# Moved Residential Structures



## darcar (Oct 3, 2011)

Is anyone aware if there is anything within the IRC that gives authority of enforcement relating to the movement of a residential structure?

Our jurisdiction has not adopted the IEBC (existing building code).

The IBC addresses moved structures but I can't seem to find anything within the IRC..

Thanks


----------



## codeworks (Oct 3, 2011)

what about section R102.7.1, moving  a structure is "an alteration, if it's getting set on a (assumed) new foundation, that will have to comply, no ?.......


----------



## globe trekker (Oct 3, 2011)

darcar,

From the 2006 IRC, Section R102.7 - Existing structures would apply until they move it.

See also, Appendix J. When they move the structure, then Section R102.7.1 would apply,

because they will have to devise / construct a new foundation systems, and possibly

other systems will need to become compliant before the C. of O. is issued. See

Section R110 - Certificate of Occupancy.

*Section R102.7 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."

*Section R102.7.1 - Additions, alterations or repairs.*

"Additions, alterations or repairs to any structure shall conform to the requirements for a

new structure without requiring the existing structure to comply with all of the requirements

of this code, unless otherwise stated. Additions, alterations or repairs shall not cause an

existing structure to become unsafe or adversely affect the performance of the building."

If a modular / mobile residence, see Appendix E, ...until they move it.



Does this help?  

" codeworks " beat me to the punch!

.


----------



## imhotep (Oct 3, 2011)

darcar said:
			
		

> Is anyone aware if there is anything within the IRC that gives authority of enforcement relating to the movement of a residential structure?Our jurisdiction has not adopted the IEBC (existing building code).
> 
> The IBC addresses moved structures but I can't seem to find anything within the IRC..
> 
> Thanks


Since the IRC is silent then the IBC would apply would it not?  The requirement in the IBC is that the moved structure must meet current code.  If the moved structure meets the Exception under IBC 101.2 then the IRC could be used as the current code basis for those aspects that directly pertain else off to the IBC.


----------



## righter101 (Oct 3, 2011)

IRC Amendment in State of Washington

Our State Building Code Council, the folks that amend the IRC (who made sprinklers in the IRC optional), have added this seciton, for what it is worth.....

R102.7.2 Moved Buildings. Buildings or structures

moved into or within a jurisdiction shall comply with the

provisions of this code, the International Building Code

(WAC 51-50), the International Mechanical Code (WAC

51-52), the International Fire Code (WAC 51-54), the

Uniform Plumbing Code and Standards (WAC 51-56 and

51-57), the Washington State Energy Code (WAC 51-11)

and the Washington State Ventilation and Indoor Air

Quality Code (WAC 51-13) for new buildings or structures.

Exception: Group R-3 buildings or structures are not

required to comply if:

1. The original occupancy classification is not changed;

and

2. The original building is not substantially remodeled

or rehabilitated.

For the purposes of this section a building shall be

considered to be substantially remodeled when the costs of

remodeling exceed 60 percent of the value of the building

exclusive of the costs relating to preparation, construction,

demolition or renovation of foundations.


----------



## mark handler (Oct 3, 2011)

2010 California Residential Code‚ Title 24‚ Part 2.5 (First Printing)‚

1.8.9.1 Existing structures. Subject to the requirements of California Health and Safety Code Sections 17912, 17920.3, 17922, 17922.3, 17958.8 and 17958.9, provisions relating to existing structures (additions, alterations and repairs) shall only apply as identified in the California Building Code Chapter 34 Matrix Adoption Table under the authority of the Department of Housing and Community Development as listed in Sections 1.8.1.1.1 through 1.8.1.1.3 of this code.

1.8.9.2 Moved structures. Subject to the requirements of California Health and Safety Code Sections 17922.3 and 17958.9, provisions relating to a moved residential structure are located in CBC Chapter 34 and shall only apply as identified in the CBC Chapter 34 Matrix Adoption Table under the authority of the Department of Housing and Community Development as listed in Sections 1.8.1.1.1 through 1.8.1.1.3 of this code.


----------



## Mark K (Oct 4, 2011)

As I require the California statutes make it clear that most mooved residences do not have to be brought into full compliance with the current code.


----------



## Codegeek (Oct 4, 2011)

It's interesting that the IRC is the only I-code that does not address moved buildings.  All of the other I codes have a section specific to buildings being moved within or into a jurisdiction.


----------



## darcar (Oct 4, 2011)

I don't agree that I can stretch 102.7 to include a moved structure, or that I can reference the IBC just because the IRC doesn't address.

Luckily we are currently working on adopting the 2012 codes and the IEBC and/or appendix J should and will be adopted.

Thanks


----------



## Mule (Oct 4, 2011)

We have a local ordinance requiring all building moved into or within the city must meet current codes.

Sorry this don't help you but I was just noting we have ran into this before and saw a problem with the IRC not recognizing moved buildings.


----------



## gbhammer (Oct 4, 2011)

Codegeek said:
			
		

> It's interesting that the IRC is the only I-code that does not address moved buildings.  All of the other I codes have a section specific to buildings being moved within or into a jurisdiction.


I would have to say that the IRC is silent for a reason. The theme throughout the IRC is to limit the need for design professionals with prescribed methods of building; there is no prescribed method to bring an entire house up to today’s code standards with out massive reconstruction. If you go that far why move the home at all.

They make it clear that the footings and foundations will need to meet the current code, but that the rest of the home so long as it is not adversely impacted by the move (such as placed in a D or worse seismic zone and designed for an A) should be treated as existing and not be subject to the requirements for new construction.


----------



## fatboy (Oct 4, 2011)

We take a similar approach. All new work must comply with new codes.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Oct 4, 2011)

Like the mule sez; check local ordinace for requirements, that could be your enforcement angle.

Can you say no to a mobile home?

pc1


----------



## fatboy (Oct 4, 2011)

"Can you say no to a mobile home?"

Would like too......but no. Although we pre-inspect pre 1976 being brought into the jurisdiction, before HUD started oversight.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Oct 4, 2011)

Local ordinance in Fl said no to pre HUD (1976) homes coming into the county and required inspection on any over 5 years old prior to moving a mobile within the county or into the county. Glad we had it because after Hurricane Andrew FEMA sold a lot of MH's that belonged in the dump


----------



## brudgers (Oct 4, 2011)

Pcinspector1 said:
			
		

> Like the mule sez; check local ordinace for requirements, that could be your enforcement angle.   Can you say no to a mobile home?  pc1


  Mobile homes are outside the scope of the building code. Modular homes are usually another matter.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Oct 4, 2011)

2009 IRC

R101.2 Scope.

The provisions of the International Residential Code for One- and Two-family Dwellings shall apply to the construction, alteration , movement, enlargement, replacement, repair, equipment, use and occupancy, location, removal and demolition of detached one- and two-family dwellings and townhouses not more than three stories above grade plane in height with a separate means of egress and their accessory structures .

So what code issues come up when moving a house?

Foundation, decks, exterior stairs, smoke detectors these seem obvious. How about egress windows? In my area the roof snow loads can change 25 lbs within 30 miles.


----------



## codeworks (Oct 4, 2011)

the IRC LACKS in alot of ways.


----------



## gbhammer (Oct 4, 2011)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> Local ordinance in Fl said no to pre HUD (1976) homes coming into the county and required inspection on any over 5 years old prior to moving a mobile within the county or into the county. Glad we had it because after Hurricane Andrew FEMA sold a lot of MH's that belonged in the dump


Thats for sure we had to send dozens of them packing.


----------



## Alias (Oct 4, 2011)

fatboy said:
			
		

> "Can you say no to a mobile home?"Would like too......but no. Although we pre-inspect pre 1976 being brought into the jurisdiction, before HUD started oversight.


I can with a local ordinance, no M/U over 10 years old outside a park within the city limits.  Also, any M/Us set on a city lot must be on a foundation.

CA Housing & Community Development oversees M/Us, and, after talking with them I found out that they only regulate a M/U to 3,000' elevation.  Over 3,000', it's up to the local jurisdiction.  We're at 4373' elevation so I call the shots.


----------



## fatboy (Oct 4, 2011)

"We're at 4373' elevation so I call the shots."

JUST SAY NO!


----------



## pete_t (Oct 5, 2011)

Alias said:
			
		

> I can with a local ordinance, no M/U over 10 years old outside a park within the city limits.  Also, any M/Us set on a city lot must be on a foundation.  CA Housing & Community Development oversees M/Us, and, after talking with them I found out that they only regulate a M/U to 3,000' elevation.  Over 3,000', it's up to the local jurisdiction.  We're at 4373' elevation so I call the shots.


Sue

The only item that HCD allows local jurisdictions to regulate is for local snow loads (T-25 1338) and some minor architectural requirements, (Government Code 65852.3 through 65852.5)

Title 25, Chapter 2, Article 7. MH-unit and Commercial Modular Installations and Facilities § 1320. Application and Scope.

(a) The requirements of this article shall apply to the installation of MH-units and shall apply to all parts of the state within and outside of parks.

§ 1338. Roof Live Load.

(a) Except as provided in section 1338.1 of this article, every MH-unit installed shall have the capacity to resist the applicable minimum roof live load of the region in which it is installed as set forth in Table 1338-1 or as is further provided by this section. Table 1338-1 shall apply except where either greater or lesser snow loads have been established through survey of the region, and approved by the department. Except as described in Section 1338.1, below, at elevations above 4,000 ft., snow loads established for residential buildings by local ordinance shall apply.


----------

