1996, or 2026. You may know when the building was built, so you can look at the relevant codes. ADA and FHA type of requirements are different and separate from building code requirements, even though they are often intertwined.

This is important because very likely (in my opinion) there was a reason they added it, and I'd bet it wasn't just as a convenience or a reason to charge a higher rent. Maybe the building was in need of a major rehab and the owner at the time received some kind of public funding to do so. Adding the elevator may have been a condition of receiving that funding. If so there might be some existing CC&R or other conditional use regulation that required the elevator be installed and maintained. Who knows, and the fact that you don't know will not insulate you from liability if something comes up. Whoever this is threatening you with legal action may be right and it is certainly in your best interest to find out.

Based on the very limited information we have received here you've gotten several credible comments that maybe it's not required. If I were in your position I would want to know without question. 100% certainty will probably cost money, getting successfully sued will cost you a lot of money. question is which of those will cost you more than maintaining the elevator?

 

[e hilton]

My daughter lives in an apartment complex in San Antonio. Only about 10 yrs old. 3 floors. About 30 buildings of 24 units. Not a single elevator on the property.

 

[Access Specialist]

My daughter lives in an apartment complex in San Antonio. Only about 10 yrs old. 3 floors. About 30 buildings of 24 units. Not a single elevator on the property.

Yes, this is a very common design: 3-story walk ups. But this doesn't mean that an elevator is not always required. Joe B stated it well in his previous post. It sounds like an elevator may not be required but it is highly recommended that OP find out for sure and not through limited information provided to people on the internet.

 

[ApartmentGuy]

The difference between an elevator and a pool or gym is that the elevator provides accessibility. When you're discussing whether something is required by building codes it matters when it was built. What was the code at that time. You can't go around to every building and update to the current code every three years. Built to code in 1976 is different than 1996, or 2026. You may know when the building was built, so you can look at the relevant codes. ADA and FHA type of requirements are different and separate from building code requirements, even though they are often intertwined.

This is important because very likely (in my opinion) there was a reason they added it, and I'd bet it wasn't just as a convenience or a reason to charge a higher rent. Maybe the building was in need of a major rehab and the owner at the time received some kind of public funding to do so. Adding the elevator may have been a condition of receiving that funding. If so there might be some existing CC&R or other conditional use regulation that required the elevator be installed and maintained. Who knows, and the fact that you don't know will not insulate you from liability if something comes up. Whoever this is threatening you with legal action may be right and it is certainly in your best interest to find out.

Based on the very limited information we have received here you've gotten several credible comments that maybe it's not required. If I were in your position I would want to know without question. 100% certainty will probably cost money, getting successfully sued will cost you a lot of money. question is which of those will cost you more than maintaining the elevator?

Thanks again Joe. The buiding was built in 1969. It was not built or ever upgraded with public funds. There are no CC&R or conditional use.

I'll continue to work to find out for sure.

 

[Yikes]

Apartment Guy, if the tenant is claiming that the elevator was required by code back in 1969, thank them for their response, tell her you’ve searched but couldn’t find the applicable code in 1969, and ask her to provide a specific code citation and reference to enable further assistance.
Chances are you’ll get "radio silence".