• 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

Hotel/Boarding House Room Occupant Load

R

retire09

Silver Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2010
Messages
365
Location
Alaska
We have an old hotel that is now being occupied as a boarding house.

What code section can be used to set a maximum number of occupants per room?

The one person per 200 gross in table 1004.1.1 is for determining number and width of exits.

Would you also use that to limit the number of people in each room?

We have families of 5 staying in some of these 300 sf rooms.
 
The Building Code prohibits exceeding a maximum number of occupants based upon the available egress capacity or the number of plumbing fixtures. Comfort or convenience occupant loads are not set by the Building Code
 
IPMC if adopted

404.5 Overcrowding.

The number of persons occupying a dwelling unit shall not create conditions that, in the opinion of the code official , endanger the life, health, safety or welfare of the occupants.

404.6 Efficiency unit.

Nothing in this section shall prohibit an efficiency living unit from meeting the following requirements:

1. A unit occupied by not more than two occupants shall have a clear floor area of not less than 220 square feet (20.4 m2). A unit occupied by three occupants shall have a clear floor area of not less than 320 square feet (29.7 m2). These required areas shall be exclusive of the areas required by Items 2 and 3.

2. The unit shall be provided with a kitchen sink, cooking appliance and refrigeration facilities, each having a clear working space of not less than 30 inches (762 mm) in front. Light and ventilation conforming to this code shall be provided.

3. The unit shall be provided with a separate bathroom containing a water closet, lavatory and bathtub or shower.

4. The maximum number of occupants shall be three.
 
In the 12 IPMC they go back to giving a sq. ft. for bedrooms, thankfully. I had amended the 06-09 to reflect the language in the 03 edition, which is what is in the 12 edition.

Hard to enforce, but gives a guideline at least.

You could try and fall back on IBC Table 1004.1.1, Residential, 1 occupant per 200 gross floor area.
 
Some states, like CA, have laws that have a prohibition against limiting the number of occupants because it can discriminate against families with children.
 
Yes, enforcement is extremely problematic. Proving who "lives" anywhere would be challenging at best.

Is there anything that CA doesn't have a law on? :confused:
 
fatboy said:
Is there anything that CA doesn't have a law on? :confused:
Click to expand...
Anything identified, must be regulated or unregulated....Full time politicians feel they must regulate. This is why legislative bodies need to be part time. Members feel they have to constantly create new laws, and the result is nonsense....This includes the Feds
 
fatboy said:
Yes, enforcement is extremely problematic. Proving who "lives" anywhere would be challenging at best. Is there anything that CA doesn't have a law on? :confused:
Click to expand...
Wait a minute. The California law you are complaining about limits the sorts of laws which can be passed.

In other words, one law prevents laws which allow local yahoos to intrude into people's private lives...oh, wait, now I understand why you are complaining about it.
 
There should not be regulation on one and two family occupant loads, its a slippery slope that makes it to easy for jurisdictions to abuse their power.
 
I will agree with everyone on using the IPMC if possible.

As this is a commercial property the other people I would consult are the fire marshal and the environmental health person. As this is an existing hotel, they might have some input for some of their rules & regs. I consult both here on a regular basis if I feel there might be a sanitation or fire issue.
 
gbhammer said:
There should not be regulation on one and two family occupant loads, its a slippery slope that makes it to easy for jurisdictions to abuse their power.
Click to expand...
That depends on where you reside. I can say that where I reside, there is no apparent need for regulation and where I work the situation is different. Many of the houses have four families of five living there. The garage has another and that old milk truck in the back yard has newlyweds with a bun in the oven.

So why should we care if people choose to live under those conditions? What impact is there on society at large?

There is never a place to park. And you should see it on trash day, what with there being eight full size trash cans in front of every house and none of them are recycle green cans because there's people going through the garbage. The sanitary sewer system is nearly overwhelmed. Everybody has a tall fence and a mean dog because they are stacked up like cord wood. They trade suspicious looks through broken windows with bars. The people that don't get stabbed, get shot. There is an almost constant noise from a helicopter and there is constant noise from sirens. Sounds like a Mel Gibson action film.

What movie was it where Lee Marvin rode into a Mexican town and shot a mule dead? He told the mules woefully dismayed owner to "Smother that in onions and bring it to me in the bar when it's cooked."

The level of sophistication of a populace that sees such a way of life as normal engenders crime, gangs, graffiti and litter by the truck load. That's just the way it is folks. When we give up and deny a need for regulation, third world conditions flourish.

I said that at home there is no need for regulation but there is at work. That's ironic in that there is regulation where I live and little to none where I work. Is it the regulation where I live that renders the area to be such a stark difference from where I work? Is it safe to walk walk my dog at midnight because we regulate housing density? Is it housing density that makes it foolish to walk your dog after dark without a Glock and a vest?

The answer must be no to those questions. It isn't density alone but there's no denying that it makes a profound difference.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ICE said:
It isn't density alone but there's no denying that it makes a profound difference.
Click to expand...
Money buys space. Less money is higher density and higher crime rates. density is more a symptom than an actual problem
 
Back up Ben, I wasn't comlaining about anything. Merely made a comment about CA'screating laws for everything. As I said, twice, enforcing any sort of occupancy restrictions is difficult. Myself, I could give a hoot less. But when my bosds, or the CM, or a council member gets a call agout 20 people living in a 1300 s.f. SFD, guess who they look to. I have NEVER been able to enforce any occupancy limits. And, I'd just as soon not ever be able to.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No wonder they use a tiger to prowl those streets. ICE, I have to agree with tmurray that the conditions you’ve written of are all symptoms of larger social problems.

I would expound upon those problems if I had not already used up my entire wiggle room with the incorrect PC statements for the day.
 
tmurray said:
Money buys space. Less money is higher density and higher crime rates. density is more a symptom than an actual problem
Click to expand...
I remember the first time I visited the Little Rock area, and was looking out my window through the low lying tree stands near jacksonville. I kept thinking I was seeing housing in behind the trees, in what was easily a flood plain if not a swamp (please no python castle jokes...yet). When we got to my in-laws and I went out back to the tree-line, I could see first hand all the lean-toos and shacks, where clearly people were living, built up back in the trees. Not sure if much of anything was regulated back there in those trees.
 
fatboy said:
Back up Ben, I wasn't comlaining about anything. Merely made a comment about CA'screating laws for everything. As I said, twice, enforcing any sort of occupancy restrictions is difficult. Myself, I could give a hoot less. But when my bosds, or the CM, or a council member gets a call agout 20 people living in a 1300 s.f. SFD, guess who they look to. I have NEVER been able to enforce any occupancy limits. And, I'd just as soon not ever be able to.
Click to expand...
Well, I was pointing out that California doesn't have law about everything...indeed they have laws which prevent people from making laws about everything.
 
brudgers said:
Well, I was pointing out that California doesn't have law about everything...indeed they have laws which prevent people from making laws about everything.
Click to expand...
If it can be controlled or regulated, they will.
 
brudgers said:
Well, I was pointing out that California doesn't have law about everything...indeed they have laws which prevent people from making laws about everything.
Click to expand...
Actually California does have a law for just about everything anyone could imagine and also has an innate drive to require another level of government involvement for everything and anything. A good example of this is California requiring it's own version of the building codes. BTW all of these laws and levels of increased involvement all cost a ton of money and the plan for California is for the rest of the states to pull its chestnuts out of the fire....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top