# Old stairs



## ICE (Sep 29, 2013)

I am sure that most of you inspectors have encountered renters that call the building dept with a complaint.  The typical scenario is a renter that has become a defaulter and is being evicted.  As a parting gesture the jester decides to turn in the owner for anything and everything that they can come up with.  It is usually stuff like water heaters and el service upgrades.  Now and then it is a room addition or a converted garage.

Recently I fielded a doozy.  The woman said that her daughter fell on the stairs and the stairs do not meet code.  The year was 1985 when risers could be 4" t0 7 1/2".  There is a permit and it has a final approval.

Bottom riser





http://www.flickr.com/photos/97859466@N05/10007911565/ [/URL]

Top riser







http://www.flickr.com/photos/97859466@N05/10007962186/

Eleven risers total.  Two meet code.

This is a set of four that lead to the dirty eleven.






http://www.flickr.com/photos/97859466@N05/10009572084/

I don't think that I would trust the handrail but I don't want to rip it off the wall....at least not until they start building the new stairs.

Bottom






http://www.flickr.com/photos/97859466@N05/10009691283/

Top...and yes, that's a hair ball.






http://www.flickr.com/photos/97859466@N05/10009643166/ 

She hit him where it hurts.

To add insult to injury, the landlord will have to put them up in a hotel while the work is done.  Probably have to feed them too.  And trust me, that will cost more than the hotel.  And oh my goodness, they have a bunch of dogs.


----------



## mark handler (Sep 29, 2013)

ICE said:
			
		

> She hit him where it hurts.


I hope it was in the pocketbook


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Sep 30, 2013)

I thought during that time frame you could 8 1/4 x 9.

Trying to find archival proof.

Brent

http://www.asse.org/practicespecialties/engineering/docs/Stair%20Safety.pdf

1.0 INTRODUCTION

For the first time in any U.S. model building code, the 1992 edition of the BOCA National

Building Code requires residential stairs to have risers no greater than 7 inches and treads no less

than 11 inches. Before 1992, the BOCA code specified 8¼-inch maximum riser heights and 9-

inch minimum tread depths. This 7-11 geometry, as it is known, has the potential to influence

housing costs significantly, particularly the cost of entry-level affordable housing.


----------



## ICE (Sep 30, 2013)

MASSDRIVER said:
			
		

> I thought during that time frame you could 8 1/4 x 9.Trying to find archival proof.
> 
> Brent
> 
> ...


We have a copy of the *UBC* from 1985 and that one says 4"to 7.5" riser and 10" minimum tread.

Thanks for the link.  Somewhere here at the forum is a link to a video of a stairway with a wrong step.  The riser is off but not by much.  It is at a mall.  The number of people that stumbled is surprising.

I haven't found the link but I did find this:


----------



## pete_t (Sep 30, 2013)




----------



## ICE (Sep 30, 2013)

This is the commercial that came with the video.  If fatboy sees this he might not have to light a magazine on fire anymore.

Poop


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Sep 30, 2013)

I'm pretty sure I love her. Crazy a55 redhead.

I'm going to buy some of that stuff for the next time I have to launch a democrat.

Uh, ahem... I wonder what fraction of an inch caused that stair tripping disturbance.

Brent


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Sep 30, 2013)

mark handler said:
			
		

> I hope it was in the pocketbook


Why?

Brent


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Sep 30, 2013)

Ice, when you get a chance would you look in that ubc and see if there is an exception for R-1?

When I was young I did quite a few 8 by 9 stairs and I'm just wondering where that came from.

For 8' walls and 2x10 joists this came to a tidy 13 steps on the money with 9 feet of run. Did a lot of those on town houses.

Brent.


----------



## ICE (Sep 30, 2013)

MASSDRIVER said:
			
		

> Ice, when you get a chance would you look in that ubc and see if there is an exception for R-1?When I was young I did quite a few 8 by 9 stairs and I'm just wondering where that came from.
> 
> For 8' walls and 2x10 joists this came to a tidy 13 steps on the money with 9 feet of run. Did a lot of those on town houses.
> 
> Brent.


I will be looking at that code and quoting it chapter and verse for the landlord.  I would be surprised if there is an exception but I will look for it.


----------



## ICE (Sep 30, 2013)

And here it is Brent.

EXCEPTIONS: 1. Private stairways serving an occupant load of less than 10 and stairways to unoccupied roofs may be constructed with an 8-inch maximum rise and 9-inch minimum run.

I forgot about private stairways a long time ago.  The problem is the huge difference between steps. 1 5/16"


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Sep 30, 2013)

ICE said:
			
		

> And here it is Brent.  EXCEPTIONS: 1. Private stairways serving an occupant load of less than 10 and stairways to unoccupied roofs may be constructed with an 8-inch maximum rise and 9-inch minimum run.
> 
> I forgot about private stairways a long time ago.  The problem is the huge difference between steps. 1 5/16"


Yea. No exception for that. Whoever built them overthought the floor covering I think.

And to amend, before the 1985 ubc it was the 81/4" riser that worked perfectly. Afterward you had to add a step. That's why there are all those horrible unwalkable stairs in the old cheap townhouses.

Brent.


----------



## pete_t (Sep 30, 2013)

Eight inch rise was always the max not 8 ¼" in CA for residential/private.

UBC 1937

.......The rise of stairway shall be not more than seven and one-half

inches (7 1/2") and the tread exclusive of the nosing not less

than ten inches (10") (maximum pitch 37 degrees), and there

shall be not more than 17 risers in any one run between landings;

provided, that stairways in dwellings and stairways serving

mezzanine floors may have a rise of not more than eight inches

(8") and a tread exclusive of the nosing of not less than nine

inches (9").

Dwelling Construction Under the UBC 1976 Edition

The rise of steps in a stairway shall not exceed 7 1/2 inches and the run

shall be not less than 10 inches. Variations in the height of risers and the

width of treads in any one flight shall not exceed 3⁄16  inch.  [sec. 3305 ©]

*EXCEPTION: *In private stairways serving an occupant load of less than

10, the rise may be 8 inches and the run may be 9 inches.


----------



## Frank (Sep 30, 2013)

Is there a statute of limitations on discovering things approved in error and still being able to compel compliance?  It is 2 years in most cases in VA.

Also it appears that the bottom riser height may have been reduced by subsequent floor covering additions.


----------



## ICE (Oct 1, 2013)

Here's another set of old stairs...90 years old.







> Is there a statute of limitations on discovering things approved in error and still being able to compel compliance? It is 2 years in most cases in VA.


If something was approved in error, it was never legally approved.


----------



## Glennman CBO (Oct 1, 2013)

Regardless of the rise and run minimums and maximums, the variation in riser heights is the key to safety. Whether or not the code in the day was 8/9, 7/10 or whatever, I really doubt that the variations you have there EVER met code. It is a trip hazard.

Didn't the 3/8" variations come in with the I-Codes? I have heard that there was no variation allowed under the UBC.


----------



## fatboy (Oct 1, 2013)

97 UBC had the 3/8" in there also......as far back as 1979 it was in the UBC, jumped back to 1967 and it was 3/16"


----------



## peach (Oct 12, 2013)

pete_t said:
			
		

> Eight inch rise was always the max not 8 ¼" in CA for residential/private.UBC 1937
> 
> .......The rise of stairway shall be not more than seven and one-half
> 
> ...


Looks to me like more than 3/16" variation in the flight.


----------



## fatboy (Oct 13, 2013)

So, does the exception speak to the *variance* in rise/run? Or to the just exclusively to the rise/run limitations? Or is it silent? ........looks like silent in peaches citation.


----------



## ICE (Oct 13, 2013)

fatboy said:
			
		

> So, does the exception speak to the *variance* in rise/run? Or to the just exclusively to the rise/run limitations? Or is it silent? ........looks like silent in peaches citation.


The exception does not mention the 3/16 so it is still enforced.


----------



## fatboy (Oct 13, 2013)

In the 1937 UBC citation there is no variance limitation listed. I do not see it specified, so it appears there is no limitation, as long as the rise/run is compliant.


----------



## ICE (Oct 14, 2013)

fatboy said:
			
		

> In the 1937 UBC citation there is no variance limitation listed. I do not see it specified, so it appears there is no limitation, as long as the rise/run is compliant.


It's an unwritten rule.


----------



## fatboy (Oct 14, 2013)

Rule..............where???????


----------



## peach (Nov 2, 2013)

it's the sum total of variance within a flight.  If the variance in three risers in a flight are each 1/16", the other risers better be absolutely consistent.


----------

