# Additions/alterations to a structure not built to code.



## Ryan (Jun 19, 2017)

Let me preface this by saying I am not a building or fire code guru.  I apologize for any dumb questions I ask as I have only recently begun to dive into the intricacies of these things.  In any event, I am an in-house attorney and was asked to review this situation:

Our company is interested in purchasing an existing building.  The occupancy would not change post-sale--it would remain M.  If the structure were built today, it would require an automatic sprinkler system because Group M fire area exceeds 12,000 square feet (per the 2015 IFC, which the state has adopted).  However, it also appears that this structure _should have_ had an automatic sprinkler system installed when the building was originally constructed.  The code in place at the time required sprinklers unless there was 20 square feet of "opening" per each 50 lineal feet.  Based on my rough approximations, the structure does not have sufficient openings to avoid the sprinkler requirement as it existed at the time of construction.  In the event we were to purchase this structure, the plan would be to do an addition (adding a vestibule) and some alterations--but nothing terribly substantial (no structural work).  My question is this:

Assuming the structure was not built to code at the time of construction (due to the lack of an automatic sprinkler system), what obligations would we have to install one if we were to purchase the structure and do an addition and alterations?  

I've reviewed the 2015 IFC requirements for existing buildings (Chapter 11).  It requires some bare-bones improvements for fire safety (e.g., number of exits).  Aside from those, however, it seems the IFC simply provides that an existing building cannot be made _less safe_.  But the IFC seems to assume the existing building was built to code at the time of construction.  What if that's not the case?  

Given the relatively low dollar amount involved, the added costs (e.g., retrofitting a sprinkler system) could determine whether we even consider this further.

I thought I could find an answer fairly quickly on my own but I've quickly become overwhelmed by all the cross-references and sheer volume of these codes.  If someone could even point me to the relevant sections it would be greatly appreciated.  Thank you.


----------



## cda (Jun 19, 2017)

Welcome


Yep you thought criminal and civil law books were unreadable


----------



## cda (Jun 19, 2017)

My75% guess is the building was built to code.

If it was modified after that, would be another story.

As far as opening, that can be anything a door an overhead door, a non openaple window/ glass.

If not there you can go back and add till the city is happy

Suggestions

Try to get the building offical to look at the building with you and see what he thinks about the existing building and also the modifications,,,,   BEFORE you sign any papers.


If that cannot happen hire a fire protection engineer or code consultant and do the same thing,,, BEFORE you sign any paperwork.   And more than likely the money spent will save you a lot!!

There are ways to smooze the code just like law verbage.


----------



## Ryan (Jun 20, 2017)

Thanks for the reply. I'm fairly certain the structure was not built to code, at least with respect to an automatic sprinkler system. What authority/code sections would dictate what our obligations are if we were to make additions and alterations to a building that wasn't built to code in the first place? Thanks again. I appreciate the insight!


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jun 20, 2017)

2012 IBC
102.6 Existing structures.
The legal occupancy of any structure existing on the date of adoption of this code shall be permitted to continue without change, except as is specifically covered in this code, the International Property Maintenance Code or the International Fire Code , or as is deemed necessary by the building official for the general safety and welfare of the occupants and the public.

2012 IBC
3403.1 General.
Additions to any building or structure shall comply with the requirements of this code for new construction. Alterations to the existing building or structure shall be made to ensure that the existing building or structure together with the addition are no less conforming with the provisions of this code than the existing building or structure was prior to the addition . An existing building together with its additions shall comply with the height and area provisions of Chapter 5.

An addition that increases the fire area of a building may trigger a fire suppression system. I agree with cda to get with the local building official for his/her input and I suggest you look at the International Existing Building Code and not the fire code for your research.  


The International Existing Building Code is a model code in the International Code family of codes intended to provide alternative approaches to remodeling, repair or alteration of existing buildings. A large number of existing buildings and structures do not comply with the current building code requirements for new construction. Although many of these buildings are potentially salvageable, rehabilitation is often cost-prohibitive because compliance with all the requirements for new construction could require extensive changes that go well beyond the value of the building or the original scope of the rehabilitation. At the same time, it is necessary to regulate construction in existing buildings that undergo additions, alterations, renovations, extensive repairs or change of occupancy. Such activity represents an opportunity to ensure that new construction complies with the current building codes and that existing conditions are maintained, at a minimum, to their current level of compliance or are improved as required to meet basic safety levels. To accomplish this objective, and to make the rehabilitation process easier, this code allows for options for controlled departure from full compliance with the International Codes dealing with new construction, while maintaining basic levels for fire prevention, structural and life safety features of the rehabilitated building.


----------



## cda (Jun 20, 2017)

The building codes are like criminal or civil law.

There are exceptions.

So like if you need sprinklers at 12000 sq ft,
You just make 11999 sq ft and no sprinklers are required.

I still say that the building meets code, it is in use, so to me if you bought it as is and no changes, you should not have to do anything.

If you even do minor remodel nothing should kick in.

Still suggest hire a FPE or code consultant to look and advise you.


Another route to go is do an open records request to Building and fire for any code violations, non conforming, or possible code requirements in the future.

There are so many sections that can apply, so hard to cite any especially without seeing the building, knowing what year it was built, knowing what code and edition it was built under.


You should find out if the city has adopted the International  Existing Building Code

Not sure if can help much more.


----------



## cda (Jun 20, 2017)

http://legacycodes.iccsafe.org/I-Codes.html


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jun 20, 2017)

cda said:


> You should find out if the city has adopted the International  Existing Building Code
> .


If the city has adopted the building code then the Existing building code does not have to be adopted in order for it to be used. Chapter 34 already recognizes the IEBC as a "deemed to comply" alternative compliance with Chapter 34 of the IBC.

2012 IBC
3401.5 Alternative compliance. 
Work performed in accordance with the International Existing Building Code shall be deemed to comply with the provisions of this chapter.


----------



## Paul Sweet (Jun 20, 2017)

Read the whole section.  Openings are only required on one side.  If openings are only provided on one side, sprinklers still aren't required unless the opposite wall is farther than 75' form the wall with openings.

Check to see when the building was built, and what code was in effect at that time.  This requirement has been in the building code for a long time, so it is likely it met code when constructed.


----------



## TJacobs (Jun 20, 2017)

Is the building presently in use or is it vacant?  Some zoning regulations will require a building be brought up to code if the structure has been vacant for x period of time.


----------



## Ryan (Jun 20, 2017)

Thanks for all the responses. The building is presently in use and the nature of the occupancy would not change if we were to acquire it. We would likely do a small addition and some alterations (I predict Level 1 but perhaps Level 2 if that includes moving an interior non-structural wall).  Thanks again!


----------



## cda (Jun 20, 2017)

Additional sq ft might just kick in a fire sprinkler requirement

Suggest fpe or consultant 

Will save you money


----------



## north star (Jun 20, 2017)

*# ~ # ~ #*

Ryan,

Lot's of good responses above !
You may also want to get a Quote on what
it would cost to install a sprinkler system,
and the amount of time it would take for the
installation to pay for itself in insurance savings.

Also, ...a fully sprinkled bldg. might be a more
attractive development option for your investors,
and marketing to any future tenants or alterations.

*# ~ # ~ #*


----------



## steveray (Jun 21, 2017)

Talk to the local fire official....But typically, if he is not making them install one, he shouldn't make you. Ownership has nothing to do with life safety requirements. If it were required to upgraded for some reason and it has slipped past his attention until now, then you would want to know that.


----------



## DuaneW (Jun 29, 2017)

Where I am i am dealing with a lot of buildings that were built with no over site form either fire or building officials, so If what happens hear is they change occupancy or ask for remodel then they would need to bring the building up to code of today. at least on my part i am making sure that the building meets the min. fire and life safety codes. it will depend on what your local AHJ would require.


----------



## ADAguy (Jul 21, 2017)

"Due diligence"
check with local fire as to when last inspected, any defficiencies cited?


----------



## kilitact (Jul 22, 2017)

You would need to prove that it was legal at the time it was built, this isn't up to the building or fire department. Do your due diligence.

"102.6 Existing structures.
The legal occupancy of any structure existing on the date of adoption of this code shall be permitted to continue without change, except as is specifically
covered in this code or the Fire Code, or as is deemed necessary by the building official for the general safety and welfare of the occupants and the public."


----------



## Mark K (Jul 22, 2017)

Before you talk to the building department about this specific building find out what building related codes were in effect when the building was constructed.  Look at the formal record of adoption.  While the opinion of the building official may be important you may get a different ruling if you start with a reasoned proposal.

Understand the state law related to building codes.  What state is the property located in?  If the state has adopted a building code it is possible that the state requirements may govern over local requirements.  I believe in some states the building code may only apply to certain types of buildings.

Ask the building department for the permit history for the subject property.

Talk to an architect or fire protection engineer.

IF the original code did not require sprinklers find out if there were any subsequent laws that mandated that sprinklers be added to existing compliant buildings.

Only then ask the building official for his opinion.


----------



## ADAguy (Jul 25, 2017)

Ryan, it would help us to know:

1. Date of initial construction
2. State building is located in 
3. It comes down to buying it as is or requiring the seller to deliver the building code compliant with a certification letter from the local AHJ.


----------



## cda (Jul 25, 2017)

I think we lost Ryan


----------



## ADAguy (Jul 25, 2017)

It was an interesting thread.


----------



## PJC89 (Jul 31, 2017)

You will unfortunately need to provide sprinkler protection as the building is currently operating illegally.  I am surprised they have not been fined yet.  This is a very loaded question but I would assume that there is some sort of existing building code within your area that is adopted.  Often this code is far more forgiving in terms of when work is performed in a building and if the building needs to be upgraded.  You may consider taking a look though this code.  They classify the scope of work based on the level of alteration/addition being performed.  Assuming 2015 IBC take a look through this to see if a system would be required.  That being all being said, I would recommend discussing this with the AHJ.  You would hate to perform the work and learn during final inspection you need a fully sprinklered building.  Maybe providing  partial system (given the years of not having a single sprinkler in the building) would help create a better more compliant condition.

https://up.codes/viewer/general/int_ebc_2015


----------

