staicase building codes
#1
12-20-05, 02:20 PM
staicase building codes
I am in the process of selling my place and buying another...
The inspector has said that the backless stairs need to have no more than 4" in space between the open steps...
My place was built years ago (15)
and is part of a huge development that has hundreds of units all built the same way....
My question is this: when did this code come into existance and is it possible that I am "Grandfathered" by the codes that were in place 15 years ago? (since I don't think anyone else has had to change theirs...)
Thanks.
The inspector has said that the backless stairs need to have no more than 4" in space between the open steps...
My place was built years ago (15)
and is part of a huge development that has hundreds of units all built the same way....
My question is this: when did this code come into existance and is it possible that I am "Grandfathered" by the codes that were in place 15 years ago? (since I don't think anyone else has had to change theirs...)
Thanks.
#2
12-20-05, 06:10 PM
Member
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 4,455
Upvotes: 0
Received 0 Upvotes
on
0 Posts
condodude,
I am assuming that you are referring to the 4" MAXIMUM space between spindles.
I think this should explain what things should be.
http://www.arcways.com/codes.htm - click 2003 IRC codes
Usually the "grandfathered in" is what would take precedent UNLESS this was to be revamped. At that point, it would have to meet current codes. You didn't say what kind of inspector - Private or City?
Hope this helps!
I am assuming that you are referring to the 4" MAXIMUM space between spindles.
I think this should explain what things should be.
http://www.arcways.com/codes.htm - click 2003 IRC codes
Usually the "grandfathered in" is what would take precedent UNLESS this was to be revamped. At that point, it would have to meet current codes. You didn't say what kind of inspector - Private or City?
Hope this helps!
#4
12-21-05, 11:18 AM
Member
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 4,455
Upvotes: 0
Received 0 Upvotes
on
0 Posts
condodude,
What the inspector wrote versus what is required by Code TODAY is two different things.
In your case, there is no need to do anything. It was Code when it was built, I'm sure.
Hope this helps!
What the inspector wrote versus what is required by Code TODAY is two different things.
In your case, there is no need to do anything. It was Code when it was built, I'm sure.
Hope this helps!
#5
12-21-05, 01:27 PM
Member
staicase building codes
There are two different factors to consider about stairways.
1. Doug alluded to the code. This is an enforceable item that may or may not be grandfathered in according to the situation (code, year built, etc.). This is a legal item.
2. Your home inspector was probably conducting a "pre-purchase inspection" that was paid for by the purchaser. There are also inspections referred to as "pre-sale inspections" that are conducted by the type of inspector to the same standards, but are paid for by the seller, who hires the inspector. These inspections are to point out major deficiencies, non-functioning equipment, general condition and safety hazrds. These type of inspections are not necessarily concerned with building codes.
In a pre-sale or pre-purchase home inspection, an opening of less than 4" would certainly be written up as a safety hazard irrespective of what the code said at the time of construction. It is either safe or it is not.
How this is handled is determined by the parties at the time of sale of the property. A buyer hires an inspector to make an evaluation of the property, pointing out hazards and major upcoming expenditures. A seller hires the inspector to spot possible problems that could be corrected before they become a price concession point or a deal-breaker at the time of closing.
The home inspection report has no legally binding authority outside of what it is given in the purchase agreement that both the buyer and seller are signing.
This particulat item in covered in the tests taken by inspectors for certification in progressive states. Other states do not have any control over what an inspector can cite as a problem.
Dick
1. Doug alluded to the code. This is an enforceable item that may or may not be grandfathered in according to the situation (code, year built, etc.). This is a legal item.
2. Your home inspector was probably conducting a "pre-purchase inspection" that was paid for by the purchaser. There are also inspections referred to as "pre-sale inspections" that are conducted by the type of inspector to the same standards, but are paid for by the seller, who hires the inspector. These inspections are to point out major deficiencies, non-functioning equipment, general condition and safety hazrds. These type of inspections are not necessarily concerned with building codes.
In a pre-sale or pre-purchase home inspection, an opening of less than 4" would certainly be written up as a safety hazard irrespective of what the code said at the time of construction. It is either safe or it is not.
How this is handled is determined by the parties at the time of sale of the property. A buyer hires an inspector to make an evaluation of the property, pointing out hazards and major upcoming expenditures. A seller hires the inspector to spot possible problems that could be corrected before they become a price concession point or a deal-breaker at the time of closing.
The home inspection report has no legally binding authority outside of what it is given in the purchase agreement that both the buyer and seller are signing.
This particulat item in covered in the tests taken by inspectors for certification in progressive states. Other states do not have any control over what an inspector can cite as a problem.
Dick
#6
12-22-05, 01:16 PM
Very frustrating ...
I STILL cannot find ANYWHERE what the original code was for this gap prior to the latest modification of "not more than 4 inches"
I have searched for hours and cannot find anything.
Does anyone recall building stairs before the year 2000 and whether backless stairs were acceptable and if so to what extent?
Thanks. VERY frustrating.
I have searched for hours and cannot find anything.
Does anyone recall building stairs before the year 2000 and whether backless stairs were acceptable and if so to what extent?
Thanks. VERY frustrating.
#7
12-22-05, 01:25 PM
Member
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 4,455
Upvotes: 0
Received 0 Upvotes
on
0 Posts
condodude,
Are you referring to "open risers" when you mention "backless stairs"?
Have you talked to a Buiulding Official at City Hall about this?
Are you referring to "open risers" when you mention "backless stairs"?
Have you talked to a Buiulding Official at City Hall about this?
#9
12-22-05, 02:10 PM
Member
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 4,455
Upvotes: 0
Received 0 Upvotes
on
0 Posts
condodude,
OK, seems we are now on the same page. Sorry for the other information regarding 4" spacing max on spindles.
Risers are a whole story within themselves.
I personally cannot provide an answer for this. My assumption is that 4" is not allowable. It should be a closed riser if more than 4".
Questions:
1. Why can't these open risers be covered or can they?
2. As asked before, this inspection was done by a private home inspector?
If you need to, call your State Building Department to get answers.
OK, seems we are now on the same page. Sorry for the other information regarding 4" spacing max on spindles.
Risers are a whole story within themselves.
I personally cannot provide an answer for this. My assumption is that 4" is not allowable. It should be a closed riser if more than 4".
Questions:
1. Why can't these open risers be covered or can they?
2. As asked before, this inspection was done by a private home inspector?
If you need to, call your State Building Department to get answers.
#10
12-22-05, 04:32 PM
My two cents worth
The 4" rule (at least under the UBC) only applies to the allowable space between the ballusters of the hand rail -- it has never been enforced in the case of open risers in the hundreds of decks that I have built with them. An interior staircase isn't going to be treated any differently.
The home inspector (who is NOT a building inspector, as Doug pointed out), is way off base on this one.
The 4" rule (at least under the UBC) only applies to the allowable space between the ballusters of the hand rail -- it has never been enforced in the case of open risers in the hundreds of decks that I have built with them. An interior staircase isn't going to be treated any differently.
The home inspector (who is NOT a building inspector, as Doug pointed out), is way off base on this one.
#11
12-23-05, 04:42 AM
My firm doesn't do residential, so what I am going to post will be from the 2000 IBC which is current in MN.
Article 1003.3.3.2 "Profile" says that risers shall be solid. Then, under exceptions, it says that stairs not required to comply with Article 1003.2.13.2 (that's a handicapped accessible stair) may have open risers as long as the opening does not permit the passage of a 4" sphere. This is something that was new with the IBC; there never used to be any type of requirement under UBC. That may be where the inspector is coming up with the comment.
BTW, the guardrail spacing was 9" when I first got into architecture, then changed to 6", then to 4" where it is now. I couldn't even guess what years the changes were made. The information that I have from code seminars is that the spacing is not likely to change any more. What we may see someday is a requirement that the balusters be designed in a way that the railing cannot be climbed; in other words limits on horizontal intermediate rails. Not a code yet, but as a matter of safety our office doesn't have any intermediate horizontals in any building we design that may have kids.
Guess this got a little long winded!
Bruce
Article 1003.3.3.2 "Profile" says that risers shall be solid. Then, under exceptions, it says that stairs not required to comply with Article 1003.2.13.2 (that's a handicapped accessible stair) may have open risers as long as the opening does not permit the passage of a 4" sphere. This is something that was new with the IBC; there never used to be any type of requirement under UBC. That may be where the inspector is coming up with the comment.
BTW, the guardrail spacing was 9" when I first got into architecture, then changed to 6", then to 4" where it is now. I couldn't even guess what years the changes were made. The information that I have from code seminars is that the spacing is not likely to change any more. What we may see someday is a requirement that the balusters be designed in a way that the railing cannot be climbed; in other words limits on horizontal intermediate rails. Not a code yet, but as a matter of safety our office doesn't have any intermediate horizontals in any building we design that may have kids.
Guess this got a little long winded!
Bruce
#12
12-23-05, 11:46 AM
Member
code inspection or not?
condodude -
It appears this is not a building code issue. I assume you are referring to home inspection that was conducted as part of a home sale and not by a municpal buiding code inspector. Home inspectors are normally hired by either the seller prior to offering a property or by a buyer that has made an offer that is contingent upon the results of the inspection. the inspection and reporting is the same for eother parties. Home inspections are not legally binding unless the language of the purchase agreement states that they are. A home inspection is a visual evaluation of the property to determine the condition, operation of equipment, major cash ependitures and safety hazards. It is not governed by building codes.
The building code is intended to be a requirement for the construction of the building at the time of construction or modification of a part of the structure. It is not meant to determine the adequacy of a portion of the structure and its use. The section of the code (IRC) probably referred to (R312.2) does not specifically refer to ballusters or handrail, but just gives maximum spacaing (4") of elements for "intermediate rails or ornamental enclosures" for the sides of stairways, raised floor areas and porches. There is no mention whether the dimension is horizontal, vertical or diagonal because of the wide range of architectural effect desired. It also mentions a 4 3/8" dimension for stairways and a 6" maximum opening for the area between the riser/bottom rail/tread. These are all code numbers to be applied to proposed construction.
A home inspection is not a code inspection. Many states have certification requirements that entail a certain number of inspections a passing a comprehensive exam that has been developed in conjuction with the major national homeinspection associations (ASHI and NAHI). I have no idea whether your state requires certification.
The technical aspects and limitations of equipment (electrical, plumbing, HVAC, etc.) performance are quite obvious The evaluation of conditions such as drainage, exterior, cracks, etc. are more subjective. Safety items are very important, are subjective, and are NOT permitted "grandfather" approval. An item is a safety hazard because it is UNSAFE and the code does not make it any safer! Safety, especially child safety, are the reason for many of the changes in items such as open sizes changing and garage door openers.
Some items of safety and health issues are asbestos, aluminum branch wiring, and lead. All were legal when built, but are hazards today. The existance ot moisture damage and mold is an item that is routinely reported when it is found or suspected. Gas leaks, carbon monoixide and non-reversing garage doors are reported as health or safety hazards. Some potentially hazarous items such as knob and tube wiring are also reported. Any item that is perceived as a safety hazard must be reported to the person engaging the inspection. If it seems that a child can get his head caught and possibly suffocate or break his neck, it must be included in the report.
Just because an item is reported does not require that it be corrected unless the purchase agreement states that. The report is informational for the use of the parties to determine the adequacy of the property after a more thorough examination possible by an uneducated buyer (we all can't be expert builders with a crystal ball). Major items uncovered can be sticking points. Frequently, buyers use these items to reduce the price dramatically below the offered price. At this point, the seller is put in a weak position because of the timing. This is the reason more buyers are now having home inspections conducted in advance of the offering, so they can make corrections or prepare for objections in advance to make the closing a simple process. Disclosure statement are not an excuse.
Cododude, if you are selling your place, I would suggest you talk to your realtor and determine what the purchase agreement says about an informational home inspection report. If you do not have a realtor, you will have to negotiate yourself or walk away from the offer (the fact that the purchasers made the offer means they do like what they saw without looking too deeply).
Good luck on your sale.
Dick
It appears this is not a building code issue. I assume you are referring to home inspection that was conducted as part of a home sale and not by a municpal buiding code inspector. Home inspectors are normally hired by either the seller prior to offering a property or by a buyer that has made an offer that is contingent upon the results of the inspection. the inspection and reporting is the same for eother parties. Home inspections are not legally binding unless the language of the purchase agreement states that they are. A home inspection is a visual evaluation of the property to determine the condition, operation of equipment, major cash ependitures and safety hazards. It is not governed by building codes.
The building code is intended to be a requirement for the construction of the building at the time of construction or modification of a part of the structure. It is not meant to determine the adequacy of a portion of the structure and its use. The section of the code (IRC) probably referred to (R312.2) does not specifically refer to ballusters or handrail, but just gives maximum spacaing (4") of elements for "intermediate rails or ornamental enclosures" for the sides of stairways, raised floor areas and porches. There is no mention whether the dimension is horizontal, vertical or diagonal because of the wide range of architectural effect desired. It also mentions a 4 3/8" dimension for stairways and a 6" maximum opening for the area between the riser/bottom rail/tread. These are all code numbers to be applied to proposed construction.
A home inspection is not a code inspection. Many states have certification requirements that entail a certain number of inspections a passing a comprehensive exam that has been developed in conjuction with the major national homeinspection associations (ASHI and NAHI). I have no idea whether your state requires certification.
The technical aspects and limitations of equipment (electrical, plumbing, HVAC, etc.) performance are quite obvious The evaluation of conditions such as drainage, exterior, cracks, etc. are more subjective. Safety items are very important, are subjective, and are NOT permitted "grandfather" approval. An item is a safety hazard because it is UNSAFE and the code does not make it any safer! Safety, especially child safety, are the reason for many of the changes in items such as open sizes changing and garage door openers.
Some items of safety and health issues are asbestos, aluminum branch wiring, and lead. All were legal when built, but are hazards today. The existance ot moisture damage and mold is an item that is routinely reported when it is found or suspected. Gas leaks, carbon monoixide and non-reversing garage doors are reported as health or safety hazards. Some potentially hazarous items such as knob and tube wiring are also reported. Any item that is perceived as a safety hazard must be reported to the person engaging the inspection. If it seems that a child can get his head caught and possibly suffocate or break his neck, it must be included in the report.
Just because an item is reported does not require that it be corrected unless the purchase agreement states that. The report is informational for the use of the parties to determine the adequacy of the property after a more thorough examination possible by an uneducated buyer (we all can't be expert builders with a crystal ball). Major items uncovered can be sticking points. Frequently, buyers use these items to reduce the price dramatically below the offered price. At this point, the seller is put in a weak position because of the timing. This is the reason more buyers are now having home inspections conducted in advance of the offering, so they can make corrections or prepare for objections in advance to make the closing a simple process. Disclosure statement are not an excuse.
Cododude, if you are selling your place, I would suggest you talk to your realtor and determine what the purchase agreement says about an informational home inspection report. If you do not have a realtor, you will have to negotiate yourself or walk away from the offer (the fact that the purchasers made the offer means they do like what they saw without looking too deeply).
Good luck on your sale.
Dick
#13
01-01-06, 08:38 AM
The principle gist of all the posts is that your local jurisdiction sets the rules. You will have to start there.
Here are some examples of codes which in Calif. are grandfathered UNTIL you sell the house: water heater earthquake straps; 1.6 gallon toilets; back-flow device on hose bibbs.
Home inspectors are famous for citing defects which were in complete compliance with all applicable codes when built, even if there is NO legal requirement to upgrade. If fattens up their report, and now simply becomes an issue of negotiation, which can usually be settled with $$$.
Here are some examples of codes which in Calif. are grandfathered UNTIL you sell the house: water heater earthquake straps; 1.6 gallon toilets; back-flow device on hose bibbs.
Home inspectors are famous for citing defects which were in complete compliance with all applicable codes when built, even if there is NO legal requirement to upgrade. If fattens up their report, and now simply becomes an issue of negotiation, which can usually be settled with $$$.
#14
01-01-06, 09:16 AM
Member
staicase building codes
594tough -
You missed the point. A home inspection is NOT a code inspection, although some of the standards of practice are code items and the inspector is required to recognize local building code items.
If this is a pre-purchses home inspection, a home inspector is obligated to point out all safety issues. The old rule follows - "You are not wrong going by the code, but you may not be right". A complying code item may be a safety hazard in a given location.
Many intellegent sellers hire home inspectors to go over the property to eliminate or prepare for possible situations and maximize the selling price.
Home inspector do not try to get "famous" for finding items and CANNOT REQUIRE COMPLIANCE. They provide a report for a buyer and/or seller and get paid the same irregardless of how many items are discovered (same report for buyers or sellers). In reality, safety items are more time consuming and much more trouble and they upset the realtors who really control who does the inspection.
I cannot comment on this specific situation because I have not seen it, but it sounds like one that sould take a great deal of personal abservation and examination of the actual conditions rather than a short verbal description.
Dick
You missed the point. A home inspection is NOT a code inspection, although some of the standards of practice are code items and the inspector is required to recognize local building code items.
If this is a pre-purchses home inspection, a home inspector is obligated to point out all safety issues. The old rule follows - "You are not wrong going by the code, but you may not be right". A complying code item may be a safety hazard in a given location.
Many intellegent sellers hire home inspectors to go over the property to eliminate or prepare for possible situations and maximize the selling price.
Home inspector do not try to get "famous" for finding items and CANNOT REQUIRE COMPLIANCE. They provide a report for a buyer and/or seller and get paid the same irregardless of how many items are discovered (same report for buyers or sellers). In reality, safety items are more time consuming and much more trouble and they upset the realtors who really control who does the inspection.
I cannot comment on this specific situation because I have not seen it, but it sounds like one that sould take a great deal of personal abservation and examination of the actual conditions rather than a short verbal description.
Dick
#15
06-06-06, 11:45 AM
Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 437
Upvotes: 0
Received 0 Upvotes
on
0 Posts
Just my 2 cents worth.
If the entire complex was built this way then you can be sure that closed risers were not required at that time - it's undoubtedly grandfathered.
Codes change from time to time. When I got my Archtictural license in 1972 the minimum height for a guardrail was 36" then it was changed to 42" and then back to 36". The openings in guardrails was similarly changed. 6" oc, 9" oc, 6" oc and now so that a 4" diameter ball can't get thru. They really concerned about a baby's head, not a ball.
I have rarely seen a case where code changes required modifying existing homes that were built to code originally. Sometimes such changes have to be made during major remodel projects. A few things may be required to be brought up to current codes in the event of a sale - smoke detectors, physically securing water heaters in eathquake zones, GFCI protection for outlets in wet areas, etc. However, the stairway and guardrail codes seem to be excepted from such updates.
I have seen in magazines - mostly interior design mags - cases where stairways had no handrails and were open without any sort of guardrail protection. I can't imagine that these were done with any sort of permits or inspections since they are totally non-compliant with any codes that I'm aware of. Obviously, the pictures of such "avant-guard" interior designs is meant to catch your attention. Personally, if I had done such a thing I wouldn't want it to be published because:
1. The building department might hear about it.
2. I might be fined by the State License Board.
3. It's just plain dumb!
If the entire complex was built this way then you can be sure that closed risers were not required at that time - it's undoubtedly grandfathered.
Codes change from time to time. When I got my Archtictural license in 1972 the minimum height for a guardrail was 36" then it was changed to 42" and then back to 36". The openings in guardrails was similarly changed. 6" oc, 9" oc, 6" oc and now so that a 4" diameter ball can't get thru. They really concerned about a baby's head, not a ball.
I have rarely seen a case where code changes required modifying existing homes that were built to code originally. Sometimes such changes have to be made during major remodel projects. A few things may be required to be brought up to current codes in the event of a sale - smoke detectors, physically securing water heaters in eathquake zones, GFCI protection for outlets in wet areas, etc. However, the stairway and guardrail codes seem to be excepted from such updates.
I have seen in magazines - mostly interior design mags - cases where stairways had no handrails and were open without any sort of guardrail protection. I can't imagine that these were done with any sort of permits or inspections since they are totally non-compliant with any codes that I'm aware of. Obviously, the pictures of such "avant-guard" interior designs is meant to catch your attention. Personally, if I had done such a thing I wouldn't want it to be published because:
1. The building department might hear about it.
2. I might be fined by the State License Board.
3. It's just plain dumb!
