This subject raises a larger question for me, as to what the responsibility is of an architect working on an existing building. If the work they are doing only pertains to a certain area of the building, but casually notice non-code compliance in another area of the building, what is their legal responsibility? Is notifying the owner in writing enough? Should one ignore it completely? I have a friend who is also an architect and it is his opinion that if the issue is not under the area that was contracted, it is not the architect's problem, they had no reason to look at any other areas.
It's not a question of having a reason to look -- it's a question of whether or not you looked. If you don't look, you can't be faulted for what you didn't know. If you look -- you know.
A good many years ago I was project architect for the exterior rehabilitation of a high-rise condominium building. It had two levels of underground parking, then one level of offices, topped by seven (or maybe it was eight) stories of residential condo units. In the course of looking into something, I wandered into the office level interior and discovered that the design FAR exceeded the allowable common path of exit access travel distance.
We were working for the condo association, which was suing the developer/builder over alleged construction defects. (They later won several million dollars -- it was a mess), so our first step was to notify the association's attorney and to tell him that we felt we had an affirmative duty to report that violation to the building official. The attorney agreed, whereupon we sent a letter to the building official informing him of what we had found.
We received the following in a reply letter: "This office is not aware of any violations at the subject premises."
Legally, since we had notified the building department, they WERE aware of the violation, but that's not the point. We had done out duty by informing our client and the authority having jurisdiction. Our client had done the right thing by directing us to report it the AHJ. If the AHJ chose to take a head-in-the-sand approach ... hey, not my problem. I did what I was supposed to do.
My state has a code of ethics for architects in law. It's not a statute, it's a state regulation adopted pursuant to a statute. The section that seems to apply, to my condo issue and also perhaps here, reads as follows:
(3) If, in the course of the architect's work on a project, an architect becomes aware of a decision taken by the architect's employer or client, against the architect's advice, which violates any applicable statute or regulation and materially affects adversely the safety to the public of the finished project, then the architect shall report the decision to the appropriate enforcement officials or refuse to consent to the decision and terminate the architect's service with reference to the project. Said termination shall excuse any liability to the architect's client on account of such termination.
I take a broad view of that. Remember, architects are licensed by the states in order to (supposedly) help ensure that buildings are safe. Consequently, I interpret the above section of the code of ethics to mean that I have an affirmative duty to do something about any condition that could adversely affect safety. Since the building code is the minimum standard for safe buildings, any violation is
de facto unsafe, so if I become aware of it as an architect I have a duty to bring it to someone's attention.
Your state may not have a legal code of ethics for architects or, if it does, it probably reads differently.
