# Back yard door landing



## Tbcf (Feb 21, 2021)

Can a newly built house passes inspection if it doesn’t have stairs or deck at backyard door which is 2ft above grade? I see builder sells the house without that even it seems code requires one:
“R311.3.2 Floor Elevations for Other Exterior Doors
Doors other than the required egress door shall be provided with landings or floors not more than 73/4 inches (196 mm) below the top of the threshold.”

If it does pass, can owner build a stair or deck (less than 200 sqft) without permission (it seems there are requirements that the structure need to be some ft away from the house to get exception)

If it does require permission then does it require to meet footing under frost line  requirement?


----------



## fatboy (Feb 22, 2021)

Welcome to the forum!

That is the specific requirement, also driven by the general requirement.

R311.3 Floors and landings at exterior doors. There shall
be a landing or floor on each side of each exterior door. The
width of each landing shall be not less than the door served....

It would not pass final inspection here. As to the second question....if it is not attached to the structure, perhaps, depends on the jurisdiction.


----------



## Rick18071 (Feb 22, 2021)

We have a lot of new houses that have a slider in the rear of the house with no deck or stairway. We allow this if a guard is built across the door. Code only needs one means of egress from a house.
Different jurisdictions have different rules about when you need a permit for a deck..


----------



## Tbcf (Feb 22, 2021)

Appreciate your comments.

It looks like they bypass the code by installing a (temporary and ugly) guard at the slider as Rick mentioned.
At jurisdiction like yours, does owner need permit for making unattached staircase and does the staircase (3 steps, about 2+ ft) needs to meet requirements like footing, railing etc, Rick?


----------



## steveray (Feb 22, 2021)

10. Decks not exceeding 200 square feet (18.58 m2) in area, that are not more than 30 inches
(762 mm) above grade at any point, are not attached to a dwelling and do not serve the
exit door required by Section R311.4.

Here, small low decks are (mostly) exempt from permit and (most) anything freestanding <600sqft is exempt from frost depth...


----------



## cda (Feb 22, 2021)

Pre fab stairs !!

If installing stairs only, make sure they are legal tread and install them!!


----------



## fatboy (Feb 22, 2021)

Yes, of course we would allow a guard to be installed over the opening, it is just a large vertical glazed opening. But, in the OP example, it is only 24"  above grade, a guard would not be required.


----------



## steveray (Feb 22, 2021)

It meets the intent of the code to install an ugly guard you mean.....Or call it a sliding window and a 4" opening limiter if required....


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Feb 22, 2021)

*R311.3 Floors and landings at exterior doors.
*
Required not less than 36-inched wide. does not mention egress or EERO. 

Grade can be brought up to eliminate the stairs.


----------



## Teeshot (Feb 22, 2021)

Tbcf said:


> Can a newly built house passes inspection if it doesn’t have stairs or deck at backyard door which is 2ft above grade? I see builder sells the house without that even it seems code requires one:
> “R311.3.2 Floor Elevations for Other Exterior Doors
> Doors other than the required egress door shall be provided with landings or floors not more than 73/4 inches (196 mm) below the top of the threshold.”
> 
> ...


I've come across this several times, usually with sub-division homes. I have required that they, at minimum, provide a temporary landing and steps (pressure treated material, etc.) that is properly secured in place. The reason for their request for delaying the landing/steps, was that it was a homeowner option to select the type of material, e.g. wood, concrete, etc. A landing/steps is of course a code requirement, and it is typically indicated on the drawing, and they were pleased that I allowed a temporary, but code compliant option.


----------



## tbz (Feb 22, 2021)

Teeshot said:


> I've come across this several times, usually with sub-division homes. I have required that they, at minimum, provide a temporary landing and steps (pressure treated material, etc.) that is properly secured in place. The reason for their request for delaying the landing/steps, was that it was a homeowner option to select the type of material, e.g. wood, concrete, etc. A landing/steps is of course a code requirement, and it is typically indicated on the drawing, and they were pleased that I allowed a temporary, but code compliant option.


T-Shot, if the drawings show a landing and stairs, one would gather you can hold that position or at a minimum request the drawings be updated, but per R311.3 Exception, all the doors, sliding doors and French doors I have seen without landings and specifically stairs, can be designated simply as a balcony and as thus, no minimum landing and or stairs are required.  

That is why the exception exist in R311.3, specifically to allow for what OP has currently at their home.  

I teach designers and architects to label the doors as a false balcony, with optional upgrade for exterior landing, decks and stairs.  This way there are no questions.  But if the drawings show it, and the homeowner paid for it that is a different case.  But, to say it is required and force them to install it just because a sliding door exists, I think its an overreach.

As to someone coming around later after the C/O and producing work without a permit, always amazes me why a home owner would want to do this, other than taxes.  The building department is their friend, to make sure the work gets done correctly, if they bypass that process, well they deserve to get shafted. 

That is just me, but no landing or steps required, just a compliant guards at a minimum.


----------



## ADAguy (Feb 22, 2021)

cda said:


> Pre fab stairs !!
> 
> If installing stairs only, make sure they are legal tread and install them!!


Railings also strongly recommended and landing deep enough to allow you to not have to step aside to open the door.


----------



## Teeshot (Feb 22, 2021)

tbz said:


> T-Shot, if the drawings show a landing and stairs, one would gather you can hold that position or at a minimum request the drawings be updated, but per R311.3 Exception, all the doors, sliding doors and French doors I have seen without landings and specifically stairs, can be designated simply as a balcony and as thus, no minimum landing and or stairs are required.
> 
> That is why the exception exist in R311.3, specifically to allow for what OP has currently at their home.
> 
> ...


Designating an exterior door as a false balcony as opposed to a temporary but safe alternative landing could lead to problems as that door will most likely be used to access the yard. IMO, it is much safer to have something in place to allow the door's intended use instead of the guard. In many situations, the HOA (if one is present) allows new sub-division homeowners up to 1 year to complete their exterior yards. A temporary landing shas worked in my jurisdiction for many years and we have received several 'thank you's" as opposed to any negative push-back.


----------



## tbz (Feb 23, 2021)

Teeshot said:


> Designating an exterior door as a false balcony as opposed to a temporary but safe alternative landing could lead to problems as that door will most likely be used to access the yard. IMO, it is much safer to have something in place to allow the door's intended use instead of the guard. In many situations, the HOA (if one is present) allows new sub-division homeowners up to 1 year to complete their exterior yards. A temporary landing shas worked in my jurisdiction for many years and we have received several 'thank you's" as opposed to any negative push-back.


doesn't matter what the future might be for that door, the OP was asking if a guard is considered compliant and meeting code.  

The Answer is yes, as the code does not require a landing and stairs, per the exception.

The intent of the required landing depth being a minimum of 36" is to make sure if stairs are present; the landing is compliant.

Thus, if no stairs, then no minimum landing is required because by definition it is a balcony with no other access than the door, hence a guard over the door opening becomes either a balcony, or an oversized window.

Requiring a compliant landing and stairs, for a door is not required unless the boxes are tick off for it being a non-required exit path, hence stairs.

What you are saying is, it could be, more than likely will be in the future, so we are forcing it to be done now.  

My point is, that is an over reach of the code, if the IRC is adopted with the exception in place in your jurisdiction, even though the home owner might be grateful for your opinion in the future, saving them a headache, I have to disagree that stairs and a landing are required to issue the C/O.


----------



## Teeshot (Feb 23, 2021)

Not required tbz, just an alternate to the guard which allows them/pets, etc. to safely exit into their yard. An exterior door is intended to be used as an exit/entry point and the temporary landing/steps in one option. In the end, they select which to incorporate. My point was that in many jurisdictions, no final was given until the permanent landing/steps were in place. My team works to come up with safe solutions and this was one of them. Thanks for sharing your point of view as this is part of the thinking tank.


----------

