Use of code not yet adopted by state

[NCRooster]

I have a church project in NJ that will go into permitting approximately 1 year from now. The clients would like to have an all gender multi-stall bathroom, as it is important to their congregation. Unfortunately, this is not allowed under current NJ plumbing code, which is the 2021 NSPC NJ Edition. However, NJ will (very likely, given their 3-year adoption schedule) be adopting the 2024 NSPC in mid to late 2025, and this edition allows all gender bathrooms per 7.21.4 Exception 5. Is there a process for requesting the AHJ to consider a design that complies with a soon-to-be-adopted building code? If needed, we can design two separate bathrooms for permitting and then push through the revision once the 2024 code is adopted, but we would obviously prefer not to if there's a way to get the all gender bathroom approved.

Thanks in advance for any feedback! Happy to provide more details.

 

[mtlogcabin]

I would not authorize/approve a permit based on a code that has not been adopted.

 

[Joe.B]

I think a designer would have a good chance of getting this approved using a combination of 104.9 and 104.11. The key is presenting a good proposal with the request, the method, and the reasoning behind the proposal very clearly laid out. The AHJ will need that if they ever have to defend their actions later.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

I usually see that the owners change the gender signs to all genders after they get the C. O. to get around this.

 

[mtlogcabin]

The codes use male and female which are specific and not fluid like the term gender. Until the code language changes what you are asking for is a common use unisex restroom by multiple male and female individuals users at the same time.

male​

adjective​

1. Of, relating to, or designating the sex that has organs to produce spermatozoa for fertilizing ova.

female​

adjective​

1. Of or denoting the sex that produces ova or bears young.

And this is a church asking for this

 

[NCRooster]

Thanks all who have weighed in so far.

I think a designer would have a good chance of getting this approved using a combination of 104.9 and 104.11. The key is presenting a good proposal with the request, the method, and the reasoning behind the proposal very clearly laid out. The AHJ will need that if they ever have to defend their actions later.

Is this referring to the IBC? Unfortunately NJ has deleted Chapter 1 of the NJ Building Code; however, I will do some digging into their administrative code and see what I can find.

I usually see that the owners change the gender signs to all genders after they get the C. O. to get around this.

This isn't an option for this project, as would be just one large multi-stall bathroom instead of two, though we may have to end up splitting it into two bathrooms temporarily if there's not a way around this issue.

The codes use male and female which are specific and not fluid like the term gender. Until the code language changes what you are asking for is a common use unisex restroom by multiple male and female individuals users at the same time.

male​

adjective​

1. Of, relating to, or designating the sex that has organs to produce spermatozoa for fertilizing ova.

female​

adjective​

1. Of or denoting the sex that produces ova or bears young.

And this is a church asking for this

The 2024 NSPC actually does use the term "all gender" in Sections 7.21.2 and 7.21.11, though it uses "sex" elsewhere. That said, I would appreciate this thread not getting derailed by politics. I realize sex / gender and toilets is a hot topic for some. This is a unitarian congregation and hence has very different views from the "typical" church.

 

[ajesaitis]

In these instances we've used AM&M's (Alternate Means and Methods) letters successfully with the AHJ.

 

[ICE]

Allowing the application of an upcoming code before it is formally adopted is not without precedent. Being, at a minimum, always one cycle behind means that the next edition beckons when it would provide relief. That takes place with the NEC more than the other disciplines.

There are situations that are easily identified as appropriate for jumping ahead however, care must be taken to avoid issues of life/safety. There is also the caveat that while the next edition might relax a code requirement, the edition that follows might reverse itself.

 

[tmurray]

We see it regularly in our province.

One thing we try to make clear is that if you want to use a more recent code, you must use all the code. You can't cherry pick between versions.

 

[bill1952]

Following this with interest, having recently toured the renovated Geffen Hall at Lincoln Center where all restrooms are non gendered compartments.

And, just a technical note, they are compartments, not stalls, for codes (and for humans).

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Following this with interest, having recently toured the renovated Geffen Hall at Lincoln Center where all restrooms are non gendered compartments.

And, just a technical note, they are compartments, not stalls, for codes (and for humans).

What's your distinction between "compartment" and "stall"? To me the two terms are interchangeable.

 

[bill1952]

First, compartment is the code term.
Second, stalls are for animals and don't have doors. Google stall definition: an individual compartment for an animal in a stable or barn, enclosed on three sides.

Searching the 24 IBC, 1098 uses of "compartment" mostly related to toilets - I didn't check them all - and just 2 to stall, one to a shower and the other to the stall load of a hoist.

 

[Joe.B]

My understanding of the upcoming changes would be that in a standard bathroom (assigned to a specific gender) the "stalls" are essentially the classic partition that doesn't go to the floor or ceiling. It sections off an individual fixture, but the room is not truly divided.

The "compartment" that is presented for a gender-neutral restroom would give each fixture its own room, no gaps at the floor or ceiling, and a tight-fitting door. This means independent light and ventilation. This becomes a separate room within a room.

 

[tmurray]

My understanding of the upcoming changes would be that in a standard bathroom (assigned to a specific gender) the "stalls" are essentially the classic partition that doesn't go to the floor or ceiling. It sections off an individual fixture, but the room is not truly divided.

The "compartment" that is presented for a gender-neutral restroom would give each fixture its own room, no gaps at the floor or ceiling, and a tight-fitting door. This means independent light and ventilation. This becomes a separate room within a room.

Exactly. Just a bunch of single user washrooms that share a bunch of sinks in the adjoining room.

I often find people's aversion to gender neutral facilities is that they envision the standard ones we have seen in the past, with just a new sign on the door.

The only thing kind of gross about it is that you (and everyone else) touch the doorknob of the compartment before washing your hands...but you get to wash your hands right after, so it's probably less of an actual health issue and just my own psychological issue.

 

[Joe.B]

People don't like change, and often find it difficult to be open minded. When this concept was first presented to an audience that I was in there was an obvious reaction most of the group had. The presenter pointed out that you have to imagine all kinds of scenarios and keep an open mind. He asked why we don't have gender specific break rooms? We are okay sharing a sink with anybody in a breakroom, but not in a restroom? What if the sinks were all outside? Like the row of porta-lou's at a concert? We're okay sharing a sink there? Then he brought up a scenario that I think changed some minds. You (as an adult male) take your daughter to an amusement park. What's better, taking your daughter into the men's room? Or going into the women's with your daughter? Or send your (presumably young) daughter into an unknown place alone. All present problems.

 

[NCRooster]

I appreciate all the responses! It looks like the correct thing to do would be to apply for a variation, so I am planning on going that route early next year - and possibly run it by the building department in advance. I will try to remember post here with the results. Thanks all!

 

[NCRooster]

Good morning all. Bumping this up with the latest development. The project has been slow moving over the past year due to the site plan approval process dragging out, but we are finally getting ready to jump into CDs and will likely be submitting for permit later this year. The issue is that NJ will not be adopting the new version of their plumbing subcode until mid September at the absolute earliest, and it could easily be delayed until early 2026 depending how long the Governor takes to approve it (especially since it's an election year...). If NJ adopts the subcode before we submit for permit, then we are all set, but I can't count on that.

Here are the two potential options I dug up:

#1 (This is from the NJ administrative code. FYI NJ has deleted Chapter 1 of the IBC)
NJAC 5:23-2.9 Variations and Exceptions - No variations or exceptions from the requirements of any subcode of these regulations may be made, except upon the following findings: (1) That strict compliance with any specific subcode provision, if required, would result in practical difficulty to such owner; and (2) That the exception, if granted, will not jeopardize the health, safety, and welfare of intended occupants and the public generally.
Unfortunately, the plumbing official (reasonably) does not feel that our situation qualifies as a hardship, so it does not look like a variation is a possibility.

#2 (This is from the adopted plumbing subcode)
2021 NSPC NJ Edition, Exceptions - In case of practical difficulty, unnecessary hardship or new developments, exceptions to the literal requirements may be granted by the Authority Having Jurisdiction to permit the use of other devices or methods, but only when it is clearly evident that equivalent protection is thereby secured.
The plumbing official didn't acknowledge this option in his email, so I will revisit this one with him. It seems to me that an "all gender" restroom could be considered a "new development," and the floor-to-ceiling walls at all toilet rooms should be able to provide "equivalent protection." "New development" is very vague and isn't defined anywhere.

By my quick count, 24 states have recently legalized all-gender restrooms in their code (including every state adjacent to NJ). Of the 26 states that haven't, many of those just haven't updated their codes in the past 3+ years. So while it's not guaranteed that NJ will adopt the new exception in the 2024 NSPC that allows all-gender bathrooms, it certainly seems incredibly likely. I understand that the plumbing official is bound by the code that is in effect, but given that we are not trying to dodge a fire or life safety requirement, and that we will probably be just a few months shy of this being codified, I am really hoping that there is a way we can work this out with the official.

 

[ccollings]

for what it's worth, I had this same situation come up on a school project. The school wanted a gender neutral multi stall restroom which isn't allowed by the current Ohio building code. In this case there are 8 stalls, all separated by walls (not partitions). What we did is label 4 stalls as men and 4 stalls as women. nothing else changed. This allows the students to use the stall that they identify with. If/when the code changes the school will simply remove the signage.

 

[ICE]

The description in my mind is a room with a door. In that room is a series of toilet stalls with doors and full height walls separating the stalls. That’s men in the women’s restroom. I don’t think it’s a good idea to have men in the women’s restroom.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

The description in my mind is a room with a door. In that room is a series of toilet stalls with doors and full height walls separating the stalls. That’s men in the women’s restroom. I don’t think it’s a good idea to have men in the women’s restroom.

I agree with you but, unfortunately, I think society is moving in that direction. If that's where we're going, I think the "stalls" should not be the standard toilet compartment partitions we know today, but actual walls, floor to ceiling, with actual doors. Of course, that costs more to build, uses up more space, and it means that each compartment will require individual ventilation and exhaust.

 

[NCRooster]

As a woman, I've used a few different all-gender restrooms in recent years, and I've never felt uncomfortable. Pretty mundane experiences really. But I know this is a divisive topic and am I fine with others sharing differing opinions!

for what it's worth, I had this same situation come up on a school project. The school wanted a gender neutral multi stall restroom which isn't allowed by the current Ohio building code. In this case there are 8 stalls, all separated by walls (not partitions). What we did is label 4 stalls as men and 4 stalls as women. nothing else changed. This allows the students to use the stall that they identify with. If/when the code changes the school will simply remove the signage.

Unfortunately, I don't think I can go this route, as the NJ code is pretty clear that separate "toilet facilities" are required (unless they meet one of the exceptions), and "toilet facilities" are defined to include the sinks.

I agree with you but, unfortunately, I think society is moving in that direction. If that's where we're going, I think the "stalls" should not be the standard toilet compartment partitions we know today, but actual walls, floor to ceiling, with actual doors. Of course, that costs more to build, uses up more space, and it means that each compartment will require individual ventilation and exhaust.

I'm not aware of any state that allows all-gender bathrooms that doesn't already require that the "stalls" be fully walled in from floor to ceiling with actual doors. I'm 100% with you on that, but I don't think doing traditional toilet partitions in all-gender restrooms is allowed anywhere in the US. Please correct me if I'm mistaken! I have run across an all-gender bathroom in NC with partitions, but that's because NC doesn't allow all-gender bathrooms at all and this place just changed out the signs after getting their C.O.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

Most of the places that I have passed a final inspection the last few years that had single use toilet rooms have replaced the gender toilet signs with all gender signs or put up out of order signs after they got the C.O.

 

[arwat23]

By my quick count, 24 states have recently legalized all-gender restrooms in their code (including every state adjacent to NJ). Of the 26 states that haven't, many of those just haven't updated their codes in the past 3+ years. So while it's not guaranteed that NJ will adopt the new exception in the 2024 NSPC that allows all-gender bathrooms, it certainly seems incredibly likely. I understand that the plumbing official is bound by the code that is in effect, but given that we are not trying to dodge a fire or life safety requirement, and that we will probably be just a few months shy of this being codified, I am really hoping that there is a way we can work this out with the official.

I ran into a similar situation involving plumbing recently. In CA, we use the UPC for our plumbing code. The UPC was last updated in 2024, but the state would adopt the changes until January 2026.

Technically, our plumbing code doesn't allow unisex single-user water closets as counting towards the total amount of plumbing fixtures (with some exceptions for low-occupancy spaces). Multi-user toilet rooms (toilets in compartments) are allowed to count towards the total count though.

The UPC finally updated their language to allow unisex single-user toilet rooms to count, but CA won't adopt that until the end of the year. There's no reason the state wouldn't adopt that. Most jurisdictions have been pretty accepting of that argument, that if we just waited a few months this would be allowed, when determining the total fixture count requirements.

 

[ICE]

The problem that I see is that the single user toilet stalls, no matter how secure, are accessed in a room that is available to men. Put them in a wide open space that is not separated from the rest of the floor and you have a safe condition. Put them behind a doorway and you invite a tragedy.