No Less Complying

[Blazer]

The code language for Alterations uses the phrase "Alterations shall be such that the existing building or structure is no less complying with the provisions of this code than the existing building or structure was prior to the alteration." (Ref: 2012 IBC 3404.1). Same language is used (moved to) in IEBC under Section 503.1.

The commentary is not clear about this phrase so I'm curious if it is stating that if an existing building wasn't built to code at the time of its permit or CofO then it would be permitted to remain and not be required to be brought up to the new code (same 903.2 requirements as code enforced for permit).

My concern is that a building required sprinklers at time of permit but none were installed. Not installing sprinklers for the intended alterations would technically be "no less complying". I feel like this statement (in quotes of first paragraph) could be a little more articulate or easier to decipher.

 

[Joe.B]

I'm curious if it is stating that if an existing building wasn't built to code at the time of its permit or CofO then it would be permitted to remain and not be required to be brought up to the new code

No, I do not believe that is the intent. I would say that, at minimum, it must comply with the code in effect at the time of construction.

 

[ICE]

Given that the existing building did not comply with the code at the time of construction, adding additional area of non-compliant building would be less complying.

 

[steveray]

Is it really an existing building?

[A]EXISTING BUILDING.

A building erected prior to the date of adoption of the appropriate code, or one for which a legal building permit has been issued.

If it was permitted and CO'd it's existing and all of the problems that were created with it...

Altering an area in a non-sprinklered building generally does not make it less safe even if the sprinklers should have been required...Impinge egress or something like that and now you have a leg...

 

[steveray]

CT does a lil better for old stuff and makes it a bit clearer, but we have had a statewide code for over 50 years:

EXISTING BUILDING. A building or structure, or portion thereof, erected in whole or in part, for which a legal building permit and a certificate of occupancy has been issued. Buildings or structures or portions thereof erected prior to October 1, 1970 shall be deemed existing buildings regardless of the existence of a legal permit or a certificate of occupancy.

 

[ICE]

If it was permitted and CO'd it's existing and all of the problems that were created with it...

Most building permits contain language that states that the permit does not give leave to violate any laws or regulations. With that in mind, would you consider a building that has been granted a CofO when there should have been an order to install a sprinkler system and then have been granted a CofO ... is that the starting block for 'more or less' complying. Can the original violation be ignored because there is a CofO?

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

The code language for Alterations uses the phrase "Alterations shall be such that the existing building or structure is no less complying with the provisions of this code than the existing building or structure was prior to the alteration." (Ref: 2012 IBC 3404.1). Same language is used (moved to) in IEBC under Section 503.1.

The commentary is not clear about this phrase so I'm curious if it is stating that if an existing building wasn't built to code at the time of its permit or CofO then it would be permitted to remain and not be required to be brought up to the new code (same 903.2 requirements as code enforced for permit).

My concern is that a building required sprinklers at time of permit but none were installed. Not installing sprinklers for the intended alterations would technically be "no less complying". I feel like this statement (in quotes of first paragraph) could be a little more articulate or easier to decipher.

According to multiple, successive State Building Inspectors in my state, "A violation is always a violation." Violations are never grandfathered.

A building that was constructed before a building code was adopted, or that was built in full compliance with a much older, simpler building code, would (IMHO) be covered by the "no less complying" clause. "No less complying" pretty clearly implies that the building was complying before someone started to muck around with it. I don't view that as a get out of jail free card to magically grandfather a violation.

 

[mtlogcabin]

[A]​

A building or structure shall not be used or occupied in whole or in part, and a change of occupancy of a building or structure or portion thereof shall not be made, until the building official has issued a certificate of occupancy therefor as provided herein. Issuance of a certificate of occupancy shall not be construed as an approval of a violation of the provisions of this code or of other ordinances of the jurisdiction. Certificates presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of this code or other ordinances of the jurisdiction shall not be valid.

 

[steveray]

Most building permits contain language that states that the permit does not give leave to violate any laws or regulations. With that in mind, would you consider a building that has been granted a CofO when there should have been an order to install a sprinkler system and then have been granted a CofO ... is that the starting block for 'more or less' complying. Can the original violation be ignored because there is a CofO?

How do you know it required sprinklers? How do you know there was not a modification granted?

111.1​

Pursuant to subsection (a) of section 29-265 of the Connecticut General Statutes, no building or structure erected or altered in any municipality after October 1, 1970, shall be occupied or used, in whole or in part, until a certificate of occupancy has been issued by the building official, certifying that such building or structure or work performed pursuant to the building permit substantially complies with the provisions of this code.

[A]​

After the building official inspects the building or structure and does not find violations of the provisions of this code or other laws that are enforced by the department, the building official shall issue a certificate of occupancy that contains the following:

1. 1.The permit number.
2. 2.The address of the structure.
3. 3.The name and address of the owner or the owner’s authorized agent.
4. 4.A description of that portion of the structure for which the certificate is issued.
5. 5.A statement that the described portion of the structure has been inspected for compliance with the requirements of this code.

If you find a building without a sprinkler system that should have one, you might want to post it unsafe and clear it immediately and revoke the CO....(Ghost Ship comes to mind) If you are not willing to do that, then don't D!(# up the new permit....

 

[steveray]

According to multiple, successive State Building Inspectors in my state, "A violation is always a violation." Violations are never grandfathered.

A building that was constructed before a building code was adopted, or that was built in full compliance with a much older, simpler building code, would (IMHO) be covered by the "no less complying" clause. "No less complying" pretty clearly implies that the building was complying before someone started to muck around with it. I don't view that as a get out of jail free card to magically grandfather a violation.

Correct, but the municipality is certifying that it substantially complies per 111.1 and that it has been inspected for compliance per 111.2

 

[steveray]

With that in mind, would you consider a building that has been granted a CofO when there should have been an order to install a sprinkler system and then have been granted a CofO ... is that the starting block for 'more or less' complying. Can the original violation be ignored because there is a CofO?

Short answer....The original "violation" has nothing to do with the new permit....Pursue it separately and clear the building... Reconfiguring a space in a building that should have been sprinklered does not inherently make it less safe or worsen a non-conformity (it is already unsafe See IBC 116). IF you are going to lengthen egress or reconfigure in a way that is only allowed in a sprinklered building, Shirley that is a violation on top of the violation...

 

[steveray]

[A]111.4 Revocation​

The building official is authorized to suspend or revoke a certificate of occupancy or completion issued under the provisions of this code, in writing, wherever the certificate is issued in error, or on the basis of incorrect information supplied, or where it is determined that the building or structure or portion thereof is in violation of the provisions of this code or other ordinance of the jurisdiction.

Throw them out of the building and pay for relocation as necessary....