• 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.

Understanding and Addressing Perceived "Gray Areas" in Building Codes

Understanding and Addressing Perceived "Gray Areas" in Building Codes​

Introduction​

In the building code industry, professionals frequently encounter discussions about the "gray areas" within the codes—those sections that seem ambiguous or open to multiple interpretations. However, a closer examination often reveals that many of these perceived ambiguities can be resolved by thoroughly referencing the definitions and related sections within the code. This article aims to educate building professionals on how to navigate these perceived gray areas and understand the pivotal role of the building official in code interpretation.

The Nature of "Gray Areas"​

A gray area in building codes refers to any section or requirement that appears to lack clarity or definitive guidance, leading to varying interpretations. Contractors, inspectors, and building officials might each have different views on these sections, often influenced by their perspectives and interests.

Key Reasons for Perceived Gray Areas:
  1. Complex Language: Legal and technical jargon can make certain sections difficult to understand.
  2. Evolving Standards: Building codes are periodically updated, and newer sections may not yet be widely understood.
  3. Subjectivity: Some code requirements inherently allow for professional judgment, leading to subjective interpretations.
  4. Context-Specific Applications: Codes might apply differently based on the specific context or type of project, contributing to perceived ambiguity.

Clarifying the Ambiguities​

To address these gray areas, one must employ a systematic approach:
  1. Refer to Definitions: Building codes come with a set of definitions that clarify the terminology used. Always refer to these definitions to ensure accurate interpretation.
  2. Cross-Reference Sections: Often, one section of the code will be clarified by another. Cross-referencing related sections can provide additional context and eliminate ambiguity.
  3. Consult Commentary and Guidelines: Official commentaries, handbooks, and guidelines issued by code bodies provide explanations and interpretations that can clarify complex sections.
  4. Seek Expert Opinions: Engaging with experienced professionals or consulting with code experts can offer insights and interpretations based on practical experience.

Role of the Building Official​

Ultimately, the responsibility for interpreting and enforcing the building code falls to the building official. This role is crucial in maintaining consistency and safety in construction practices. The building official’s decision is influenced by:
  1. Code Compliance: Ensuring that interpretations align with the overall intent and requirements of the building code.
  2. Public Safety: Prioritizing the safety and well-being of the public in all interpretations and decisions.
  3. Consistency: Striving for consistency in code enforcement to avoid arbitrary or biased interpretations.

Addressing Contractor Claims​

Contractors may sometimes claim that the code is vague to push for interpretations that favor their projects. To handle such situations:
  1. Provide Clear Documentation: Document the interpretation process, referencing relevant code sections and definitions.
  2. Engage in Dialogue: Have open discussions with contractors to explain the reasoning behind interpretations.
  3. Utilize Appeal Processes: If disagreements persist, refer to the established appeal processes within the jurisdiction.

TBCF Summary​

While building codes may contain sections that appear ambiguous at first glance, a thorough examination often reveals clear guidance. By referencing definitions, cross-referencing sections, consulting expert opinions, and relying on the authoritative role of the building official, these gray areas can be effectively navigated. This approach not only ensures code compliance but also upholds the safety and integrity of construction practices.
 
Even a lot more gray areas in our state code (UCC) which replaces chapter 1 of the I codes. For instance, no permit for a one- or two-family dwelling is required unless it's structural. Structural seems to mean something different to everyone. The state definition is "A combination of materials that are built or constructed with a permanent location or attached to something that is permanent in nature".
Would 1 new beam added to a house be a combination of materials if it is made from only one board? The BCO requires a permit.
I don't think removing a beam would also fit this definition, but the BCO does.
 
I think most of these Grey" questions come about when applying the IEBC not the IBC or IRC. That is where Technically Feasible or Technically Infeasible comes into consideration and that is where "we" ( both Contractors and (I Hope) Ex-Contractors) / Bldg Code Officials, have an Honest conversation about meeting the INTENT of a Code

W know the "Code" is designed to be the MINIMUM Safety Requirements for a Building. We also know that the Code didn't evolve with A Handbook of Good Construction since we acknowledge there are at least 50 ways to skin that Cat and we are Not delivering Best Practices or even that subjective "Good Job" ( whatever that means)

Code Development is a series of problems and reasonable (non-coordinated) Solutions, Non Coordinated because we often can't "Normalize" or coordinated related Code areas, when solving these Individual problems or questions So IMHO that is where the Grey comes into play.

In conclusion I think it would be helpful to ask 2 fundamental questions:
!. With New Construction, did we meet the INTENT of the Code even with the Light or Dark Grey and
2. With the IEBC, Have we delivered LEvel 2 Alterations that make a clear improvement in the Safety of the Building. That is what we are all about, PUBLIC Safety. Not Aesthetics, or we are going to be part of a project that is going to win some Architectural Award

Anything in this Stream of Consciences Rant sound helpful?

Best, Mike Bergen
 
I think most of these Grey" questions come about when applying the IEBC not the IBC or IRC. That is where Technically Feasible or Technically Infeasible comes into consideration and that is where "we" ( both Contractors and (I Hope) Ex-Contractors) / Bldg Code Officials, have an Honest conversation about meeting the INTENT of a Code

There is nothing in the IEBC about "technically infeasible." That's ADA language. Under the ADA, it is defined as:

Technically Infeasible. With respect to an alteration of a building or a facility, something that has
little likelihood of being accomplished because existing structural conditions would require removing
or altering a load-bearing member that is an essential part of the structural frame
; or because other
existing physical or site constraints prohibit modification or addition of elements, spaces, or features
that are in full and strict compliance with the minimum requirements

In practice, what we encounter more often than not is that applicants want to claim that making something accessible is "technically infeasible" when what they really mean is they don't want to pay for it.

Beyond that, "technically infeasible" does not appear in the IBC, the IEBC, or A117.1.
 
There is nothing in the IEBC about "technically infeasible." That's ADA language. Under the ADA, it is defined as:


Beyond that, "technically infeasible" does not appear in the IBC, the IEBC, or A117.1.
Que? Our IEBC definitions...

TECHNICALLY INFEASIBLE. An alteration of a building or a facility that has little likelihood of being accomplished because the existing structural conditions require the removal or alteration of a load-bearing member that is an essential part of the structural frame, or because other physical or site constraints prohibit modification or addition of elements, spaces or features that are in full and strict compliance with the minimum requirements for new construction and that are necessary to provide accessibility. Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 29-269 of the Connecticut General Statutes, the determination of technical infeasibility shall be made by the State Building Inspector.
 
Que? Our IEBC definitions...

TECHNICALLY INFEASIBLE. An alteration of a building or a facility that has little likelihood of being accomplished because the existing structural conditions require the removal or alteration of a load-bearing member that is an essential part of the structural frame, or because other physical or site constraints prohibit modification or addition of elements, spaces or features that are in full and strict compliance with the minimum requirements for new construction and that are necessary to provide accessibility. Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 29-269 of the Connecticut General Statutes, the determination of technical infeasibility shall be made by the State Building Inspector.

Except for the last sentence and a half, that's copied directly from the ADA. But open the IEBC as a PDF and run a word search on "technically infeasible" and you come up with ... nothing. Connecticut added a definition for a term that is not used in the code.
 
2018 IEBC

TECHNICALLY INFEASIBLE. An alteration of a facility that has little likelihood of being accomplished because the existing structural conditions require the removal or alteration of a load-bearing member that is an essential part of the structural frame, or because other existing physical or site constraints prohibit modification or addition of elements, spaces or features which are in full and strict compliance with the minimum requirements for new construction and which are necessary to provide accessibility.

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:

1. Not fewer than one accessible building entrance.

2. Not fewer than one accessible route from an accessible building entrance to primary function areas.

3. Signage complying with Section 1111 of the International Building Code.

4. Accessible parking, where parking is being provided.

5. Not fewer than one accessible passenger loading zone, where loading zones are provided.

6. Not fewer than one accessible route connecting accessible parking and accessible passenger loading zones to an accessible entrance.

Where it is technically infeasible to comply with the new construction standards for any of these requirements for a change of group or occupancy, Items 1 through 6 shall conform to the requirements to the maximum extent technically feasible.

Exception: The accessible features listed in Items 1 through 6 are not required for an accessible route to Type B units.

305.5 Additions.
Provisions for new construction shall apply to additions. An addition that affects the accessibility to, or contains an area of, a primary function shall comply with the requirements in Section 305.7.

305.6 Alterations.
A facility that is altered shall comply with the applicable provisions in Chapter 11 of the International Building Code, unless technically infeasible. Where compliance with this section is technically infeasible, the alteration shall provide access to the maximum extent technically feasible.
 
2021 IEBC
TECHNICALLY INFEASIBLE. An alteration of a facility that has little likelihood of being accomplished because the existing structural conditions require the removal or alteration of a load-bearing member that is an essential part of the structural frame, or because other existing physical or site constraints prohibit modification or addition of elements, spaces or features which are in full and strict compliance with the minimum requirements for new construction and which are necessary to provide accessibility.

306.5 Change of occupancy.
P​

Existing buildings that undergo a change of group or occupancy shall comply with Section 306.7.

306.7 Alterations.
P​

A facility that is altered shall comply with the applicable provisions in Chapter 11 of the International Building Code, ICC A117.1 and the provisions of Sections 306.7.1 through 306.7.16, unless technically infeasible. Where compliance with this section is technically infeasible, the alteration shall provide access to the maximum extent technically feasible.

 
2024 IEBC
TECHNICALLY INFEASIBLE. An alteration of a facility that has little likelihood of being accomplished because the existing structural conditions require the removal or alteration of a load-bearing member that is an essential part of the structural frame, or because other existing physical or site constraints prohibit modification or addition of elements, spaces or features which are in full and strict compliance with the minimum requirements for new construction and which are necessary to provide accessibility.

306.7 Alterations.

A facility that is altered shall comply with the applicable provisions in Chapter 11 of the International Building Code, ICC A117.1 and the provisions of Sections 306.7.1 through 306.7.18, unless technically infeasible. Where compliance with this section is technically infeasible, the alteration shall provide access to the maximum extent technically feasible.
 
2021 Connecticut IEBC

306.7 Alterations.

A facility that is altered shall comply with the applicable provisions in Chapter 11 of the International Building Code, ICC A117.1 and the provisions of Sections 306.7.1 through 306.7.16, unless technically infeasible. Where compliance with this section is technically infeasible, the alteration shall provide access to the maximum extent technically feasible.

More directly from the Connecticut IEBC:

TECHNICALLY INFEASIBLE. An alteration of a facility that has little likelihood of being accomplished because the existing structural conditions require the removal or alteration of a load-bearing member that is an essential part of the structural frame, or because other existing physical or site constraints prohibit modification or addition of elements, spaces or features which are in full and strict compliance with the minimum requirements for new construction and which are necessary to provide accessibility.
 
Except for the last sentence and a half, that's copied directly from the ADA. But open the IEBC as a PDF and run a word search on "technically infeasible" and you come up with ... nothing. Connecticut added a definition for a term that is not used in the code.
Under the ADA this term applies only to existing facilities that have ADA barriers, for example: not enough room to make the ramp long enough to meet ADA. ADA has allowances for that, but you would need to have that information recorded with the deed. Then that information can be pulled out later as proof you did what was technically feasible and able to show the physical site constraints. Another example is steep terrain, keep your civil engineers drawing with notes showing that the engineer evaluated the plan for infeasibility under the ADA and FHA. Show stuff like setbacks and the contours that did not allow enough room to build accessible routes and the number of units allowed on the site. The civil engineer needs to document that in certain areas they could not flatten out enough of the area to build to ADA or FHA compliance. FYI the FHA wants a minimum of 20% of the multifamily homes to be FHA ANSI A117.1 1986, accessible. Including all common use areas. Both the ADA and FHA allow drive to site options, as long as the accessible parking and the route to the accessible home or common public areas in that site, are seamless.
 
Except for the last sentence and a half, that's copied directly from the ADA. But open the IEBC as a PDF and run a word search on "technically infeasible" and you come up with ... nothing. Connecticut added a definition for a term that is not used in the code.
Like I said....we do get some thing right...
 
2021 Connecticut IEBC

306.7 Alterations.​

A facility that is altered shall comply with the applicable provisions in Chapter 11 of the International Building Code, ICC A117.1 and the provisions of Sections 306.7.1 through 306.7.16, unless technically infeasible. Where compliance with this section is technically infeasible, the alteration shall provide access to the maximum extent technically feasible.

More directly from the Connecticut IEBC:

TECHNICALLY INFEASIBLE. An alteration of a facility that has little likelihood of being accomplished because the existing structural conditions require the removal or alteration of a load-bearing member that is an essential part of the structural frame, or because other existing physical or site constraints prohibit modification or addition of elements, spaces or features which are in full and strict compliance with the minimum requirements for new construction and which are necessary to provide accessibility.

So much for Adobe Acrobat's "Find" utility.

My bad -- sorry.
 
There are more grey areas than some will admit.

If the applicant proposes an interpretation that complies with the letter of the adopted code the building official should accept that interpretation
 
There are more grey areas than some will admit.

If the applicant proposes an interpretation that complies with the letter of the adopted code the building official should accept that interpretation

If something complies with the letter of the code, that's not (IMHO) an interpretation, nor is it a gray area. Gray areas are where the language of the code is unclear or the code is silent, resulting in differences of opinion ("interpretation") as to what the code requires. From an applicant's perspective, it would be nice if a building official had to accept whatever an applicant says they think complies. In actuality, according to the code itself the opposite is true.

IBC 2021:

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.

And the 2021 Commentary on the above:

The duty of the building official is to enforce the code,
and they are the “authority having jurisdiction” for all
matters relating to the code and its enforcement. It is
the duty of the building official to interpret the code and

to determine compliance. Code compliance will not
always be easy to determine and will require judgment
and expertise, particularly when enforcing the provisions
of Sections 104.10 and 104.11. In exercising this
authority, however, the building official cannot set
aside or ignore any provision of the code.
 
If the applicant proposes an interpretation that complies with the letter of the adopted code the building official should accept that interpretation
LA County preserves the authority of the Building Official.

104.2 Powers and Duties of the Building Official.
104.2.1 General.

"The Building Official shall have the power to render interpretations of this Code and to adopt and enforce rules and supplemental regulations in order to clarify the application of its provisions. Such interpretations, rules, and regulations shall be in conformance with the intent and purpose of this Code."

 
The only good thing about our state code is that plan reviewers and inspectors are not allowed to decide what is technically infeasible for accessibility. We have a state board that they need to appeal to for this.
 
The only good thing about our state code is that plan reviewers and inspectors are not allowed to decide what is technically infeasible for accessibility. We have a state board that they need to appeal to for this.
So do you send pretty much every permit to them or does every remodel get to 100%
 
Back
Top