• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Please help! Incompetent Building Inspectors

T

TerryM

REGISTERED
Joined
Feb 12, 2025
Messages
2
Location
Wisconsin
Hello, I’m a long time reader on the sidelines of this group. I’m sharing my experiences with the group with the hope that the veterans in the build code field can point me to the right direction.

I recently purchased a commercial building (banquet hall) in Spring 2024 located in the city of Sheboygan, WI (population of 50,000). During my first occupancy inspection of Spring 2024, the building inspector requested a life safety plan from the original architect, which I did provided. Everything was approved.

Fast forward to February 2025 (approximately 11 months later), I applied for a liquor license, which required an additional occupancy inspection. The new building inspector walked through the location and did not agree with the original design of the building and the life safety plan. He stated that the design of the building did not meet the safety code, not enough exits for the occupancy load, and new fire walls had to be created.

It should be notes, the building was built in 2010. Every permit was signed off and approved by the architect, engineers, construction company, and the city inspectors. The building use remains the same and no alterations or changes have been done to the building. The former building inspector retired and is no longer with the city.

At this point, I am having mixed feelings regarding the commercial building and City of Sheboygan. Did I purchase a unsafe building that was poorly designed to begin with? Is the new building inspector giving me to run around? The building was in compliance for 14 years but sudden is no longer in compliance? Is my situation worth taking legal actions? Should I bite the bullet and play by the new building inspector's rule? In a few years, what if a new building inspector wants new alterations to the building?

Any feedbacks or comments would greatly be appreciated. Thank you in advance.
 
TerryM said:
Did I purchase a unsafe building that was poorly designed to begin with?
Click to expand...
Possibly. It's hard to tell without seeing the building and knowing its history. Like steveray said, the inspector should provide a code reference. I've dealt with inspectors that don't provide code references, and it can be headache inducing.

TerryM said:
The building was in compliance for 14 years but sudden is no longer in compliance? Is my situation worth taking legal actions? Should I bite the bullet and play by the new building inspector's rule? In a few years, what if a new building inspector wants new alterations to the building?
Click to expand...
The only reason I can think of as a reason wouldn't be complaint now is if there was a change in use (business to assembly, for example). If there's no change in use, no alterations to the structure, then as long as the building complies with the code that was used at the time of construction / alteration you shouldn't have to alter anything.

TerryM said:
Is my situation worth taking legal actions? Should I bite the bullet and play by the new building inspector's rule? In a few years, what if a new building inspector wants new alterations to the building?
Click to expand...
It's worth demanding code sections (and code year) the inspector is using to justify this. Review that against the existing conditions of the space.
 
Last edited:
I agree with @steveray. The inspector may have his own opinion (and to some degree, he may be correct), but "the deed is done," as the saying goes. Once a permit is issued, it is usually difficult to force any changes. If they adopted the IBC (I assume the 2009 edition), Section 111.4 allows the building official to revoke a certificate of occupancy if "it was 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 any ordinance or regulation or any of the provisions of this code." However, I have never personally seen this enforced on an owner.

Have the inspector provide a list of "deficiencies" with specific code references. Then, ask your architect to review it or hire a code consultant to do so.

If any "deficiency" has merit, review the feasibility of correcting it. Sometimes, it might be in your best interest to correct the "deficiency" rather than deal with a liability lawsuit after the fact if the risk is deemed too high.
 
arwat23 said:
The only reason I can think of as a reason wouldn't be complaint now is if there was a change in use (business to assembly, for example). If there's no change in use, no alterations to the structure, then as long as the building complies with the code that was used at the time of construction / alteration you shouldn't have to alter anything.
Click to expand...
Unless the previous inspectors overlooked violations....
 
steveray said:
Unless the previous inspectors overlooked violations....
Click to expand...
Doesn't change in use / change in occupancy trigger egress changes?

In my experience (maybe this is just a California thing?) even if an inspector missed it, it doesn't permit violation of the code. I've worked on projects that existed solely because an inspector missed something years ago that is now getting called out.
 
Is it possible alterations occurred changing the interior egress like adding un-permitted walls and barriers?
 
arwat23 said:
Doesn't change in use / change in occupancy trigger egress changes?

In my experience (maybe this is just a California thing?) even if an inspector missed it, it doesn't permit violation of the code. I've worked on projects that existed solely because an inspector missed something years ago that is now getting called out.
Click to expand...
SCBO1 said:
Is it possible alterations occurred changing the interior egress like adding un-permitted walls and barriers?
Click to expand...

As stated in the OP, "The building use remains the same and no alterations or changes have been done to the building."
 
Is the guy/gal that did the inspection a diifferent type of inspector like a liquor control inspector or fire marshal or was it the city building inspector?
 
So the new building inspector did an occupancy calculation, what was the number of occupants, what was the occupant load at each exit, what was the travel distance to the exits?
RLGA said:
As stated in the OP, "The building use remains the same and no alterations or changes have been done to the building."
Click to expand...
Okay, I'll watch from afar and see what happens next.
 
TerryM said:
Hello, I’m a long time reader on the sidelines of this group. I’m sharing my experiences with the group with the hope that the veterans in the build code field can point me to the right direction.

I recently purchased a commercial building (banquet hall) in Spring 2024 located in the city of Sheboygan, WI (population of 50,000). During my first occupancy inspection of Spring 2024, the building inspector requested a life safety plan from the original architect, which I did provided. Everything was approved.

Fast forward to February 2025 (approximately 11 months later), I applied for a liquor license, which required an additional occupancy inspection. The new building inspector walked through the location and did not agree with the original design of the building and the life safety plan. He stated that the design of the building did not meet the safety code, not enough exits for the occupancy load, and new fire walls had to be created.

It should be notes, the building was built in 2010. Every permit was signed off and approved by the architect, engineers, construction company, and the city inspectors. The building use remains the same and no alterations or changes have been done to the building. The former building inspector retired and is no longer with the city.
Click to expand...

Did you make ANY physical alterations, either when you bought the building or after your first inspection and this new inspection? If you made alterations, did you have a building permit?

TerryM said:
At this point, I am having mixed feelings regarding the commercial building and City of Sheboygan. Did I purchase a unsafe building that was poorly designed to begin with? Is the new building inspector giving me to run around? The building was in compliance for 14 years but sudden is no longer in compliance? Is my situation worth taking legal actions? Should I bite the bullet and play by the new building inspector's rule? In a few years, what if a new building inspector wants new alterations to the building?

Any feedbacks or comments would greatly be appreciated. Thank you in advance.
Click to expand...

As has been pointed out, the inspector should cite a code section if he thinks you are in violation. Otherwise, you can't possibly respond.

According to a web site called UpCodes, Wisconsin is still using the 2015 International Building code. The model code is revised every three years, so they're not super quick with their code adoption process. A key point will be what code was in effect when the building was constructed. Building codes are not retroactive -- if you haven't made alterations, the inspector should not be looking at the current code, he should be looking at the code under which the building was constructed.

In adopting the International Building Code, Wisconsin deleted most of Chapter 1, which removed the section on appeals. There should be an appeal process, but you will have to look in statute to find it.
 
TerryM said:
The building use remains the same ....
Click to expand...

Are you certain of this? Use and change of use are things that often have complexities that people that aren't in our biz fail to understand.
The call for a liquor licence makes me think that a chance of occupancy has, indeed, taken place.

If so, changes of occupancy incur different codes. Very simple example from my experience: had a building used as an office for a plumbing company. It sold, and a new retail business went into the space. The change of exit paths triggered by the change in occupancy meant that they had to put an exit door on the back.
 
There are two terms that apply to changes in an existing building.

[A] CHANGE OF OCCUPANCY. Any of the following shall be considered as a change of occupancy where the current International Building Code requires a greater degree of safety, accessibility, structural strength, fire protection, means of egress, ventilation or sanitation than is existing in the current building or structure:

  1. 1.Any change in the occupancy classification of a building or structure.
  2. 2.Any change in the purpose of, or a change in the level of activity within, a building or structure.
  3. 3.A change of use.
[A] CHANGE OF USE. A change in the use of a building or a portion of a building, within the same group classification, for which there is a change in application of the code requirements.

TerryM said:
I applied for a liquor license, which required an additional occupancy inspection.
Click to expand...
I do not see where the level of activity would change. Perhaps it has to do with the state liquor license requirements.
 
Something similar happened in Canada. Building was undergoing a change in use and had the permit issued. While construction was underway, the building official retired and anew one was brought in. The old inspector did not require many of the things that the code required. The new inspector was by the book (also possibly had no clue what he was doing as he asked for sound proofing of walls between two buildings that were several feet apart). The owner took the city to court based on the extra expenses for the code upgrades and won.

When the permit was issued, it was functionally a promise by the city to follow a particular process and by failing to follow the process, was in violation of procedural fairness.

Can the city ask for things that were required at the time of construction, yes. But they may have to pay for those things.
 
Inspector Gadget said:
Are you certain of this? Use and change of use are things that often have complexities that people that aren't in our biz fail to understand.
The call for a liquor licence makes me think that a chance of occupancy has, indeed, taken place.

If so, changes of occupancy incur different codes. Very simple example from my experience: had a building used as an office for a plumbing company. It sold, and a new retail business went into the space. The change of exit paths triggered by the change in occupancy meant that they had to put an exit door on the back.
Click to expand...
The process for getting a liquor license typically involves an inspection. Most of the time we don't notice because they apply at the same time as construction and the (in our case)fire marshal does their normal inspection. However, if there was a restaurant that decided to start selling drinks after they had opened, they would still need the inspection. In that instance, the fire marshal would do another inspection.
 
tmurray said:
The process for getting a liquor license typically involves an inspection. Most of the time we don't notice because they apply at the same time as construction and the (in our case)fire marshal does their normal inspection. However, if there was a restaurant that decided to start selling drinks after they had opened, they would still need the inspection. In that instance, the fire marshal would do another inspection.
Click to expand...

This is sort of where I was going in my noggin, albeit not with familiarity with the codes in question.... In our Codes, alcohol service triggers extra consideration for fire alarm systems .... (I know you know this, but our folks south of the 49th might be edjumikated by this tidbit.)
 
Inspector Gadget said:
This is sort of where I was going in my noggin, albeit not with familiarity with the codes in question.... In our Codes, alcohol service triggers extra consideration for fire alarm systems .... (I know you know this, but our folks south of the 49th might be edjumikated by this tidbit.)
Click to expand...
You mean us down here in "Lower Canada"?
 
Not to disparage the inspector but this sounds like issues that are above his pay-grade. The exiting layout for banquet halls is pretty straightforward. Brings us a floor plan and the code sections as well as a copy of the exact text used for the violation notice. The heavy hitters here need the exercise.
 
Last edited:
ICE said:
Not to disparage the inspector but this sounds like issues that are above his pay-grade. The exiting layout for banquet halls is pretty straightforward. Brings us a floor plan and and the code sections as well as a copy of the exact text used for the violation notice. The heavy hitters here need the exercise.
Click to expand...
TM and IG anyway with the Canadian stuff....When Jeff ever comes up this way on his motorcycle and we ride up to the Cabot Trail I might have to stop in NB for a job interview....
 
tmurray said:
Something similar happened in Canada. Building was undergoing a change in use and had the permit issued. While construction was underway, the building official retired and anew one was brought in. The old inspector did not require many of the things that the code required. The new inspector was by the book (also possibly had no clue what he was doing as he asked for sound proofing of walls between two buildings that were several feet apart). The owner took the city to court based on the extra expenses for the code upgrades and won.

When the permit was issued, it was functionally a promise by the city to follow a particular process and by failing to follow the process, was in violation of procedural fairness.

Can the city ask for things that were required at the time of construction, yes. But they may have to pay for those things.
Click to expand...

This likely would have had a different result in the U.S., because the code specifically states the the code official has no authority to approve a violation.

[A] 110.1 General
Construction or work for which a permit is required shall be subject to inspection by the building official and such construction or work shall remain visible and able to be accessed for inspection purposes until approved. Approval as a result of an inspection shall not be construed to be an approval of a violation of the provisions of this code or of other ordinances of the jurisdiction. Inspections presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of this code or of other ordinances of the jurisdiction shall not be valid. It shall be the duty of the owner or the owner's authorized agent to cause the work to remain visible and able to be accessed for inspection purposes. Neither the building official nor the jurisdiction shall be liable for expense entailed in the removal or replacement of any material required to allow inspection.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top