# Condo conversion requirements?



## james245 (Jul 14, 2016)

Hello everyone,

Our client is looking at a typical, existing three-story, wood-framed, non-sprinklered, 24-unit apartment building, surrounded by an expanse of parking lot on all sides, that was originally constructed in the late 80's in central Florida. It has open, common hallways and stairways serving each of the 12 units on either side of the building (two total). It is my understanding that, along with the original construction, attempts were made at providing separation between units (i.e., gyp. board can be seen in the attic along the length of the building, dividing it in half, and also along the width of the building, dividing it in half). It was reportedly converted to condos around 2005, but no official paperwork/permits/etc. were ever completed with the building department, at that time. They are curious as to what all of the building code requirements would have been, at that time, for the condo conversion to occur.

I am relatively new to this, but I thought it would be a good idea to do a bit of investigation first. This was an R-2 occupancy (apartments) and was being converted to an R-2 occupancy (condos), so no change of occupancy. There are no repairs, alterations, or additions occurring either. So, if I understand it correctly, the Existing Building Code would not come into play, in this instance.

My question is, then, assuming the building had no deficiencies at the time of its initial construction, and no existing deficiencies at the time the conversion occurred (I know... big assumptions), what specifically would have been required to have been done to the building for the conversion to occur (i.e., fire sprinklers, one-hour walls between all units, two-hour walls between all units, additional noise insulation, independent utility meters, etc.)? Are the only changes that needed to occur related to the Fire Code, or would other codes come into play as well?

Thanks in advance for your assistance.


----------



## steveray (Jul 14, 2016)

"Condo" is an ownership term that the building code does not recognize...The real question is whether or not any property lines were created...


----------



## james245 (Jul 14, 2016)

Understood...

According to the property appraiser, the units all have different parcel ID's, and each of the units have been sold to different owners, some multiple times, since the date of the conversion... if that helps one way or the other.


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Jul 14, 2016)

To expand on steveray's creation of property lines separating one unit from another are not lot lines but lines indicating the limits of ownership.  As such, wall constructed on line separating condominion ownership would not need to be fire (or party) walls.

When the dwelling unit is located on a separate parcel of land, lot lines defining the parcel exist and the requirements for fire separation must be met.


----------



## james245 (Jul 14, 2016)

Different parcel ID's would indicate that the "dwelling unit is located on a separate parcel"... correct?


----------



## steveray (Jul 14, 2016)

Yes...lot lines is the correct IBC terminology...The parcel ID might be an assessor's term which may not reflect a legal "lot line"...But it does make things more complicated to decipher...


----------



## JBI (Jul 14, 2016)

Condominium is a form of ownership, not a type of occupancy (per se). 
Since each unit is owned individually, each unit owner pays property taxes on their portion of the building, but...
There are also 'common' portions involved that typically are assessed to a Home Owners Association (the stairs, common hallways, grounds surrounding the buildings, etc.). Those taxes are normally paid for via HOA fees/dues that each owner pays to the HOA. 
Can't speak for Florida but here in NYS there are a number of legal filings to create a condominium and HOA. The intent is to protect the individual unit owners from the HOA and to protect the HOA from individual owners. The laws also provide for means and methods to resolve disputes, etc. via a prospectus that is an integral part of the process.  
Sounds like your municipal attorney needs to weigh in.


----------



## james245 (Jul 14, 2016)

JBI, thanks for your response. I wasn't actually concerned about "legal filings", per se... just the requirements for the physical building.

So, if I understand it correctly, if there is a legal "lot line" between them, we would be looking at something like Table 602, which would require a one-hour "fire-resistance rating" because the "fire separation distance" is less than five feet... and, I am assuming, also looking at something like Section 711, which would also require a one-hour rated horizontal assembly (on the ceiling) between adjacent units?

Anything else? For example, what about around the corridors (breezeways) on either side of the building, and their associated stairways (i.e., means of egress)? Additionally, would there be requirements for more noise insulation, or independent utility meters?


----------



## cda (Jul 14, 2016)

Welcome James !!


----------



## JBI (Jul 14, 2016)

There won't be 'lot lines' as that term is defined/used in the Codes. For one thing you can't put a 'lot line' horizontally between first and second floor units, only vertically. 
Each owner only owns/controls their individual unit (the term 'in fee simple' is commonly used), while the 'property' is owned by the HOA (held in 'common ownership'). 
Simply view it as an R-2, Permanent Multiple Dwelling, for Building Code purposes they are not really much different than an apartment building.


----------



## cda (Jul 14, 2016)

james245 said:


> Understood...
> 
> According to the property appraiser, the units all have different parcel ID's, and each of the units have been sold to different owners, some multiple times, since the date of the conversion... if that helps one way or the other.


----------



## cda (Jul 14, 2016)

Well sounds like the answer has already been answered.

If this building is located in s city/county/state that has an adopted building code.

They should have been involved in the conversion process and looked at any code issued than.


Have you done an open records request for any paperwork on this property??


----------



## james245 (Jul 14, 2016)

The jurisdiction has essentially reported that they were not "involved in the conversion process, and [did not look] at any code issues then". That's part of the reason why this exercise is being undertaken now. 

We have not formally done "an open records request"; however, in speaking with two different individuals in permitting, they are unable to find any information/paperwork documenting that the condo conversion occurred. That being said, online permitting information refers to units in the building as an "apartment" prior to the date of conversion, and as a "condo" after the date of conversion. 

Still a bit confused, though, based on the above responses. Again, per my prior posts,

1. Would it be correct that one-hour vertical and horizontal rated assemblies are required between the individual units? 

2. With respect to the breezeways between units, would anything need to be done above and beyond what is necessary for apartments? 

3. Would there be any additional requirements, such as noise insulation upgrades or individual utility meters? 

Thanks again for your responses.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jul 14, 2016)

Still a bit confused, though, based on the above responses. Again, per my prior posts,

1. Would it be correct that one-hour vertical and horizontal rated assemblies are required between the individual units? Yes the same requirement for apartments when the building was constructed not the current code requirements. The condo conversion does not trigger code updates.   

2. With respect to the breezeways between units, would anything need to be done above and beyond what is necessary for apartments? No

3. Would there be any additional requirements, such as noise insulation upgrades or individual utility meters? No and utility meters should have been covered in the condo documents. 

Don't get to hung up on this. The code considers it an R-2 occupancy regardless of the condominium association ownership documentation


----------



## james245 (Jul 14, 2016)

Ok... so it sounds like the short answer is, if there were no existing deficiencies, nothing needs to be done.


----------



## JBI (Jul 14, 2016)

Other than the possible legalities of filing a prospectus... 
It wasn't a 'conversion', rather it was a change of ownership.


----------



## cda (Jul 14, 2016)

Sounds like the city knows something???


Looks like should have been involved in dividing up ownership? Not building code wise, but other city paperwork wise.


Is there a hoa or owner of the common areas ??

Not sure why sprinklers should not have been required.


----------



## ADAguy (Jul 14, 2016)

This is a state real estate law issue, condo conversions typically require compliance with a state mandated process. This assumes that as previously noted that this is change of ownership issue. It basically required the filing of a Tract map identifying the individual units and HOA documents.

There is an HOA, no?

What of title reports for changes of ownership of individual units and the inclusion of HOA requirements?


----------



## james245 (Jul 14, 2016)

There is a COA.


----------



## ADAguy (Jul 14, 2016)

Is you role in this question as a real estate professional, a title researcher, etc.?


----------



## james245 (Jul 14, 2016)

I can't go into too much of the specifics, related to our involvement, other than we are working on behalf of the owner.


----------



## cda (Jul 14, 2016)

If it has been a legal condo since 2005

Sounds like you are good to go 

Trying to sell it or in the process and buyer has code questions.

Suggest you pay a building consultant to study the property and dig through paperwork ,,,,

Money well spent !!!!!

Without seeing the property and knowing the rules in that area, hard to give a good answer.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jul 14, 2016)

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0718/0718.html

718.507 Zoning and building laws, ordinances, and regulations.—All laws, ordinances, and regulations concerning buildings or zoning shall be construed and applied with reference to the nature and use of such property, without regard to the form of ownership. No law, ordinance, or regulation shall establish any requirement concerning the use, location, placement, or construction of buildings or other improvements which are, or may thereafter be, subjected to the condominium form of ownership, unless such requirement shall be equally applicable to all buildings and improvements of the same kind not then, or thereafter to be, subjected to the condominium form of ownership. This section does not apply if the owner in fee of any land enters into and records a covenant that existing improvements or improvements to be constructed shall not be converted to the condominium form of residential ownership prior to 5 years after the later of the date of the covenant or completion date of the improvements. Such covenant shall be entered into with the governing body of the municipality in which the land is located or, if the land is not located in a municipality, with the governing body of the county in which the land is located.
History.—s. 1, ch. 76-222; s. 6, ch. 80-3.

If you are a local AHJ you have no say in how ownership is defined and you can not impose a regulation upon a condo that you would not be placed upon an apartment complex that changes ownership.


----------



## ADAguy (Jul 15, 2016)

Read between the lines gang, it could be that the seller performed some un-permitted or no HOA prior approval work that a buyer has found to be not up to code. Maybe it was pointed out by a home inspector.


----------



## cda (Jul 15, 2016)

ADAguy said:


> Read between the lines gang, it could be that the seller performed some un-permitted or no HOA prior approval work that a buyer has found to be not up to code. Maybe it was pointed out by a home inspector.





Just do not understand how the city is not involved in some manner??


----------



## ADAguy (Jul 15, 2016)

Its an ownership issue (as in title) condo construction vs apts may only be a local code amendment, or not. 
Both are concerned with sound and parking, maintainance of the grounds and shell being the responsibility of the landlord or HOA.
Maintenance of the interiors of apts is the landlord but of the condo it may involve both HOA(connecting pipes) and unit owner (fixtures).


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jul 15, 2016)

Florida condo laws are a mess when it comes to local AHJ authority I suggest you call an attorney who specializes in condo law if you are thinking of enforcing any code requirements upon them.

 (l) Certificate of compliance.—A provision that a certificate of compliance from a licensed electrical contractor or electrician may be accepted by the association’s board as evidence of compliance of the condominium units with the applicable fire and life safety code must be included. Notwithstanding chapter 633 or of any other code, statute, ordinance, administrative rule, or regulation, or any interpretation of the foregoing, an association, residential condominium, or unit owner is not obligated to retrofit the common elements, association property, or units of a residential condominium with a fire sprinkler system in a building that has been certified for occupancy by the applicable governmental entity if the unit owners have voted to forego such retrofitting by the affirmative vote of a majority of all voting interests in the affected condominium. The local authority having jurisdiction may not require completion of retrofitting with a fire sprinkler system before January 1, 2020. By December 31, 2016, a residential condominium association that is not in compliance with the requirements for a fire sprinkler system and has not voted to forego retrofitting of such a system must initiate an application for a building permit for the required installation with the local government having jurisdiction demonstrating that the association will become compliant by December 31, 2019.

718.1085 Certain regulations not to be retroactively applied.—Notwithstanding the provisions of chapter 633 or of any other code, statute, ordinance, administrative rule, or regulation, or any interpretation thereof, an association, condominium, or unit owner is not obligated to retrofit the common elements or units of a residential condominium that meets the definition of “housing for older persons” in s. 760.29(4)(b)3. to comply with requirements relating to handrails and guardrails if the unit owners have voted to forego such retrofitting by the affirmative vote of two-thirds of all voting interests in the affected condominium. However, a condominium association may not vote to forego the retrofitting in common areas in a high-rise building. For the purposes of this section, the term “high-rise building” means a building that is greater than 75 feet in height where the building height is measured from the lowest level of fire department access to the floor of the highest occupiable level. For the purposes of this section, the term “common areas” means stairwells and exposed, outdoor walkways and corridors. In no event shall the local authority having jurisdiction require retrofitting of common areas with handrails and guardrails before the end of 2014.


----------



## james245 (Jul 25, 2016)

cda said:


> Sounds like the city knows something???
> 
> 
> Looks like should have been involved in dividing up ownership? Not building code wise, but other city paperwork wise.
> ...



Hopefully it's not too much to ask... but would you mind providing the code section that would have required sprinklers?


----------



## ADAguy (Jul 25, 2016)

May be a "legal" condo (what ever "legal" means) but what year was the base building originally built?


----------



## james245 (Jul 25, 2016)

The late 80's


----------



## cda (Jul 25, 2016)

james245 said:


> The late 80's




Would need to know what building code was adopted at that time to determine sprinklers

And just reading a little bit from above, appears condos  may have special privileges in Florida 

Plus still do not understand how the laws work converting an apt to condo, without adding sprinklers


----------



## james245 (Jul 25, 2016)

My best guess would be that the 1985 Standard Building Code had jurisdiction over the construction... of course, ignoring any separate requirements that may or may not have been imposed by the local jurisdiction.


----------



## tmurray (Jul 25, 2016)

cda said:


> Would need to know what building code was adopted at that time to determine sprinklers
> 
> And just reading a little bit from above, appears condos  may have special privileges in Florida
> 
> Plus still do not understand how the laws work converting an apt to condo, without adding sprinklers



Because under the building code (at least our code) there is no conversion. It was a multi unit residential occupancy, it still is a multi unit residential occupancy. As stated earlier, the use of the building did not change, just the owners of the individual suites. Codes generally don't deal with ownership because you start to get into a lot of hypothetical operational procedures, rather than just treating the suites as separate hazards and controlling exposure to each other.


----------



## james245 (Jul 25, 2016)

Agreed... I was just hoping to find justification, within the code, for the prior statement: "Not sure why sprinklers should not have been required" (discussed in Post #28). In other words, which code section would have required this?


----------



## ADAguy (Jul 25, 2016)

Conversion of an apartment house to condo's typically involves the creation of CC&R's, an HOA and new title documents. Doesn't Florida have a Division of Real Estate group that sets the requirements and maintains records of the associations?


----------



## james245 (Jul 25, 2016)

ADAguy said:


> Conversion of an apartment house to condo's typically involves the creation of CC&R's, an HOA and new title documents. Doesn't Florida have a Division of Real Estate group that sets the requirements and maintains records of the associations?



Good idea. I think I found at least some of the records you're describing here: http://www.myfloridalicense.com/dbpr/sto/file_download/public-records-CTMH.html. The association in question was listed in those records.


----------

