# ADA mirror width



## pmarx (Sep 20, 2018)

Here's one I can't find. Of course we know that the maximum mounting height of a toilet room mirror is 40" AFF to the reflecting surface. Is there a minimum width? I'm not the AHJ but a contractor wants to use a custom shape where the bottom of the mirror "steps" up so the lowest few steps are within the 40" but the upper steps are higher resulting in about a 6" wide area on each side within the required range. Intuitively, this seem wrong but I can't find anything in the code that prohibits it. Thanks.


----------



## RLGA (Sep 20, 2018)

What do you mean by "the mirror 'steps' up"?


----------



## pmarx (Sep 20, 2018)

RLGA said:


> What do you mean by "the mirror 'steps' up"?



I know it would be easier if I could insert or attach an image but I can't so what I mean is the lower left or right hand corner of the mirror starts at 37" AFF. That portion is 4" wide. Then it steps up 3" (to 40") for a width of 4". There are two more 3" vertical steps after that to so the middle portion of the mirror is at 46" (for a width of 12".) So functionally, there are two 8" wide portions on each end that are within the 40" range. The middle portion exceeds it.


----------



## RLGA (Sep 20, 2018)

No width is mentioned, so it would be difficult to make a claim that it is not compliant in regard to height. However, they could make a claim on the basis that it is not "equivalent facilitation" per ADA Section 103, since it does not provide greater accessibility or usability at the lower heights than it does at the taller heights.

Regardless of configuration, but is this a mirror that is installed above a counter or lavatory? If not, the height is 35 inches and not 40 inches.


----------



## pmarx (Sep 20, 2018)

RLGA said:


> No width is mentioned, so it would be difficult to make a claim that it is not compliant in regard to height. However, they could make a claim on the basis that it is not "equivalent facilitation" per ADA Section 103, since it does not provide greater accessibility or usability at the lower heights than it does at the taller heights.
> 
> Regardless of configuration, but is this a mirror that is installed above a counter or lavatory? If not, the height is 35 inches and not 40 inches.


It's above a lav. Thanks for the insight.


----------



## JPohling (Sep 20, 2018)

place another complying mirror on an adjacent wall and your good.  Otherwise your saying that a 3" tall x 4" wide x2 portion of mirror is to suffice?


----------



## JCraver (Sep 21, 2018)

If any visible portion of the mirror is within the reqs. then it's compliant, IMO.  If it's a continuous mirror panel, not separated panes or individual mirrors, it's hard to argue that putting wherever the bottom is at the required height doesn't comply.  AFAIK there is no requirement for viewing area of the mirror, just that if it's provided that it must be 40" or lower to the floor.


----------



## pmarx (Sep 21, 2018)

JPohling said:


> place another complying mirror on an adjacent wall and your good.  Otherwise your saying that a 3" tall x 4" wide x2 portion of mirror is to suffice?


Actually, I'm not saying it would suffice. I'm looking for back up to say that it doesn't. I said in my original post that does seem wrong but nowhere can I find in the code where a minimum width is given.


----------



## JCraver (Sep 21, 2018)

Any of those.  Lowest viewable portion at 40" max = compliant.


----------



## mark handler (Sep 21, 2018)

*


JCraver said:



			Lowest viewable portion at 40" max = compliant.
		
Click to expand...

​
Verbiage a little different, but basically the same...

Mirrors.* Mirrors shall be mounted with the bottom edge of the* reflecting surface *no higher than 40 in (1015 mm) above the finish floor.


----------



## JPohling (Sep 21, 2018)

pmarx said:


> Actually, I'm not saying it would suffice. I'm looking for back up to say that it doesn't. I said in my original post that does seem wrong but nowhere can I find in the code where a minimum width is given.


I do not think that there is any code width requirement.  But I also do not think it is equivalent to the able bodied, or meet the intent of the code.  But I do not believe an inspector would fail it.  If they did you just add another wall mirror nearby with lower edge at 35".   Now a judge in a lawsuit may disagree


----------

