• 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

When does a building cease to exist?

Sifu

Sifu

SAWHORSE
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
2,809
If a structure burns to the ground, leaving a foundation, and the foundation can be used to support the new building, is the building existing? I would not ever consider it so, but I have an applicant who wants to rebuild the building the exact same way it was prior to the fire, which is not even close to being safe and code compliant. It seems this has been addressed somewhere in code or commentary but I can't put my fingers on it. Just going by straight definitions, it seems pretty easy, but the arguments are getting into "it depends on what the definition of "is" is" territory. Anybody encountered anything like this argument before?

Per the IEBC:
[A] REPAIR. The reconstruction, replacement or renewal of
any part of an existing building for the purpose of its maintenance
or to correct damage.

Argument for existing: "we are reconstructing" and the "part" is everything above the foundation

[A] EXISTING BUILDING. A building erected prior to the
date of adoption of the appropriate code, or one for which a
legal building permit has been issued.

[A] EXISTING STRUCTURE. A structure erected prior to
the date of adoption of the appropriate code, or one for which
a legal building permit has been issued.

Argument for existing: "This is a building that was erected prior to" and "the foundation is the structure that was erected prior to"
 
Its at least a level 3 alteration....

[A] ALTERATION. Any construction or renovation to an existing structure other than a repair or addition.

604.1 Scope. Level 3 alterations apply where the work area exceeds 50 percent of the building area.

Read repair this way:
[A] REPAIR. The reconstruction, replacement or renewal of
any part of an existing building for the purpose of its maintenance
or to correct damage.

You can't "repair" a "whole building".....


Have they picked a compliance method yet?
 
steveray said:
Its at least a level 3 alteration....

[A] ALTERATION. Any construction or renovation to an existing structure other than a repair or addition.

604.1 Scope. Level 3 alterations apply where the work area exceeds 50 percent of the building area.

Read repair this way:
[A] REPAIR. The reconstruction, replacement or renewal of
any part of an existing building for the purpose of its maintenance
or to correct damage.

You can't "repair" a "whole building".....


Have they picked a compliance method yet?
Click to expand...
My thinking, is that by the common definition of existing, "in existence at the current time", it is not existing. To me this is such a ridiculous argument I am having trouble articulating my position. But, if we entertain anything, the foundation would be existing, and require an evaluation, but everything else is new and new work must meet new code.
 
Sifu said:
My thinking, is that by the common definition of existing, "in existence at the current time", it is not existing. To me this is such a ridiculous argument I am having trouble articulating my position. But, if we entertain anything, the foundation would be existing, and require an evaluation, but everything else is new and new work must meet new code.
Click to expand...
I wish it was that clean.....And I have struggled with it also....
 
Good question, but it will likely be left to interpretation by the BO. Steveray's response would be a likely position that a BO may take. The only defense to this position is what constitutes a "part." The foundation is part of the building, so an entire building is not being reconstructed. (Show me a building that was permitted without a foundation, regardless of age.) Since the foundation remains, the "part" to be replaced or reconstructed is the "part" above the foundation.

I would consider it a repair, as you have pointed out. IEBC Section 401.2 states, "The work shall not make the building less complying than it was before the repair was undertaken." Thus, they should be able to rebuild almost exactly as it was built originally.

I say "almost" because there are some conditions where compliance with the IBC is required. IEBC Section 402.1 requires safety glazing in hazardous locations if safety glazing was not used previously in hazardous locations. Also, IEBC Section 405.2.4 requires the structural system to comply with the IBC when it has "substantial structural damage." There are other requirements for electrical, mechanical, and plumbing.
 
I suspect that their need/desire to rebuild exactly what was there has to do with insurance. I'm dealing with one now that was a complete loss and the insurance company will cover the cost in whole to rebuild what was there before, but will only pay out at a specific value if he rebuilds anything else. So he can rebuild a late 1800's farmhouse that's been pieced together over the years, with eight bedrooms and one bathroom, fully paid for. Or he can build a simple 3 bed 2 bath modern house and only get paid about half what it would cost to build. The kicker is that if he goes the fully covered route it'll cost the insurance company 4X more. I'm guessing that the insurance company knows that people don't want to rebuild exactly what was there and that's how they end up paying out less.

On the code enforcement side of things, I believe that we cannot allow something to be rebuilt in a substandard manner. In CA the code makes it easy for us to enforce that because anything new must be to today's standards. But I see what the existing building code intends to allow and as long as it can be done correctly and safely then I guess it's okay. I would assume that there are certain things that should be updated, as RLGA mentioned. I would hope they're going to put modern insulation in, fire blocking, stuff like that.

The one I have is just silly, replicate a 130 year old building that had funky little additions and expansions, except build it on a perimeter foundation to seismic design E standards. Oh and make sure it looks historic.
 
And if you would allow/ consider Ch. 4 repair then it would be substantial damage and you would use 405.2.3 and .4:

[BS] 405.2.3 Substantial structural damage to vertical
elements of the lateral force-resisting system. A building
that has sustained substantial structural damage to
the vertical elements of its lateral force-resisting system
shall be evaluated in accordance with Section 405.2.3.1,
and either repaired in accordance with Section 405.2.3.2
or repaired and retrofitted in accordance with Section
405.2.3.3, depending on the results of the evaluation.

And then they could rebuild the Station Nightclub without sprinklers.....in a repair....

SIFU, you on 2018 or 2021?
 
Definition commentary:

[A] REPAIR. The reconstruction, replacement or renewal of any part of an existing building for the purpose of its maintenance or to correct damage.

❖ As indicated in Section 105.2.2, the repair of an item typically does not require a permit. This definition makes it clear: repair is limited to work on the item and does not include complete or substantial replacement or other new work. Note that the definition deals with repair both as it relates to maintenance and to fixing damage inflicted on a building for various reasons. For example, the replacement of stairs due to daily wear and tear is related to the maintenance of a building, whereas a wall hit by a forklift or damage as a result of an earthquake would be considered damage.
 
Interesting. Again, that is the Commentary and not the code, so interpretation is still left to the BO.

Sounds like a good code proposal for the upcoming code cycle.
 
RLGA said:
Interesting. Again, that is the Commentary and not the code, so interpretation is still left to the BO.

Sounds like a good code proposal for the upcoming code cycle.
Click to expand...
First I am really looking at it with "2021" eyes as we just jumped from 2015 and I am glad the commentary agrees with me...
 
IMPO
IT is a replacement, not a repair.
The structure no longer exists.
The slab is not a structure, Or a building. If Aslan were a building, it would require a permit.
 
@ > @ > @

steveray, ...I say "Yes, in part", ...the former building does exist.

@ < @ < @
 
Last edited:
@ ? ? ? @

"The slab is not a structure, Or a building. If Aslan were a building, it would require a permit."
Click to expand...
Mark, I would respectfully disagree with "the slab is not a structure"........If, going by
the definition of a structure; in the IBC, ....the slab IS indeed built \ constructed."

@ ? ? ? @
 
Sifu said:
If a structure burns to the ground, leaving a foundation, and the foundation can be used to support the new building, is the building existing?
Click to expand...
The building that burned…leaving only the foundation, is no longer existing. The foundation that remains might have the potential to support a building however, attempting to rebuild like for like is not possible. For starters, how is the former construction identified? Would the code that was in force at the time of the original construction be utilized for the new building? How about the MEPs, would the hands of time be turned back for those as well?

As e Hilton pointed out, there might be an effort to stay within the scope of the planning requirements that were met at the time of the original construction. That is reasonable whereas trying to deny current code strictures is not.
 
ICE said:
The building that burned…leaving only the foundation, is no longer existing. The foundation that remains might have the potential to support a building however, attempting to rebuild like for like is not possible. For starters, how is the former construction identified? Would the code that was in force at the time of the original construction be utilized for the new building? How about the MEPs, would the hands of time be turned back for those as well?

As e Hilton pointed out, there might be an effort to stay within the scope of the planning requirements that were met at the time of the original construction. That is reasonable whereas trying to deny current code strictures is not.
Click to expand...
Well....here is how you get most of it.....

801.4 Compliance​

New construction elements, components, systems and spaces shall comply with the requirements of the International Building Code.

But if it doesn't burn to the ground it gets trickier.
 
SO. I was brought into this to give my opinion on the matter as I stated...a burned down building. However, now that I have had a chance to review the situation I have found it is much different than what I initially understood...which has made it even more difficult.

It turns out the entire building did not burn, but the exact scope of damage still isn't entirely clear BECAUSE the rebuild started without a permit, and by the time the AHJ got involved construction had already begun. The AHJ position was that the new construction needed to meet new code. Here is where it gets messy, virtually nothing would be approved in new construction. It is a 100+ year old building, it housed an A2 (>100 OL), an M, and 4 dwelling units. It had lots of unpermitted work and alterations, lacked a compliant MOE, no fire suppression, little to no accessibility, inadequate fire separations, a basement bar...the list is still growing. So the unpermitted work to rebuild it as it was is underway, and the AHJ says, we can't approve any of it. The owners contracted a DP who prepared a proposal justifying why they think it can be rebuilt, but it is convoluted, and I think over-simplified. It is messy to say the least. I think it will be relatively easy to address the individual elements and apply the code. It is the bigger, overall existential question that is the real bugger, and in the end I think some of this may come down to a "dangerous or unsafe condition". This will be fun!
 
301.3 Alteration, addition or change of occupancy. The
alteration, addition or change of occupancy of all existing
buildings shall comply with one of the methods listed in
Section 301.3.1, 301.3.2 or 301.3.3 as selected by the applicant.
Sections 301.3.1 through 301.3.3 shall not be applied in
combination with each other.

Just tell us how you are complying/ what requirements you would like to follow.......And then we will check it and give you a permit....
 
Can they show that the building and alterations were all made before a building code was adopted, or that a legal building permit was issued for the alterations made after a building code was adopted? If not, tell them that the unpermitted work has to go. That should get their attention, and persuade them to be a little more reasonable.

IEBC Chapter 3, especially 302 & 304, give the building official authority to require structural corrections.

Parts that were completely burned and have to be rebuilt could make it be considered an Alteration instead of Repair. However, work area is defined as reconfigured spaces (change in plan, exits, etc.) so you couldn't use the 50% rule to make it Level 3.
 
Predating code or legally existing help a lot here.....

[A] EXISTING BUILDING. A building erected prior to the date of adoption of the appropriate code, or one for which a legal building permit has been issued.
 
I have been considering this definition all weekend. It appears a significant amount of work has been done to this building without permits or approvals, including alterations that removed required MOE's, unpermitted additions etc. Beyond that, I don't know what use/occupancies were permitted and approved, and under which codes or special conditions (shirley there would be some conditions to have ended up here!). Some of this could be older than the building code administration in the town. So making the determination of what existed prior to the adoption of any code is where this would begin for me. THEN, making the determination of what was has a legal occupancy (permitted and approved) would come next. IF this was legally occupied as 4 R2's, over an A2 and an M, over a basement (not sure what was in there), then there may be an argument to maintain it. However, to basically build a new building but keep all of the non-compliance is a hard pill to swallow. The determination needs to be made as to whether some of these issues will be considered unsafe. Does a loack of suppression in the R2's? The missing MOE's? Lack of suppression in the A2's (<100)?

My recommendation would be to start with a comprehensive accounting of what was previously permitted and approved, to establish what was a legal occupancy. For those that are found to have been legal, we then start with what would be considered a repair (which includes reconstruction by definition), and which would be considered new work. For those things found to have not been legal, I lean towards them not being existing as covered by the IEBC. Finally, whether approved or not, whether it is unsafe must be considered.

FWIW, I saw photos today, both of some the new work completed without a permit, and of the damage prior to demo and reconstruction. It was a significant fire, and looks like a total interior gut. I am having a very hard time with a complete interior rebuild going back with all the rather serious life-safety issues.

This will be interesting to watch.
 
If you were building a new building would an existing foundation that happens to be compliant with the current code be allowed to be used to support the new building?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top