• 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

Partial or complete change of occupancy?

Mr. Inspector

SAWHORSE
Joined
Nov 28, 2009
Messages
4,076
Location
Poconos/eastern PA
A row of very old and existing connecting buildings on a block. Must be about 12 of them. Each one has a different owner. It doesn't look like there are any fire walls but I have not been in every store. If one of the stores is getting a change of occupancy would it be a partial or complete change of occupancy?

305.4.1 Partial change of occupancy. Where a portion of
the building is changed to a new occupancy classification,
any alterations shall comply with Sections 305.6, 305.7
and 305.8.
305.4.2 Complete change of occupancy. Where an entire
building undergoes a change of occupancy, it shall comply
with Section 305.4.1 and shall have all of the following
accessible features:
 
What are they changing to? If it is currently a Group M and another Group M replaces it, then it is not a change of occupancy. I know for some that may be a stupid response, but I consulted for a small jurisdiction where the fire marshal considered a change of tenant a change of occupancy. Thus, I just want to make the obvious clear.

If the occupancy of one tenant space changes from a store (Group M) to an office (Group B; e.g., accountant), then it would be considered a partial change of occupancy. If you change all the stores into office suites, then it is a complete change of occupancy.
 
Had no C.O. before, not used in years. will be a M. Second floor and basement together is less thn 3,000 sq ft. so no accessiblity for 2nd floor and basement required but do we count the other attached buildings?
 
What are they changing to? If it is currently a Group M and another Group M replaces it, then it is not a change of occupancy. I know for some that may be a stupid response, but I consulted for a small jurisdiction where the fire marshal considered a change of tenant a change of occupancy. Thus, I just want to make the obvious clear.

If the occupancy of one tenant space changes from a store (Group M) to an office (Group B; e.g., accountant), then it would be considered a partial change of occupancy. If you change all the stores into office suites, then it is a complete change of occupancy.
I have advocated for AHJ's to be clear about this very issue. I always try to make a clear distinction between change of occupant and change of occupancy. Some AHJ's have a "change of occupancy permit", but few of them make a clear and consistent definition. That distinction is important with the "do I need a permit" phone calls.
 
We don't do change of occupant. Since the building has no C. O. , built before codes, it will need to be brought up to code. We think all these places were homes when they were first built almost 100 years ago, some are still homes. I mostly care about accessibility for the 2nd floor and basement on this plan review at this time. I am asking if I need to count the square feet for the 2nd floor and basement in the other occupancies that are connected to this occupancy since there may not be any fire walls between any of them.
 
So every one is stumped about this? There are other problems with this project but right now I just want to know since this whole block may be considered one building because of no fire walls but has many lot lines with different owners and different occupancies do I add the sq ft of the second floor and basements of the whole block to to get the aggregate area which would be over 3,000 sq ft and require the basement and 2nd floor to have an accessible route?
 
If the buildings are on separate parcels and owned by different entities, I would suggest they are separate buildings such that their areas should not be combined for the accessibility question. If there is no physical connection between each of the buildings, then only the area of the subject building would be considered. Also, if the second floor and basement is not undergoing a Change of Occupancy, then the project would be a partial change. If the second floor and basement are undergoing a change of Occupancy, then the project is a complete change. There remains some ambiguity, however, as to how the separation of the row of buildings was established.
 
So every one is stumped about this? There are other problems with this project but right now I just want to know since this whole block may be considered one building because of no fire walls but has many lot lines with different owners and different occupancies do I add the sq ft of the second floor and basements of the whole block to to get the aggregate area which would be over 3,000 sq ft and require the basement and 2nd floor to have an accessible route?
For the application of accessibility requirements, I would consider each structure within the lot lines to be an "independent building," especially if there are no openings between the independent buildings.

If each independent building has its own entrance and circulation system (corridors, stairs, elevators, etc.), I cannot see how the DOJ would interpret the connected string of individually-owned units on separate lots to be one large building that is subject to the whims of any one of its owners. The ADA does not address changes of occupancy, it is only concerned with the physical modifications of a building. Thus, all requirements for historic buildings address alterations. If your project includes alterations as part of the change of occupancy, Section 206.2.3, Exception 7, of the 2010 ADA Standards states the building would "not be required to provide an accessible route to stories located above or below the accessible story." Keep in mind, though, this only applies to "qualified" historic buildings, so make sure it conforms to the definition in Chapter 1 of the 2010 ADA Standards.

I would like to think that those interpreting the ICC accessibility requirements would have the same interpretation; however, considering the IBC covers fire and life safety, those requirements could dictate a different opinion if you started with the IBC. However, for existing historic buildings, much of the IBC does not apply since the IEBC should be your starting point, and would need to only comply with the IBC when required by the IEBC.

IEBC Section 306.7.16.2 states that multiple-level historic buildings and facilities undergoing alterations or changes of occupancy need only provide "an accessible route from an accessible entrance to public spaces on the level of the accessible entrance." Thus, basements and upper floors would not be required to have an accessible route.
 
A fire wall would only be required if it is a party wall otherwise you can have zero fire separation distance with 1,2- or 3-hour fire barriers depending on the occupancies. See Table 602

706.1.1 Party walls.
Any wall located on a lot line between adjacent buildings, which is used or adapted for joint service between the two buildings, shall be constructed as a fire wall in accordance with Section 706. Party walls shall be constructed without openings and shall create separate buildings.

Exceptions:

1. Openings in a party wall separating an anchor building and a mall shall be in accordance with Section 402.4.2.2.1.

2. Fire walls are not required on lot lines dividing a building for ownership purposes where the aggregate height and area of the portions of the building located on both sides of the lot line do not exceed the maximum height and area requirements of this code. For the code official’s review and approval, he or she shall be provided with copies of dedicated access easements and contractual agreements that permit the owners of portions of the building located on either side of the lot line access to the other side for purposes of maintaining fire and life safety systems necessary for the operation of the building.
 
I really don't care what the ADA says. I only enforce the ICC codes. It is not considered a historical building.
It turns out it will be a change of occupancy for the 2nd floor besides the first floor. Underneath i am not calling a basement, but a crawl space because it is only 6' high. Each story is 800 sq. ft.
But it still should be a parcel change of occupancy because the whole block is by definition one building.
Alterations will be done on both floors and both floors are areas containing a primary function which the IEBC says needs an accessible route to both floors.
Then the IBC says you don't need the accessible route if the buildings story's aggregate area is less 3,000 sq ft and located above or below accessible levels.

1.There are no accessible levels now which would require both stories to now be accessible.

2. Because they are calling it just a parcel change of occupancy (because of the whole block is one building) I need to count the whole block which would be over 3,000 sq ft. aggregate area for both stories.

That is 2 reasons to have both floors required to have an accessible route to them.

Does this sound right?
 
Just keep in mind that to be a historic building does not mean it must be listed as a historic building. All that is required is that it be eligible for listing as a historic building. This eligibility can be given by either the National Register of Historic Places or by a state historic preservation office.
 
Had no C.O. before, not used in years. will be a M. Second floor and basement together is less thn 3,000 sq ft. so no accessiblity for 2nd floor and basement required but do we count the other attached buildings?
If there was no need for a formal CO in previous years, I believe that the fact that it is and has been Vacant doesn't change what its last Use was, and therefore will inform your need to have a starting point for Permit consideration.
If you have apreviouss Building Permit or any Municipal documentation that indicates what the building was used for, then I believe that would be its legal, continuing and perhaps Non Conforming use.
 
If there was no need for a formal CO in previous years, I believe that the fact that it is and has been Vacant doesn't change what its last Use was, and therefore will inform your need to have a starting point for Permit consideration.
If you have apreviouss Building Permit or any Municipal documentation that indicates what the building was used for, then I believe that would be its legal, continuing and perhaps Non Conforming use.
But an inspection by PA L & I and a C. O. was required when it was changed from a row home to M years ago. Architect and owner can't find any records. Would that change what you are saying?

My main question is do I count the whole block as one building for the requirement of an accessible route to stories more than 3,000 sq ft.?
 
But an inspection by PA L & I and a C. O. was required when it was changed from a row home to M years ago. Architect and owner can't find any records. Would that change what you are saying?

My main question is do I count the whole block as one building for the requirement of an accessible route to stories more than 3,000 sq ft.?
The CO might have been required, BUT Did the local Municipality do their job?
PA Act 45 required CO's BUT Philly didn't really adjust to that requirement for a number of years After the State Bldg Code required it.

SO, Did the Locals drop the ball? A legal question and if the "Locals" were part of the problem, perhaps they may be more understanding
 
The CO might have been required, BUT Did the local Municipality do their job?
PA Act 45 required CO's BUT Philly didn't really adjust to that requirement for a number of years After the State Bldg Code required it.

SO, Did the Locals drop the ball? A legal question and if the "Locals" were part of the problem, perhaps they may be more understanding
Before the state adopted codes in 2004 there were no requirements for local enforcement. It was the owners responsibility.
 
Before the state adopted codes in 2004 there were no requirements for local enforcement. It was the owners responsibility.
Seems to Me:
If there was NO Requirement) then there was No NEED or Responsibility
Code items are Usually not retroactive, so as the Ext'g Bldg Code says, CO not required unless you change Use OR New Construction/ Addition
Me Thinks!
 
Seems to Me:
If there was NO Requirement) then there was No NEED or Responsibility
Code items are Usually not retroactive, so as the Ext'g Bldg Code says, CO not required unless you change Use OR New Construction/ Addition
Me Thinks!
By me saying there was no code, I meant before 2004 there was no set of codes that the state adopted but there was a requirement for commercial building owners to contact the PA L & I for a "Life and Safety" inspection to get a C. O. I think they just checked the Means of Egress but it wasn't by any written code. The law still requires all commercial buildings to have a C. O. even if no wok is done.
 
By me saying there was no code, I meant before 2004 there was no set of codes that the state adopted but there was a requirement for commercial building owners to contact the PA L & I for a "Life and Safety" inspection to get a C. O. I think they just checked the Means of Egress but it wasn't by any written code. The law still requires all commercial buildings to have a C. O. even if no wok is done.
I think this
By me saying there was no code, I meant before 2004 there was no set of codes that the state adopted but there was a requirement for commercial building owners to contact the PA L & I for a "Life and Safety" inspection to get a C. O. I think they just checked the Means of Egress but it wasn't by any written code. The law still requires all commercial buildings to have a C. O. even if no wok is done.
I think this is where we find out if the Code Official are APPLYING the code OR INFLICTING THE CODE.
Given the background, Having an "AS BUILT" Life-Safety drawing could allow you to confirm you have a Continuing Legal USE (aka CO) so everyone is covered.
 
Top