# Is residential door security chain accessible?



## Yikes (Nov 27, 2013)

Are accessible apartment units (in California) allowed to have a security chain on their entry/egress door?  Is the security chain considered to be "hand activated door hardware"?

CBC 1132A.7 "Type of Lock or Latch" states: The type of latch and lock required for all doors shall be in accordance with Chapter 10, Section 1008.

CBC 1008.1.9.3 "Locks and Latches", exc. #4 states: Doors from individual dwelling or sleeping units of Group R occupancies having an occupant load of 10 or less are permitted to be equipped with a night latch, dead bolt or security chain, provided such devices are openable from the inside without  the use of a key or tool."

Sounds okay to have a chain, right?

But 1132A.8 "Hand Activated Door Hardware" also states: Latching and locking doors that are hand-activated and on an accessible route shall be operable with a single effort by lever-type hardware, panic bars, push-pull activating bars or other hardware designed to provide passage without requiring the ability to grasp the opening hardware.

A security chain clearly requires a two-step effort.  By virtue of CBC 1132A.7, it considered accessible?


----------



## Gregg Harris (Nov 27, 2013)

Yikes said:
			
		

> Are accessible apartment units (in California) allowed to have a security chain on their entry/egress door?  Is the security chain considered to be "hand activated door hardware"?CBC 1132A.7 "Type of Lock or Latch" states: The type of latch and lock required for all doors shall be in accordance with Chapter 10, Section 1008.
> 
> CBC 1008.1.9.3 "Locks and Latches", exc. #4 states: Doors from individual dwelling or sleeping units of Group R occupancies having an occupant load of 10 or less are permitted to be equipped with a night latch, dead bolt or security chain, provided such devices are openable from the inside without  the use of a key or tool."
> 
> ...


Two separate types of hardware

The night chain would be acceptable

 1132A.8 Hand-activated door hardware. Hand-activated door latching, locking and opening hardware shall be centered between 30 inches (762 mm) and 44 inches (1118 mm) above the floor. Latching and locking doors that are hand-activated and on an accessible route shall be operable with a single effort by lever-type hardware, panic bars, push-pull activating bars or other hardware designed to provide passage without requiring the ability to grasp the opening hardware. Locked exit doors shall operate consistent with Section 1132A.6, in the direction of egress.


----------



## Yikes (Feb 4, 2015)

I'm bumping this old thread with a follow-up question, as I feel like I'm getting mixed messages from code.

My multifamily housing client has a tenant that is very concerned that her child is getting out her front door and running into the street.  (Direct egress to outdoors -- no corridor, etc.).  She demands that her front door get an additional security chain or night latch, mounted high enough that her child can't reach it.

1.  CBC/CFC 1008.1.9.3 says that on residential unit entry doors, a night latch or chain IS allowable, from a life-safety standpoint.

 - however -

2.  CBC 1132A.8 for covered PRIVATE multifamily housing says that door hardware shall be operable by a SINGLE EFFORT.  That means I can't have both a door lever and a night latch, right?

 - oddly -

3.  CBC 11B-404.2.7, and 11B 309.4, which coincide with the ADA language for PUBLIC housing, are silent on the issue of single effort, leaving me to believe I could have a night latch on public housing, but not on private housing...????

-lastly-

4.  CBC 11B-404.2.7 limits the height of the night latch to 44" AFF - -not very useful for keeping a kid inside.

Thoughts on how to keep the kid from running outside again?


----------



## jdfruit (Feb 4, 2015)

Yikes

The safety latch can be installed if the dwelling unit is not occupied by a disabled person or not one of the units constructed with full disabled features. The ch 11A requirements become moot and ch 10 prevails. Considering the landlord liability at hand, it is advisable to find a door lock/latch that is better than a cheap chain or a hinge/flip strap. Then the modifications need to be tracked by the Landlord so proper door hardware operation can be restored when the current tenant moves.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Feb 4, 2015)

> Thoughts on how to keep the kid from running outside again?


You could always just chain the kid to the bed or spank the snot out of him once. Maybe an electric shock collar around his neck at night will keep him away from the door. My grand-kids would not dare go out after dark. Then again they are concerned about mountain lions, wolves and bears being out at night.

I do not see where it is a landlords responsibility to provide hardware to make sure a child does not leave a residence in the middle of the night.

However since CA is the land of fruits and nuts jdfruit is probably a more sensible response


----------



## kilitact (Feb 4, 2015)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> You could always just chain the kid to the bed or spank the snot out of him once. Maybe an electric shock collar around his neck at night will keep him away from the door. My grand-kids would not dare go out after dark. Then again they are concerned about mountain lions, wolves and bears being out at night. I do not see where it is a landlords responsibility to provide hardware to make sure a child does not leave a residence in the middle of the night.
> 
> However since CA is the land of fruits and nuts jdfruit is probably a more sensible response


Sounds like they need to be taught how to protect themselves, similar to life in LA.


----------



## jdfruit (Feb 4, 2015)

In the "land of litigation" on the left coast, Landlords generally restrict tenants from doing anything to the dwelling unit except touch it and clean it.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Feb 4, 2015)

kilitact said:
			
		

> Sounds like they need to be taught how to protect themselves, similar to life in LA.









Already working on it. Need to work on her stance a little.


----------



## steveray (Feb 5, 2015)

I second the shock collar.....Works on the dogs.....


----------



## JBI (Feb 5, 2015)

mtlogcabin, Family photos?


----------



## mtlogcabin (Feb 5, 2015)

Yes

Son in-law and the grand children


----------



## Yikes (Feb 5, 2015)

kilitact, the original suspect in this story (Stafford) is, or I should say was, a resident in one of my client's affordable housing projects:

http://www.fresnobee.com/2015/02/04/4364453_new-suspect-wanted-in-slaying.html?rh=1

A 9-year old girl was killed in gangbanging crossfire.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Feb 5, 2015)

What do you do when a handicapper installs a non accessible gadget on his door?

Brent


----------



## Yikes (Feb 5, 2015)

MASSDRIVER, in this particular instance, it was the building inspector who told the landlord that it was not legal to have anything more that a single-operation exit device on an apartment.  the inspector made them remove separate deadbolts on the doors.

So the actual question is more generic:  What do you do when a tenant wants to install something that the building department says is not legal, even if the tenant believes it makes them MORE safe?

1.  You can fight city hall, try to convince the inspector that he's wrong.

2.  You can tell the tenant "NO".

3.  You can tell the tenant "NO", and hand them the previous violation notice from the inspector, and tell them they are free to take it up with the building departments themselves.  "Ms. Tenant, have the inspector call me if you get him to change his mind."


----------



## steveray (Feb 5, 2015)

Is the door on an accessible route?


----------



## mtlogcabin (Feb 5, 2015)

> it was the building inspector who told the landlord that it was not legal to have anything more that a single-operation exit device on an apartment.


Unless CA has amended the code section the inspector was just flat out wrong

 1008.1.9.3 Locks and latches.Locks and latches shall be permitted to prevent operation of doors where any of the following exists:

1.	Places of detention or restraint.

2.	In buildings in occupancy Group A having an occupant load of 300 or less, Groups B, F, M and S, and in places of religious worship, the main exterior door or doors are permitted to be equipped with key-operated locking devices from the egress side provided:

2.1.	The locking device is readily distinguishable as locked;

2.2.	A readily visible durable sign is posted on the egress side on or adjacent to the door stating: THIS DOOR TO REMAIN UNLOCKED WHEN BUILDING IS OCCUPIED. The sign shall be in letters 1 inch (25 mm) high on a contrasting background; and

2.3.	The use of the key-operated locking device is revokable by the building official for due cause.

3.	Where egress doors are used in pairs, approved automatic flush bolts shall be permitted to be used, provided that the door leaf having the automatic flush bolts has no doorknob or surface-mounted hardware.

4.	Doors from individual dwelling or sleeping units of Group R occupancies having an occupant load of 10 or less are permitted to be equipped with a night latch, dead bolt or security chain, provided such devices are openable from the inside without the use of a key or tool.


----------



## JPohling (Feb 5, 2015)

I agree with MT.  In CA this would be allowed for R with occupant load less than 10.    The code section CBC 1008.1.9.3 is nearly identical to what you posted and has the same exception.  Furthermore 1008.1.9.5 Unlatching  exception #4 allows more than one unlatching operation for group R as permitted by 1008.1.9.3, exception 4.  Building inspector was incorrect.


----------



## JBI (Feb 5, 2015)

The occupant load of 10 is for the dwelling unit or sleeping unit, not the whole building...


----------



## JPohling (Feb 5, 2015)

^^ That is correct


----------



## Yikes (Feb 5, 2015)

JPohling said:
			
		

> I agree with MT.  In CA this would be allowed for R with occupant load less than 10.    The code section CBC 1008.1.9.3 is nearly identical to what you posted and has the same exception.  Furthermore 1008.1.9.5 Unlatching  exception #4 allows more than one unlatching operation for group R as permitted by 1008.1.9.3, exception 4.  Building inspector was incorrect.


I agree the building inspector was wrong in regards to Chapter 10 means of egress; but possibly correct in regards to accessibility, because chapter 1132A.8 for covered PRIVATE multifamily housing says that door hardware shall be operable by a SINGLE EFFORT.

As per usual, the code sends mixed signals, and I think I have to follow whatever is most restrictive...?


----------



## mtlogcabin (Feb 6, 2015)

> because chapter 1132A.8


Is that a CA code section?

I do not find that number in the IBC.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Feb 6, 2015)

I hear dueling banjos in the background after seeing those pics!

I'd watch out for that one on the left, I hear he likes pyrotechnics  

pc1


----------



## steveray (Feb 6, 2015)

Yikes....I do believe the language said the door "one motion" requirement was for doors on an accessible route.....Is it?


----------



## mtlogcabin (Feb 6, 2015)

1132A.7 is for locks or latch

1132A.8 is for the door hardware

*1132A.7 Type of lock or latch.*_ The type of latch and lock required for all doors shall be in accordance with Chapter 10, Section 1008_

*1008.1.9.3 Locks and latches.* Locks and latches shall be permitted to prevent operation of doors where any of the following exists:1. Places of detention or restraint.2. In buildings in occupancy Group A having an _occupant load_ of 300 or less, Groups B, F, M and S, and in _places of religious worship_, the main exterior door or doors are permitted to be equipped with key-operated locking devices from the egress side provided:2.1. The locking device is readily distinguishable as locked;2.2. A readily visible durable sign is posted on the egress side on or adjacent to the door stating: THIS DOOR TO REMAIN UNLOCKED WHEN BUILDING IS OCCUPIED. The sign shall be in letters 1 inch (25 mm) high on a contrasting background; and2.3. The use of the key-operated locking device is revokable by the _building official_ for due cause.3. Where egress doors are used in pairs, _approved _automatic flush bolts shall be permitted to be used, provided that the door leaf having the automatic flush bolts has no doorknob or surface-mounted hardware.4. Doors from individual dwelling or sleeping unitsof Group R occupancies having an _occupant load _of 10 or less are permitted to be equipped with a night latch, dead bolt or security chain, provided such devices are openable from the inside without the use of a key or tool.5. _Fire doors_ after the minimum elevated temperature has disabled the unlatching mechanism in accordance with listed fire door test procedures.

Follow the charging language and the inspector is wrong.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 6, 2015)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> Is that a CA code section?I do not find that number in the IBC.


Yes, CA chapter for Residential Accessibility


----------



## Yikes (Feb 6, 2015)

steveray said:
			
		

> Yikes....I do believe the language said the door "one motion" requirement was for doors on an accessible route.....Is it?


steveray, *accessible route* is the critical question.  And to quote your namesake Stevie Ray, the code leaves me feeling "stranded, caught in the crossfire".

If this were new construction, then it would be what CBC 1132A calls a "covered multifamily dwelling" and therefore must be adaptable or accessible.  However, I would speculate that the original construction is old enough that it is exempt from chapter 11A.  I have asked the building inspector to check his original permits.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Feb 7, 2015)

Instead of a chain, how about a roller latch? Those are the ones where a ball-shape rides in the U-channel. You just flip it open. One motion.

Brent.


----------



## Yikes (Feb 11, 2015)

MASSDRIVER said:
			
		

> Instead of a chain, how about a roller latch? Those are the ones where a ball-shape rides in the U-channel. You just flip it open. One motion.Brent.


Are you referring to a "swing bar door guard", like this? http://www.walmart.com/ip/Prime-Line-U9897-Door-Guard-Swing-Bar/21987785

If so, then opening that guard is motion #1.

After that, turning the door handle/lever is motion #2.

Or am I over-thinking this?


----------



## steveray (Feb 11, 2015)

It's adaptable.....unscrew it if you don't like it....


----------

