• 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.

Section R311.4

GT:

Our 2007 CBC (2006 IBC) does answer your original question:

1008.1.1 Size of doors. The minimum width of each door opening shall be sufficient for the occupant load thereof and shall provide a clear width of not less than 32 inches (813 mm). Clear openings of doorways with swinging doors shall be measured between the face of the door and the stop, with the door open 90 degrees (1.57 rad). Where this section requires a minimum clear width of 32 inches (813 mm) and a door opening includes two door leaves without a mullion, one leaf shall provide a clear opening width of 32 inches (813 mm). The maximum width of a swinging door leaf shall be 48 inches (1219 mm) nominal. Means of egress doors in a Group 1-2 occupancy used for the movement of beds and litter patients shall provide a clear width not less than 44 inches (1118 mm). The height of doors shall not be less than 80 inches (2032 mm).
Click to expand...
It seems to me that somewhere back in ancient history the 32" clear opening was 34", a standard single 3' door yields a clear opening of 35" when opened against the wall, but only 33" when opened against a 90° wall (assuming standard butt hinges).
 
The 3'0 door got written into the residential code primarily because of the moving industry rather than any kind of logic or good practice (try to get a sofa sleeper thru a 2'6 door). If it's existing, I wouldn't bother (and I don't think the code requires it).
 
\ said:
conarb slipped out of the IRC into the IBC
Click to expand...
That's because California's CBC is currently based upon the IBC, come January 1st we will be a a new IRC based code, I haven't seen it yet but hear it's severely modified; in any event, if something is unclear in the IRC the IBC is usually referenced.
 
Someone jump in and quote anything (other than local codes) that gives you jurisdiction on what is already built--regardless of date it was built. It may be there but I wish someone would point it out.
 
Robert,

As Peach stated; "If it's existing (the front door), I wouldn't bother (and I don't think the code requires it)."

I think everyone is getting hung up on Section 311 which is an EGRESS REQUIREMENT FOR DWELLING UNITS BUILT UNDER THE 2006 IRC; which is not applicable to an existing dwelling unit, built under a former building code (or no code) at the time it was constructed.

2006 IRC, R102.7 " Existing Structures. The legal occcupancy of any structure existing on the date of adoption of this code *shall be permitted to continue without change, except as is specifically coverd in this code, the International Property Maintenance Code, or the International Fire Code, or as is deemed necessary by the building Official for the general safety and welfare of the occupants and the public."

Requiring the rear door to meet the requirements of 311; is requiring the Existing Occupancy (the home as it was; without any door that meets 2006 IRC requirements); to meet the requirements of the 2006 IRC.

Which means you are *not permitting the existing occupancy to continue without change.

R102.7.1 Additions, alterations or repairs to any structure shall conform to the requirements for a new structure without requiring the (existing) structure to comply with all of the requirements of this code, unless otherwise stated.

The requirements of Section R311; is not a requirement for doors, stairways, etc. for existing structures. It is an EGRESS requirement for a dwelling unit;built under the requirements for a new structure.

If you invoke; "or as is deemed necessary by the building Official for the general safety and welfare of the occupans and the public."

You must do the same (require a code compliant egress door; per R311) for every dwelling unit built before the adoption of the 2006 IRC, and/or before R311.4.1 Exit door required, was adopted; that requests a permit for any additions, alterations, or repairs.

Hope this helps,

Uncle Bob
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I guess it would be a matter of how severe the lack of compliance was for the existing front door. If it is an inch and a half too narrow, is that really a life safety issue (no). If it exits through a garage, is that a situation that might call for the "new" door to meet egress and become the new compliant exit? Maybe. Try and keep the bigger picture in mind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top