# residential cert of occ



## BSSTG (Sep 24, 2013)

Greetings all,

I'm confounded by the way the IRC is written when enforcing C/O violations. 09 IRC reads

R110.1 Use and occupancy. No building or structure shall be used or occupied, and no change in the existing occupancy classification of a building or structure or portion thereof shall be made until the building official has issued a certificate of occupancy therefor as provided herein. Issuance of a certificate of occupancy shall not be construed as an approval of a violation of the provisions of this code or of other ordinances of the jurisdiction. Certificates presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of this code or other ordinances of the jurisdiction shall not be valid.

IBC has similar language. The issue is that is that when a typical home builder or landlord is the owner of the property and the house is rented out without a valid C/O. It should be the fault of the property owner as he rented the property out prior to having it approved after a remodel etc. I've been to court with these and it's a problem. Ultimately the property owner is responsible for the condition of the property but the tenant is actually the occupant. So, if there is no C/O, the way the Code reads, it is the tenant that's at fault because they are the actual occupant of the structure. It shouldn't be that way. It should be the fault of the owner. I've had a couple of cases thrown out where I tried to hold the property owner accountable for no C/O. In each case the owner says "I'm not occupying the building. How can your hold me accountable" They are right.

I'm trying to figure out a a way to rectify this. I guess if a rental property had to go through an inspection prior to being rented out it might solve the problem but it sure would open another can of worms too I figure. I know a lot of cities to require a rental type inspection. I can't see it going over here. I have enough fits with mobile homes which are required to have a minimal inspection prior to occupancy in this town. It's a real pain.

BSSTG


----------



## cda (Sep 24, 2013)

So is your question

Owner remodels home and rents it out prior to inspections of the remodel work?


----------



## steveray (Sep 24, 2013)

The owner is allowing occupancy via his rental agreement or lease....he is still responsible...


----------



## BSSTG (Sep 24, 2013)

steveray said:
			
		

> The owner is allowing occupancy via his rental agreement or lease....he is still responsible...


The point is that if you cite the owner for no certificate of occupancy and the owner is not occupying the building, you don't have a case. The case has to be brought up against the occupant of the building. That's my point. I've gone through this with attorneys before. it just doesn't work. Only the occupant of the building can be cited persuant to R110.1. Some cities have different requirements for rentals in their ordinances that deal with this more effictively. I guess I'll go to municode and try to dredge some up.

BSSTG


----------



## cda (Sep 24, 2013)

BSSTG said:
			
		

> The point is that if you cite the owner for no certificate of occupancy and the owner is not occupying the building, you don't have a case. The case has to be brought up against the occupant of the building. That's my point. I've gone through this with attorneys before. it just doesn't work. Only the occupant of the building can be cited persuant to R110.1. Some cities have different requirements for rentals in their ordinances that deal with this more effictively. I guess I'll go to municode and try to dredge some up.  BSSTG


So is your question

Owner remodels home and rents it out prior to inspections of the remodel work?


----------



## BSSTG (Sep 24, 2013)

cda said:
			
		

> So is your questionOwner remodels home and rents it out prior to inspections of the remodel work?


I guess the question is, how can you hold the owner responsible for a C/O violation if he is not occupying the structure?  I need to add that we also have seen this where a builder sells the home, allowing it to be occupied and never followed up on the required inspections. I don't believe the Code can be applied to these situations.

BSSTG


----------



## cda (Sep 24, 2013)

well dont you hold the person who pulled the permit responsible?


----------



## High Desert (Sep 25, 2013)

We wrote a city ordinance that's in the city code that hold's the owner/permit holder responsible.


----------



## tmurray (Sep 25, 2013)

Did the tenant sign a lease with the owner? This would imply that the owner allowed occupancy of a non-compliant structure. It does appear to to worded poorly. Perhaps it is to protect owners from people squatting on their property. Where I am it always falls back on the property owner.


----------



## TimNY (Sep 25, 2013)

Instead of this:

Joe Occupant } DEFENDANT

Do this:

Joe Owner    }

Joe Occupant} DEFENDANTS

Let the Court figure it out.  When you say "it's been a problem", did you go to trial, was it dismissed, or?  What was the problem?  The occupant used it and the owner permitted it to be used.  Compliance is the goal; a conditional discharge usually gets the job done and everybody is happy.

Do you not have the right to inspect at any reasonable hour when there is an open building permit?  Inspection of the home will allow you to assess the safety.  While it needs to be settled either way, I am much more concerned if I walk into a home without a Certificate and see no smoke alarms versus one where the GC can't get his final survey.

Failure to grant entry is a violation on the part of the permit holder (if you have such a provision, if not, you need to get one!).

If you are granted entry then any violations you find are also the responsibility of the permit holder.

If you find life safety violations (ie no CO or smke alarms, no required guards, vent deficiencies, etc) you shouldn't have any problem getting a Judge to order compliance.  If everything looks in order than is really a paperwork problem, not a construction problem.  Needs to be resolved, but the urgency isn't there.

HTH,

Tim


----------



## steveray (Sep 25, 2013)

R113.2 Notice of violation.

The building official is authorized to serve a notice of violation or order on the person responsible for the erection, construction, alteration, extension, repair, moving, removal, demolition or occupancy of a building or structure in violation of the provisions of this code, or in violation of a detail statement or a plan approved thereunder, or in violation of a permit or certificate issued under the provisions of this code. Such order shall direct the discontinuance of the illegal action or condition and the abatement of the violation.

   It says "person responsible"...here typically it falls back on the property owner...as the permit is theirs...anyone else that signs for it is doing so as an agent of the owner...


----------

