• 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

Interior (actually inside) Parcel Lines

R

rh5000

Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2015
Messages
5
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Hi All,

I'm an architect, new to the site. I am currently working on 3 projects (one permitted, one in review, one in documentation) that have buildings that have suites inside them with individual parcel numbers. I'm doing TI's in each case. The buildings are all existing and as it turns out, all shell spaces, all in different municipalities, same county.

The issue I have run up against is on the project still in documentation (call it WH) the GC met with the city about timelines and the code official brought up that because this was a property line, we have to have a firewall at it. The building is already existing. There are no provisions for a firewall at every suite demising line, nor are there any in the other buildings. On the other two projects, we are only being held to the typical interior separations (fire barriers) that would be required (if required) by Table 508.4 (2009 IBC).

So, being that it is a parcel line, I can see where the official is coming from. But given that there are lots of buildings developed this way, that don't have firewalls every 20', I'm trying to figure out what the legality is to allow those parcel lines to be there but not invoke a separation.

Does that make sense?

Let me know if you have some thoughts and/or experience with this.

Thank you,

Ron
 
Welcome rh5000

You will hear from other members soon.

We appreciate your joining The Building Code Forum and hope you become a sawhorse member, there are better perks on the site

Regarding your parcel line issue; if you have a diagram or better description along with code editions applicable, better answers can be given.

Project description sounds like a "business condo"; in AZ there are specific laws for creating the condo and "map" that are difficult to align with the building code. Get some more info so the situation is better understood.
 
If these are condo lots; they are ignored by building code and no rated walls are required.

A condo line is not the same as a property line. The entire building belongs to a condo association and the individual condo owners only own the space within the walls but not the structure. If they are in fact true property lines; you have a problem.
 
Not in Arizona. Condominium lines are parcel line and lot lines. They can be divided both horizontally and vertically and are real property lines as defined in the building code. Proprrty law and building code law are in conflict. You can build a multi tenant office building with no seperation between tenants. BUT make that same building a condominium ownership and now you have real property lines and all of the firewall issues that go with them.

Makes my head hurt.
 
Typically "condos" are a zoning issue and not a building code issue. The lines may very well be legal parcel lines. The thing to remember is that parcel lines define the taxation boundaries of a space and can apply to only a portion of a building. Property lines for the purpose of fire separation distance are exclusive of that and define the ground upon which a structure sits. They often are one in the same, meaning that the property line and parcel line overlay each other. Sometimes they are not the same, you could have a high rise building with legal tax parcels stacked on top of each other and honeycombed within the property lines and vertically above and below grade if legally described correctly. Property lines remain two dimensional on the surface of the earth.

ZIG
 
There are times that a code modification is in order.

Example big box store anchoring a strip mall. IF all under one ownership then no problem with all as one big unlimited area building.

Put a property line in the 3 hour wall between the big box and the strip mall and now neither can be a smaller unlimited area building. The property line goes on through the parking lot with cross easements etc. The complex is operated as one center.

IS a code modification to treat them as unlimited area buildings and allow unrated construction even though they don't have clear space between them justified?
 
zigmark said:
Typically "condos" are a zoning issue and not a building code issue. The lines may very well be legal parcel lines. The thing to remember is that parcel lines define the taxation boundaries of a space and can apply to only a portion of a building. Property lines for the purpose of fire separation distance are exclusive of that and define the ground upon which a structure sits. They often are one in the same, meaning that the property line and parcel line overlay each other. Sometimes they are not the same, you could have a high rise building with legal tax parcels stacked on top of each other and honeycombed within the property lines and vertically above and below grade if legally described correctly. Property lines remain two dimensional on the surface of the earth.ZIG
Click to expand...
This is exactly how I see this situation. And BTW, thanks for all the comments.

So, the way I see it is that these parcel lines have to be some sort of tax mechanism and were never ever intended to actually be looked at as property lines. But, how do I show that to the plan reviewer. The building is built...the whole mall is built. And in this case it is a building that is separated into 7 parcels. There is one existing tenant taking three of those parcels. I am working with two tenants to take the other 4 (2 each) and the building has no firewalls or any sort of separation built into it.

http://i.imgur.com/IYwUroJ.jpg

You can see there are 11 buildings on site, all with multiple parcels. None have firewalls. I don't know how to make my case. Like someone above said...Makes my head hurt.

Thanks for any help!
 
Well the city was involved in whatever the lines are called.

So for some reason they see them as property lines.

Have yo sat down with the building official to see what he calls the lines??

If they are calling them property lines not sure how they are going to handle one tenant in three suites??

Sounds like you need to set down and if need be keep going higher till something is worked out.
 
I got a little more info today but I still don't understand it. I don't know anything about real estate law or how these things are parceled but the reviewer said the way the lines were recorded, they ARE property lines. And for that reason it has to be treated as a property line. In the interest of time, we are conceding the point and doing a 3 hour wall.
 
I have seen where a brand store in a strip mall owns it own property.

There lot/building is a separate property from the building it is attached to.

But not where each suite has a property line through it.

I think your question should be pointed at the property owner to either see why he did it that way or bought it that way.

I guess it would be to much delay to go back and go through the city process to get rid of the property lines??
 
What happens when a tenant wants two spaces with an opening in the wall between them? That is not odd at all. The property line is a deal killer. How are the utilities laid out?
 
ICE said:
What happens when a tenant wants two spaces with an opening in the wall between them? That is not odd at all. The property line is a deal killer. How are the utilities laid out?
Click to expand...
Wonder why the city let this happen
 
So, a couple of answers to these questions:

The city did not allow it. The building owner parceled it after the fact and since the parcel lines are a county thing and not a city thing, they did not know about it until the first time a TI was submitted for permit. This is what the city told me.

The current owners of the property are not the ones that did that, by my understanding.

We do have the issue of crossing the property lines. there are three tenants across 7 parcels. The utilities run across the whole building like they normally do. They aren't making us do anything about that.

To me, there are no life safety issues posed here so I think the separation wall is silly but I understand the CYA stance of the city.

The Parcel lines allow the building/complex owner to sell the space as a commercial condo. A tenant is just buying "airspace". They can't, for instance, make modifications to the outside of the building or add on another story or anything.

I'm just curious at this point about what the legal language is that is causing it to be a "property line" and if it could be re-recorded to eliminate the problem.

Both the reviewer and I think the easiest solution would be to do a lot combo on the whole thing and get rid of the issue but the building owner still wants the option of selling the condos. I think, but don't know, that there are some banking and tax advantages to owning the condo as opposed to just leasing it that makes it more appealing to a tenant.

This is not an unusual thing...for a building to have separate parcels. This is one of four I have going on that have the same set up. But only one municipality is treating it like a lot line.

I'll update this as we proceed.
 
Sounds like the entire building should have a property line around it and the individual suites are part of the building

I wonder if the notes on the lines are wrong??

The line between the suites, is it labeled as property line?
 
You are not trying to create separate buildings due to height or area limitations so a fire wall requirement is overboard for this project. Fire barriers is all that is required by code.

Personally since the county allowed the property division with no input from the city I would not be "punishing" the new owners. If the building was constructed as a single building then it works today as a single building without requiring the addition fire barriers/walls. If this was new construction 3 hour fire walls would not be required only fire barriers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top