• 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

Relocatable buildings

Why should the relocated structure not comply with the building code?

What is the difference between a relocatable building and a building that is moved to a new location?

Mobile homes are a different animal but what differentiates a relocatable building from a mobile home?
 
Why would the IEBC apply to the first installation of the relocatable building?
 
Mark K said:
Then a prefab building would have to be permitted using the IBC. Does not compute
Click to expand...
IBC 3113 requires newly constructed relocatable buildings to comply with the IBC, but mandates existing ones to comply with the IEBC. This one was obviously not built in accordance with any accessibility code, but it was built and used for 13 years. I would like to find language to compel compliance with our adopted codes on some level but I can't.

3113.1.1 Compliance. A newly constructed relocatable
building shall comply with the requirements of this code for
new construction. An existing relocatable building that is
undergoing alteration, addition, change of occupancy or relocation
shall comply with Chapter 14 of the International
Existing Building Code.

However, in IBC 3113.1 the statement "after the effective date of this code" does confuse me. Does that mean the adopted date for the current edition in a given AHJ? Could it be read to mean the existence of the IBC from it's inception? Does it mean the code under which it was originally constructed? I love this section from the IBC commentary: (which applies to me)

For those that do not have state-mandated
requirements, much confusion and inconsistency
exists about the requirements for relocatable modular
buildings, including relocatable modular existing
buildings.

Commentary goes on the say that the IBC does not apply to existing relocatable buildings, and if the IBC doesn't apply, then neither does the scoping for accessibility, which could only come from the IEBC, section 305, which only applies to alterations.

For existing relocatable buildings, the requirements
of the International Existing Building Code
apply and this code does not apply.

Maddening.
 
They are going to provide an accessible route for this one. Still have some unanswered questions on the subject but at least this one is off the radar.
 
There should be something between 2003 IBC Ch. 34:

3408.1 Conformance. Structures moved into or within the jurisdiction shall comply with the provisions of this code for new structures.

And what we have now....1n Ch. 14....Accessibility being the biggest miss...
 
Why can't you use IEBC 305 for accessibility?

CHAPTER 3
PROVISIONS FOR ALL COMPLIANCE METHODS
User note:
About this chapter: Chapter 3 explains the three compliance options for alterations and additions available in the code. In addition, this
chapter also lays out the methods to be used for seismic design and evaluation throughout this code. Finally, this chapter clarifies that provisions
in other I-Codes related to repairs, alterations, additions, relocation and changes of occupancy must also be addressed unless they
conflict with this code. In that case, this code takes precedence.
 
The IEBC sends you to chapter 14 for relocated buildings.
The 3 compliance methods are not applicable unless Chapter 14 sends you back to a specific code section.

sometimes you just have to weave through the various codes to find the requirement.

301.4 Relocated buildings.
Relocated buildings shall comply with the requirements of Chapter 14.

1401.2 Conformance.
The building shall be safe for human occupancy as determined by the International Fire Code and the International Property Maintenance Code. Any repair, alteration or change of occupancy undertaken within the moved structure shall comply with the requirements of this code applicable to the work being performed. Any field-fabricated elements shall comply with the requirements of the International Building Code or the International Residential Code as applicable.

IFC SECTION 1009
ACCESSIBLE MEANS OF EGRESS
[BE] 1009.1 Accessible means of egress required.
Accessible means of egress shall comply with this section. Accessible spaces shall be provided with not less than one accessible means of egress. Where more than one means of egress is required by Section 1006.2 or 1006.3 from any accessible space, each accessible portion of the space shall be served by not less than two accessible means of egress.
 
They have been messing around with this and it look like they removed it from the 2021 IBC (which is good IMO) but it still lives in Ch 3 IEBC....

306.7.2 Accessible means of egress. Accessible means of
egress required by Chapter 10 of the International Building
Code are not required to be added in existing
facilities.

But if you are still getting to IFC 2021, you can get there as at least requiring the AMOE which in theory gets you a route........Good to know...Just funny that we have to go through the Fire Code to get accessibility...
 

306.1Scope.
​

The provisions of Sections 306.1 through 306.7.16 apply to maintenance and repair, change of occupancy, additions and alterations to existing buildings, including those identified as historic buildings.

306 is not applicable to relocatable buildings.

306.7.2 excludes complying with IBC Chapter 10 for existing facilities. The requirements for 2 accessible means of egress, areas of rescue assistance, 48 inches between handrails for accessible stairs to name a few requirements are all excluded.
 
So it went from provided to added. That was the intent I inferred from the 2018 but hoped I would never have to try and defend the language. That is a good fix. But, still not sure we can get to accessibility where it was not provided and no alterations are proposed. I suppose getting there through the IFC is a route some could take, but in this AHJ it is not among the codes listed in the municipal code for building regulations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top