Stop Looking for Excuses and Start Enforcing the Code

Are we enforcing the code or just looking for reasons to avoid doing our job? Too often, inspectors and building officials fall into the trap of seeking excuses rather than solutions. Whether it’s fear of upsetting property owners, resistance from contractors, or simply a reluctance to handle the tough calls, the reality is clear: our job is to enforce the code, not to win popularity contests. The International Building Code (IBC) makes it abundantly clear that enforcement is not optional. Under IBC Section 104.1, the building official is "authorized and directed" to enforce the provisions of the code. This means there’s no room for interpretation when it comes to ensuring compliance, especially with life-safety issues.

One of the most common excuses is that the non-compliant condition was previously approved or ignored by another official. This argument doesn't hold up. IBC Section 104.6 provides building officials with the authority to issue necessary notices and orders to achieve compliance, regardless of how long a violation has existed. Life-safety provisions are not subject to grandfathering; they exist to protect public welfare, and once an issue is identified, it must be addressed. Ignoring a known hazard, simply because it was overlooked in the past, is not only a failure of duty but also a liability risk for the jurisdiction.

The fear of backlash from contractors and property owners is another common deterrent. Some officials worry about being seen as the "bad guy," but the truth is that the appeals process exists precisely to handle disputes. IBC Section 104.2 grants officials the authority to interpret the code and adopt policies that clarify its application, ensuring fairness and consistency. Officials who hesitate to enforce due to fear of conflict misunderstand their role—we are not making subjective judgments; we are applying established standards.

It’s time to stop looking for excuses and start taking responsibility. When a potential violation is identified, enforcement must follow, no matter how uncomfortable the conversation might be. The job of a building official is not just about inspections and approvals; it’s about ensuring the safety and well-being of the public. The reality is that avoiding enforcement now can lead to far greater consequences down the road—injuries, lawsuits, and even loss of life.

Building officials are protected under IBC Section 104.8, which provides immunity from personal liability when duties are performed in good faith. This protection exists so officials can do their job without fear of personal repercussions. Yet, some officials still hesitate, letting perceived fear outweigh their legal responsibility.

The bottom line is this: enforcement isn’t optional. We have the authority, the responsibility, and the legal backing to do the job correctly. Instead of looking for ways out, officials should focus on the tools at their disposal to enforce the code effectively. Whether it’s utilizing technical reports, issuing corrective notices, or leaning on the appeals process, solutions exist.

The next time you’re faced with a tough decision, ask yourself—am I protecting the public or just protecting myself?

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

One of the most common excuses is that the non-compliant condition was previously approved or ignored by another official. This argument doesn't hold up. IBC Section 104.6 provides building officials with the authority to issue necessary notices and orders to achieve compliance, regardless of how long a violation has existed. Life-safety provisions are not subject to grandfathering; they exist to protect public welfare, and once an issue is identified, it must be addressed. Ignoring a known hazard, simply because it was overlooked in the past, is not only a failure of duty but also a liability risk for the jurisdiction.

As I have mentioned in other threads, one of our former State Building Inspectors routinely stood in front of rooms full of building officials (back when we still had live in-service training classes) and told us, "A violation is always a violation." If we don't know about it, obviously we can't do anything about it. If we know about it, I believe we have an affirmative duty to act on it.

Also as I have posted elsewhere, this is what led to my department requiring changes to an office condo building that had stood -- in violation -- for over 30 years. A doctor on the second floor applied for a permit to alter part of the second floor to expand his office suite. The plans we received didn't show the entire second floor and didn't show any information about means of egress. For that along with other problems, I rejected the plans. While waiting for revised construction documents, I went to the building to see first-hand what the egress arrangement was.

First problem was that I found work had already started. The second problem I found was that BOTH of the two fire stairs discharged through lobbies/vestibules on the first floor, AND the two lobbies were connected by a corridor with no doors, so they share the same atmosphere. The building was constructed in the 1980s under an edition of the BOCA code. BOCA required exits to discharge directly to the exterior, and then offered an exception allowing up to 50% to discharge through a lobby or vestibule. We had NO exits discharging directly to the exterior.

So the building was an on-going violation. Before raising a ruckus, I called in the Fire Marshal, who agreed that it looked like a violation and who admitted that his office hadn't picked up on it [for 30 years!]. He then brought in the State Fire Marshal's office, and they also agreed it was a violation and had to be remediated. At that point, we issued a violation notice signed jointly by the Building Official and the Fire Marshal. Naturally, everyone immediately ignored the Fire Marshal's office, and the doctor complained to the administration that the Building Department was picking on him.

Violations in existing buildings are a problem, but we can't ignore them once we become aware of them.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Other provisions telling us we can't ignore the code (from the 2021 ICC IBC):

[A] 104.1 General. The building official is hereby authorized
and directed to enforce the provisions of this code. The building
official shall have the authority to render interpretations of
this code and to adopt policies and procedures in order to clarify
the application of its provisions. Such interpretations,
policies and procedures shall be in compliance with the intent
and purpose of this code. Such policies and procedures shall
not have the effect of waiving requirements specifically
provided for in this code.

[A] 105.4 Validity of permit. The issuance or granting of a
permit shall not be construed to be a permit for, or an approval
of, any violation of any of the provisions of this code or of any
other ordinance of the jurisdiction. Permits presuming to give
authority to violate or cancel the provisions of this code or
other ordinances of the jurisdiction shall not be valid. The issuance
of a permit based on construction documents and other
data shall not prevent the building official from requiring the
correction of errors in the construction documents and other
data. The building official is authorized to prevent occupancy
or use of a structure where in violation of this code or of any
other ordinances of this jurisdiction.

[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.

 

[ICE]

Well Jeff, are you a witness to the decline of ethics in building departments? There was a time when qualified inspectors lined up looking to be hired by L.A. County. A lot has changed in twenty-eight years. The last stats that I heard were that there was just over 100 applicants for a dozen inspector positions and two were hired. I worked along side one of the two. What a mistake he was. And then I met the other one, that guy can’t look at my eyes when we talk…I suppose he can tell that I don’t like him.

The rest of the inspector slots were filled by promoting Permit Technicians. To achieve that, the PTs were given instruction a few days a week for months; an entire year as I recall. Those that could pass a Residential Inspector exam were promoted. Mostly women with no practical experience. I worked along side a few of them. They had watched inspectors leave the office at 9:00am and not appear again until the next day. That's as much as they knew about the job. They wanted that freedom and bump in pay.

I remember the day I got a call from a gal that was inspecting an electric service at a water park. She told me that she was told by her supervisor that the GEC need not be larger than #6 awg to water pipe. I told her that she has no business inspecting a commercial el. service and get out of there now. A few years later we were together in a training class. I asked a question about some thing and she remarked that until I asked the question, she had no idea that such a thing existed. Not long after that she transferred to the rehab. dept. knowing that trash, junk and debris won't get anyone killed.

So Jeff, what I'm telling you is that the fault lies at the top. If you are a competent inspector with heart and soul for the job, you do not thrive. L.A. County B/S has no problem recognizing extraordinary inspectors however L.A. County B/S rewards ordinary inspectors.

After I retired I went to work for a 3rd party company and filled in when inspectors were out. I went to nine cities before they had enough of me. I didn't think it could be worse than LACO B/S but OH BOY! what an eyeopener. I set records that will never be broken. A final on an ADU with twenty+ corrections and I didn't get inside.... that sort of thing.

I don't know how many inspectors frequent the forum. I do know that the couple dozen that weigh in are not typical by a long shot. If the public knew the truth, there would be an uproar. The truly damnable feature of this is that the job is not difficult. The entire code is written down. The certification exams are open book, which should be a hint that they are bending over backwards to fill the ranks. Hell's Bells, the questions are multiple choice....they give you the answer right there in the question.

When I started with the County there were inspectors that really knew stuff. Guys that if you got the chance to accompany them and pick their brain, you took that opportunity. Guys with a reputation like John Riddle. He was a crusty old man with a take no prisoners approach. Carl Smith, the Joker that knew residential. O.B. Thompson was an office manager that did not answer a phone for better than 30 years. Training was about the things we actually dealt with.... the nuts and bolts of construction. That morphed into DEI and how to Commission a Holiday Inn. You can sleep your way to a retirement but if you hire in now...well you don't get a retirement....nope, you get a savings plan.

Early on I was with O.B. at lunch and I said, "You know O.B. I see some things that are just wrong but the code is silent." I explained that it is not a lot but enough that when I see something that's just going to be a maintenance issue. O.B. said, "I would trust your judgement so write the correction. You're the only one there that knows the code so they will do whatever you tell them to do" "They'll light your cigarettes for you"

We were somebody then. We were addressed, "inspector". Work stopped, the site was clean, they were ready for inspection. What do we get these days? The site can look like it was hit by a tornado, they are not ready, the person in charge is clueless or not there at all. The lack of respect sorta matches the performance by the County so it's perhaps not that noticeable by the newer inspectors. And the new inspectors sorta earn the measure they get as they think, "If this job was as important as some say it is, would they send me?"

 

[bill1952]

I sense some here believe that perhaps the thoroughness and diligence if inspectors is somewhat less than it was several decades ago. I wonder how that correlates to achieving the codes. My sense is the record for injuries and deaths from buildings has improved.

 

[jar546]

As I have mentioned in other threads, one of our former State Building Inspectors routinely stood in front of rooms full of building officials (back when we still had live in-service training classes) and told us, "A violation is always a violation." If we don't know about it, obviously we can't do anything about it. If we know about it, I believe we have an affirmative duty to act on it.

Also as I have posted elsewhere, this is what led to my department requiring changes to an office condo building that had stood -- in violation -- for over 30 years. A doctor on the second floor applied for a permit to alter part of the second floor to expand his office suite. The plans we received didn't show the entire second floor and didn't show any information about means of egress. For that along with other problems, I rejected the plans. While waiting for revised construction documents, I went to the building to see first-hand what the egress arrangement was.

First problem was that I found work had already started. The second problem I found was that BOTH of the two fire stairs discharged through lobbies/vestibules on the first floor, AND the two lobbies were connected by a corridor with no doors, so they share the same atmosphere. The building was constructed in the 1980s under an edition of the BOCA code. BOCA required exits to discharge directly to the exterior, and then offered an exception allowing up to 50% to discharge through a lobby or vestibule. We had NO exits discharging directly to the exterior.

So the building was an on-going violation. Before raising a ruckus, I called in the Fire Marshal, who agreed that it looked like a violation and who admitted that his office hadn't picked up on it [for 30 years!]. He then brought in the State Fire Marshal's office, and they also agreed it was a violation and had to be remediated. At that point, we issued a violation notice signed jointly by the Building Official and the Fire Marshal. Naturally, everyone immediately ignored the Fire Marshal's office, and the doctor complained to the administration that the Building Department was picking on him.

Violations in existing buildings are a problem, but we can't ignore them once we become aware of them.

A very common occurrence.

 

[jar546]

Well Jeff, are you a witness to the decline of ethics in building departments? There was a time when qualified inspectors lined up looking to be hired by L.A. County. A lot has changed in twenty-eight years. The last stats that I heard were that there was just over 100 applicants for a dozen inspector positions and two were hired. I worked along side one of the two. What a mistake he was. And then I met the other one, that guy can’t look at my eyes when we talk…I suppose he can tell that I don’t like him.

The rest of the inspector slots were filled by promoting Permit Technicians. To achieve that, the PTs were given instruction a few days a week for months; an entire year as I recall. Those that could pass a Residential Inspector exam were promoted. Mostly women with no practical experience. I worked along side a few of them. They had watched inspectors leave the office at 9:00am and not appear again until the next day. That's as much as they knew about the job. They wanted that freedom and bump in pay.

I remember the day I got a call from a gal that was inspecting an electric service at a water park. She told me that she was told by her supervisor that the GEC need not be larger than #6 awg to water pipe. I told her that she has no business inspecting a commercial el. service and get out of there now. A few years later we were together in a training class. I asked a question about some thing and she remarked that until I asked the question, she had no idea that such a thing existed. Not long after that she transferred to the rehab. dept. knowing that trash, junk and debris won't get anyone killed.

So Jeff, what I'm telling you is that the fault lies at the top. If you are a competent inspector with heart and soul for the job, you do not thrive. L.A. County B/S has no problem recognizing extraordinary inspectors however L.A. County B/S rewards ordinary inspectors.

After I retired I went to work for a 3rd party company and filled in when inspectors were out. I went to nine cities before they had enough of me. I didn't think it could be worse than LACO B/S but OH BOY! what an eyeopener. I set records that will never be broken. A final on an ADU with twenty+ corrections and I didn't get inside.... that sort of thing.

I don't know how many inspectors frequent the forum. I do know that the couple dozen that weigh in are not typical by a long shot. If the public knew the truth, there would be an uproar. The truly damnable feature of this is that the job is not difficult. The entire code is written down. The certification exams are open book, which should be a hint that they are bending over backwards to fill the ranks. Hell's Bells, the questions are multiple choice....they give you the answer right there in the question.

When I started with the County there were inspectors that really knew stuff. Guys that if you got the chance to accompany them and pick their brain, you took that opportunity. Guys with a reputation like John Riddle. He was a crusty old man with a take no prisoners approach. Carl Smith, the Joker that knew residential. O.B. Thompson was an office manager that did not answer a phone for better than 30 years. Training was about the things we actually dealt with.... the nuts and bolts of construction. That morphed into DEI and how to Commission a Holiday Inn. You can sleep your way to a retirement but if you hire in now...well you don't get a retirement....nope, you get a savings plan.

Early on I was with O.B. at lunch and I said, "You know O.B. I see some things that are just wrong but the code is silent." I explained that it is not a lot but enough that when I see something that's just going to be a maintenance issue. O.B. said, "I would trust your judgement so write the correction. You're the only one there that knows the code so they will do whatever you tell them to do" "They'll light your cigarettes for you"

We were somebody then. We were addressed, "inspector". Work stopped, the site was clean, they were ready for inspection. What do we get these days? The site can look like it was hit by a tornado, they are not ready, the person in charge is clueless or not there at all. The lack of respect sorta matches the performance by the County so it's perhaps not that noticeable by the newer inspectors. And the new inspectors sorta earn the measure they get as they think, "If this job was as important as some say it is, would they send me?"

when third-party agencies that we are in a contract with send inspectors, I don’t cut them loose until they come and talk to me. And then I feel them out. I look at the reports and I will go out and spot check their inspections. Over the years there’s at least six or seven guys that I called the supervisor for and told him I don’t want those guys ever back in my town again. I try to hold everyone at a high standard so that we do our job because at the end of the day, we’re keeping people safe and working for the residence of the community. It’s not about me,it’s not about anything other than life, safety, and health of the residence. If you can’t do your job, you have no business being in this business.

 

[jar546]

I sense some here believe that perhaps the thoroughness and diligence if inspectors is somewhat less than it was several decades ago. I wonder how that correlates to achieving the codes. My sense is the record for injuries and deaths from buildings has improved.

I truly hope that the numbers have declined, however, the number of lawsuits from defective work is on the increase. So we have more litigation which is increasing insurance premiums for everyone and hopefully we have less safety issues, but I want to see those numbers per CAP not just a number because as the population increases, so does the amount of issues. The issue comes to per capita data.

 

[ICE]

I look at the reports and I will go out and spot check their inspections

My sense is the record for injuries and deaths from buildings has improved.

In my experience, as long as the contract inspector keeps showing up, he has a job. The County pays for a competent Senior Inspector so the County is off the hook if the inspector is lousy.

 

[BN4537]

when third-party agencies that we are in a contract with send inspectors, I don’t cut them loose until they come and talk to me. And then I feel them out. I look at the reports and I will go out and spot check their inspections. Over the years there’s at least six or seven guys that I called the supervisor for and told him I don’t want those guys ever back in my town again. I try to hold everyone at a high standard so that we do our job because at the end of the day, we’re keeping people safe and working for the residence of the community. It’s not about me,it’s not about anything other than life, safety, and health of the residence. If you can’t do your job, you have no business being in this business.

That is the only way you can expect that a third-party inspection system will even approximate a well-run building department.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

Don't need to look for an excuse when there was no code 20 years ago and almost all of the buildings were built over 20 years ago, and you can't make them pay a fine and no Fire Code.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

No code 20 years ago?

We have been under a mandatory state-wide building code for more than 50 years. We still have a lot of houses and structures that pre-date that (although I think all the cities had adopted building codes long before that, many of the smaller towns had not), but most of the alterations and tenant fit-out work we see is in buildings that were constructed under an adopted building code.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

I believe some cities in my state had codes before but no statewide codes until 2004. Many years ago, I did handyman work in a city for 5 years and never know they had a code. I don't think I ever want to live or do inspections in a city. We do have one 8-story building I did inspections on once. Otherwise, we don't have anything more than 3 stories in my area.

 

[jar546]

I believe some cities in my state had codes before but no statewide codes until 2004. Many years ago, I did handyman work in a city for 5 years and never know they had a code. I don't think I ever want to live or do inspections in a city. We do have one 8-story building I did inspections on once. Otherwise, we don't have anything more than 3 stories in my area.

I really have to call BS on this statement. This is simply pure ignorance. I started working for my stepdad who was first licensed in the city of Wilkes-Barre in 1968 as a general contractor. Every single little town that we worked in, we had been pulling permits since I started doing work in the mid to late 70s with him. Small townships, boroughs, and even small cities had codes. We always pulled permits and there was a code in place, the most popular throughout Pennsylvania was the BOCA which was also my very first code book that I had to learn. Most of those small townships in boroughs did not have licensing requirements like the larger cities, such as Wilkes-Barre and Scranton, but they did have a code, they had ordinances and required permits. Now, Pennsylvania did not have a statewide building code until 2004, but that does not mean that there were no codes in place whatsoever. Sometimes we have to try to educate ourselves outside the small, tiny bubble that we live in and realize that there’s more going on than we think.

 

[tmurray]

One of the most common excuses is that the non-compliant condition was previously approved or ignored by another official.

Some legal context in Canada:

If a building official has approved something and that approval is later revoked, there may be some liability for the building department from a violation of the procedural fairness principal depending on the context of the condition.

However, it should be noted that in many situations, the liability from allowing the non-compliant situation to remain is likely larger than the liability exposure from the procedural fairness violation.

I would note that you can typically talk someone into doing something during the construction process, avoiding, or at least limiting, exposure on both fronts.

 

[steveray]

For instance, last week I spoke with three municipalities. One had a 6 story change of use to apartments that called for a rough plumbing inspection and 3 stories were already drywalled. One was another 6 story COO from R1 to R2 and had a new 3hr FW that was installed as a 2hr., discovered at the 4th floor...And the third was 2 apartment buildings just about to CO and it was discovered they installed a 13R system and not the 13 system that was on the plans....YEEHAW! I am glad I am not the BO in any of those places....

 

[Sifu]

I really have to call BS on this statement. This is simply pure ignorance. I started working for my stepdad who was first licensed in the city of Wilkes-Barre in 1968 as a general contractor. Every single little town that we worked in, we had been pulling permits since I started doing work in the mid to late 70s with him. Small townships, boroughs, and even small cities had codes. We always pulled permits and there was a code in place, the most popular throughout Pennsylvania was the BOCA which was also my very first code book that I had to learn. Most of those small townships in boroughs did not have licensing requirements like the larger cities, such as Wilkes-Barre and Scranton, but they did have a code, they had ordinances and required permits. Now, Pennsylvania did not have a statewide building code until 2004, but that does not mean that there were no codes in place whatsoever. Sometimes we have to try to educate ourselves outside the small, tiny bubble that we live in and realize that there’s more going on than we think.

There can also be less going on than we think.

I grew up in a small central PA town. I started in working commercial construction there in the 80's. I left in 1998, they still had no code enforcement there or any of the other small towns where we did work. Maybe there was a published code somewhere, likely in the larger cities but if a small municipality didn't have an enforcement mechanism there was no code to speak of. Even back then I would ask who designed the buildings, who verified they were up to snuff, who made sure what was done in the field matched the plans? The answer was that the company I worked for designed them, then other office personnel checked them, then the super followed the plans, then I did what the super told me. Not one time, in any of the towns, on any of the buildings was their any enforcement mechanism. I sat in the office once and watched the lead designer. The drew the plans, engineered the plans, etc. Mostly PEMB's. He would check the reactions from the manufacturer, design the foundations, draw up the interiors, order the materials. Plenty of scratch paper, lots of calculator work. I am pretty sure they copies of the UBC in the office. No building code department to tell him he was right or wrong. As far as I know he was not an engineer, but I am not sure. We built mostly heavy industrial, in the heart of the metals industry.

When I left there I moved to a state that had a statewide code, and every municipality had a department. When I left that state, I landed in a state with no statewide enforcement and I ultimately took a job where I started an enforcement department in a large county because the state was encouraging all municipalities to start one, that was in 2008? I now work in a state that I would consider pretty up with the times, but only in my areas. There are still plenty of areas in this state and many other states that don't have an enforcement arm.

Those first areas in PA? Now it does have an enforcement agency (I think it showed up around 2010), following the PA state codes. It is administered by a 3rd party agency. I am still very close with the family that I worked for all those years ago, they are still in the business, as busy as ever. I have visited some of their jobs when I go back, they look the same. Now they have engineered plans, plan submittal, plan review and the regular inspections. I used to hang out and drink beer with the guys who are now some of the building officials.

 

[Inspector Gadget]

If a building official has approved something and that approval is later revoked, there may be some liability for the building department from a violation of the procedural fairness principal depending on the context of the condition.

However, it should be noted that in many situations, the liability from allowing the non-compliant situation to remain is likely larger than the liability exposure from the procedural fairness violation.

I had a situation that was in this realm. Our office assumed responsibility for a jurisdiction overseen by an individual who is not certified/qualified as a building official. The structure was complex, and required engineering and fire separations. No construction drawings from an engineer were on file, and an addition had been placed that wasn't on the plans. The job was a mess. After six months of communicating with various individuals, I revoked the permit. Our province has a clause that we can rescind permits if they were issued in error - as this one was. I could easily defend the decision to do so - Part 3 building with no engineer of record, no stamped construction plans, deviation from the approved permit, etc. etc.
Ultimately, given that I do (allegedly) know what I'm doing, I could have been in serious hot water for allowing the project to continue.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

For instance, last week I spoke with three municipalities. One had a 6 story change of use to apartments that called for a rough plumbing inspection and 3 stories were already drywalled. One was another 6 story COO from R1 to R2 and had a new 3hr FW that was installed as a 2hr., discovered at the 4th floor...And the third was 2 apartment buildings just about to CO and it was discovered they installed a 13R system and not the 13 system that was on the plans....YEEHAW! I am glad I am not the BO in any of those places....

Too many contractors regard the building permit as carte blanche to ignore those pesky contract documents and just build whatever they feel like building, And too many of our colleagues allow this to happen, which makes life more difficult for those who care -- contractors and code officials alike.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

I really have to call BS on this statement. This is simply pure ignorance. I started working for my stepdad who was first licensed in the city of Wilkes-Barre in 1968 as a general contractor. Every single little town that we worked in, we had been pulling permits since I started doing work in the mid to late 70s with him. Small townships, boroughs, and even small cities had codes. We always pulled permits and there was a code in place, the most popular throughout Pennsylvania was the BOCA which was also my very first code book that I had to learn. Most of those small townships in boroughs did not have licensing requirements like the larger cities, such as Wilkes-Barre and Scranton, but they did have a code, they had ordinances and required permits. Now, Pennsylvania did not have a statewide building code until 2004, but that does not mean that there were no codes in place whatsoever. Sometimes we have to try to educate ourselves outside the small, tiny bubble that we live in and realize that there’s more going on than we think.

I asked the BCO's if the townships I inspect in had codes before the statewide code, and they said no. Seeing that most of the commercial buildings had no C. O, and how they were built I believe the BCO's.

 

[BuildingOfficial89]

As I have mentioned in other threads, one of our former State Building Inspectors routinely stood in front of rooms full of building officials (back when we still had live in-service training classes) and told us, "A violation is always a violation." If we don't know about it, obviously we can't do anything about it. If we know about it, I believe we have an affirmative duty to act on it.

Also as I have posted elsewhere, this is what led to my department requiring changes to an office condo building that had stood -- in violation -- for over 30 years. A doctor on the second floor applied for a permit to alter part of the second floor to expand his office suite. The plans we received didn't show the entire second floor and didn't show any information about means of egress. For that along with other problems, I rejected the plans. While waiting for revised construction documents, I went to the building to see first-hand what the egress arrangement was.

First problem was that I found work had already started. The second problem I found was that BOTH of the two fire stairs discharged through lobbies/vestibules on the first floor, AND the two lobbies were connected by a corridor with no doors, so they share the same atmosphere. The building was constructed in the 1980s under an edition of the BOCA code. BOCA required exits to discharge directly to the exterior, and then offered an exception allowing up to 50% to discharge through a lobby or vestibule. We had NO exits discharging directly to the exterior.

So the building was an on-going violation. Before raising a ruckus, I called in the Fire Marshal, who agreed that it looked like a violation and who admitted that his office hadn't picked up on it [for 30 years!]. He then brought in the State Fire Marshal's office, and they also agreed it was a violation and had to be remediated. At that point, we issued a violation notice signed jointly by the Building Official and the Fire Marshal. Naturally, everyone immediately ignored the Fire Marshal's office, and the doctor complained to the administration that the Building Department was picking on him.

Violations in existing buildings are a problem, but we can't ignore them once we become aware of them.

I dealt with an issue on a 1980 condo building that had the ceiling drywall cut out to access the plumbing. The association president tried to tell me and the fire marshal that it was approved by the city, we asked them for a copy of the letter from whoever was the previous building official approving the condition (which obviously didn't exist) and when they couldn't produce it, we said fix the plumbing and restore the GWB.

 

[jar546]

I dealt with an issue on a 1980 condo building that had the ceiling drywall cut out to access the plumbing. The association president tried to tell me and the fire marshal that it was approved by the city, we asked them for a copy of the letter from whoever was the previous building official approving the condition (which obviously didn't exist) and when they couldn't produce it, we said fix the plumbing and restore the GWB.

Absolutely, just as you folks should have.

 

[CourtneyinNM]

Are we enforcing the code or just looking for reasons to avoid doing our job? Too often, inspectors and building officials fall into the trap of seeking excuses rather than solutions. Whether it’s fear of upsetting property owners, resistance from contractors, or simply a reluctance to handle the tough calls, the reality is clear: our job is to enforce the code, not to win popularity contests. The International Building Code (IBC) makes it abundantly clear that enforcement is not optional. Under IBC Section 104.1, the building official is "authorized and directed" to enforce the provisions of the code. This means there’s no room for interpretation when it comes to ensuring compliance, especially with life-safety issues.

One of the most common excuses is that the non-compliant condition was previously approved or ignored by another official. This argument doesn't hold up. IBC Section 104.6 provides building officials with the authority to issue necessary notices and orders to achieve compliance, regardless of how long a violation has existed. Life-safety provisions are not subject to grandfathering; they exist to protect public welfare, and once an issue is identified, it must be addressed. Ignoring a known hazard, simply because it was overlooked in the past, is not only a failure of duty but also a liability risk for the jurisdiction.

The fear of backlash from contractors and property owners is another common deterrent. Some officials worry about being seen as the "bad guy," but the truth is that the appeals process exists precisely to handle disputes. IBC Section 104.2 grants officials the authority to interpret the code and adopt policies that clarify its application, ensuring fairness and consistency. Officials who hesitate to enforce due to fear of conflict misunderstand their role—we are not making subjective judgments; we are applying established standards.

It’s time to stop looking for excuses and start taking responsibility. When a potential violation is identified, enforcement must follow, no matter how uncomfortable the conversation might be. The job of a building official is not just about inspections and approvals; it’s about ensuring the safety and well-being of the public. The reality is that avoiding enforcement now can lead to far greater consequences down the road—injuries, lawsuits, and even loss of life.

Building officials are protected under IBC Section 104.8, which provides immunity from personal liability when duties are performed in good faith. This protection exists so officials can do their job without fear of personal repercussions. Yet, some officials still hesitate, letting perceived fear outweigh their legal responsibility.

The bottom line is this: enforcement isn’t optional. We have the authority, the responsibility, and the legal backing to do the job correctly. Instead of looking for ways out, officials should focus on the tools at their disposal to enforce the code effectively. Whether it’s utilizing technical reports, issuing corrective notices, or leaning on the appeals process, solutions exist.

The next time you’re faced with a tough decision, ask yourself—am I protecting the public or just protecting myself?

In New Mexico, our Construction Industries Division ("CID") of the Regulation and Licensing Department is responsible for issuing permits and conducting inspections. We have pulled our second permit for our new residential dwelling construction. For the second time, CID is 'conducting' these inspections through a telephone call to the contractor. Why can't we get an inspector to come out and visually inspect before declaring that construction has been completed according to applicable codes? Is this normal? No one has ever checked to see that our permit is displayed. That is the least of my concerns, but also a requirement here. Anyone have any information that can ease my mind on the issue of my safety?

 

[ICE]

One of the most common excuses is that the non-compliant condition was previously approved or ignored by another official. This argument doesn't hold up

Don't be so quick to blame the inspector.

This is a repeat but it is what the industry has become:
I was assigned to the San Gabriel District office of LA County B/S. The office manager and her assistant office manager sat me down for a meeting. I was informed that I was not allowed to write corrections if another inspector had approved the work. If I was there to inspect for corrections, I was only allowed to verify that the corrections were completed and I was not allowed to write new corrections. As I was exiting the meeting the assistant office manager told me that I don’t need to write every correction that I see.

That day I was given a final inspection on a house. I had not been there previously. This was the third attempt at a final and there was a correction related to a stairway. As I walked up to the house, the contractor was installing the service panel dead front. I noticed that of the forty or more circuit breakers, none were AFCI.

I introduced myself and apologized saying that I wouldn’t be able to sign his job card. He was startled. He said that he had done the stairway correction and if he failed today, liquidated damages would kick in. I told him that I am not allowed to write corrections so I can’t help him. He asked me to do the inspection. I made it clear that I could break the rules ... write corrections and tear him up.... or I could leave a note that says “Sorry I missed you. Schedule a followup inspection” He didn’t want either choice so I left.

The next day I met the inspector that had been with that project from the beginning. He asked me if it passed final. I told him that I couldn’t help them because there were no AFCI breakers. He said, “AFI??? I’ve heard of those. What are they?”

That inspector is now an assistant office manager. And by the way, he’s one of the smarter ones.

I should point out that I did not go along with the bullshit that those managers tried to enforce. As a result, a next level manager tried to remove me from B/S and into Capitol Projects. I got to his boss and talked him out of that.

I was transferred to the La Puente District office. The manager there was a bi-polar train wreck that could barely keep up with me. He said that I created more headache than all the other inspectors combined...but oddly enough he didn't tell me to slow down. About a year into it, the County hired Satan as an inspector .... the bi-polar manager couldn't handle the heat and retired. I followed him a few years later.

After I retired from the County I went to work for ******* as a replacement inspector. Oh my goodness it couldn't be any worse.
So Jeff, if you are still reading this know that the only way to get to a worthy state in the industry is to fire everyone and start over.