# 2018 IFC 102.3 Change of occupancy vs IEBC.



## Brian 2 (Jul 27, 2021)

2018 IFC 102.3 states:
A change of occupancy shall not be made unless the use or occupancy is made to comply with the requirements of this code *and *the International Existing Building Code.

Does this "and" intend to trump the IEBC?      As a hypothetical, an R occupancy added to a portion of an existing building which formerly had no residential:

IEBC - allows the separated work area approach and only sprinklered in the work area of the change of occupancy, not the entire building.   

IFC 903.2.8 - would require sprinklers throughout the building.    

If a change of occupancy were required to comply with the IFC *AND* the IEBC, then sprinklers would be required throughout the building regardless of the work area separation approach?    

What do you say?


----------



## cda (Jul 27, 2021)

it applies the IEBC to the existing building


----------



## cda (Jul 27, 2021)

102.3 Change of use or occupancy. A change of occu- pancy shall not be made unless the use or occupancy is made to comply with the requirements of this code and the Interna- tional Existing Building Code.
Exception: Where approved by the fire code official, a change of occupancy shall be permitted without comply- ing with the requirements of this code and the Interna- tional Existing Building Code, provided that the new or proposed use or occupancy is less hazardous, based on life and fire risk, than the existing use or occupancy.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jul 27, 2021)

Go back to the charging language which requires sprinklers in NEW buildings. 903.2.8 is not applicable unless another code (IEBC) sends you there for a change of occupancy
[F] 903.2 Where required.
Approved automatic sprinkler systems *in new buildings and structures* shall be provided in the locations described in Sections 903.2.1 through 903.2.12.


----------



## Brian 2 (Jul 27, 2021)

mtlogcabin said:


> Go back to the charging language which requires sprinklers in NEW buildings. 903.2.8 is not applicable unless another code (IEBC) sends you there for a change of occupancy
> [F] 903.2 Where required.
> Approved automatic sprinkler systems *in new buildings and structures* shall be provided in the locations described in Sections 903.2.1 through 903.2.12.


The charging language is 102.3 pushing you to 903.  Because of the "and", the fire code official doesnt even have to open the IEBC?


----------



## RLGA (Jul 27, 2021)

As @mtlogcabin pointed out, Section 903 only applies to new buildings. You need to look at IFC Chapter 11 for requirements applicable to existing buildings.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jul 27, 2021)

EFFECTIVE USE OF THE INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE
As described, the IFC has many types of requirements for buildings and facilities. The applicability of these requirements varies. An understanding of the applicability of requirements, as addressed in Sections 102.1 and 102.2, is necessary. Section 102.1 addresses when the construction and design provisions are applicable whereas Section 102.2 addresses when the administrative, operational and maintenance provisions are applicable. *Generally, the construction and design provisions only apply to new buildings or existing buildings and occupancies as addressed by Chapter 11.* The administrative, maintenance and operational requirements are applicable to all buildings and facilities whether new or existing.


----------



## steveray (Jul 28, 2021)

Interesting....I don't spend much time in the IFC....That section does read a lot like the prescriptive compliance part of the IEBC....But in the IEBC there may be some additional relief with work area or performance...

407.1 Conformance. No change shall be made in the use or
occupancy of any building unless such building is made to
comply with the requirements of the International Building
Code for the use or occupancy. Changes in use or occupancy
in a building or portion thereof shall be such that the existing
building is no less complying with the provisions of this code
than the existing building or structure was prior to the change.
Subject to the approval of the building official, the use or
occupancy of existing buildings shall be permitted to be
changed and the building is allowed to be occupied for purposes
in other groups without conforming to all of the
requirements of this code for those groups, provided the new
or proposed use is less hazardous, based on life and fire risk,
than the existing use.

Which sends you to "as new" unless it is less hazardous.....What are you changing from?


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jul 28, 2021)

Brian 2 said:


> Because of the "and", the fire code official doesnt even have to open the IEBC?


That is incorrect because the word "and" is used both codes are used.

Definition of _and_​ (Entry 1 of 2)
1—used as a function word to indicate connection or addition especially of items within the same class or type —used to join sentence elements of the same grammatical rank or function
2a—used as a function word to express logical modification, consequence, antithesis, or supplementary explanation
b—used as a function word to join one finite verb (such as _go, come, try_) to another so that together they are logically equivalent to an infinitive of purposecome and see me


----------

