# Landing at stairs



## Sifu

It is my interpretation that there must be a 36" landing between the bottom riser of a set of steps and a door.  In other words one should not be forced to come down a set of steps and be forced to grope for a door knob while standing on the last tread.  Agree?


----------



## fatboy

You are correct. Now, you can have one at the top of the steps without a landing, which you are still doing the groping while standing on the last tread. (as long as the door doesn't swing over.)


----------



## steveray

R311.5.4 Landings for stairways.

There shall be a floor or landing at the top and bottom of each stairway.

Exception: A floor or landing is not required at the top of an interior flight of stairs, provided a door does not swing over the stairs.

A flight of stairs shall not have a vertical rise greater than 12 feet (3658 mm) between floor levels or landings.

The width of each landing shall not be less than the stairway served. Every landing shall have a minimum dimension of 36 inches (914 mm) measured in the direction of travel.

R311.4.3 Landings at doors.

There shall be a floor or landing on each side of each exterior door.

Exception: Where a stairway of two or fewer risers is located on the exterior side of a door, other than the required exit door, a landing is not required for the exterior side of the door.

The floor or landing at the exit door required by Section R311.4.1 shall not be more than 1.5 inches (38 mm) lower than the top of the threshold. The floor or landing at exterior doors other than the exit door required by Section R311.4.1 shall not be required to comply with this requirement but shall have a rise no greater than that permitted in Section R311.5.3.

Exception: The landing at an exterior doorway shall not be more than 7¾ inches (196 mm) below the top of the threshold, provided the door, other than an exterior storm or screen door does not swing over the landing.

The width of each landing shall not be less than the door served. Every landing shall have a minimum dimension of 36 inches (914 mm) measured in the direction of travel.


----------



## KZQuixote

Sifu said: "there must be a 36" landing between the bottom riser of a set of steps and a door."

The code doesn't directly address the distance between the bottom riser and an interior door, it just says there has to be a landing. Obviously once the door is opened there is a landing.  Given that exterior doors are specifically addressed and interior doors are not, wouldn't the inference be that there is no requirement prohibiting a door within 36" of the bottom of an interior stairway?

Does the Commentary address this?

Bill


----------



## Mac

R311.5.4 Landings for stairways. There shall be a floor or landing at the top and bottom of each stairway.

 Every landing shall have a minimum dimension of 36 inches (914 mm) measured in the direction of travel.

There is a requirement for the landing at the bottom of stairs, but I don't see any mention - yea or nay - of doors at the bottoms.


----------



## Big Mac

It seems logical that a landing is an unencombered floor space.  36" minimum from the bottom riser to the wall, even if there is a door framed there.  Now, if it was just an opening without a door that could be closed, I might view it differently.


----------



## Francis Vineyard

Have known a AHJ allow the door to be at least the distance of the tread depth from the bottom riser.  Also seen contractors remove the door from the hinges during the final inspection.

http://www4.iccsafe.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=007004;p=1

Francis


----------



## KZQuixote

I don't see anything that speaks to the presence or lack there of an interior door right at the bottom riser. Course it could not be a 6' 8" door cause the head jamb would obstruct the head clearance.

Bill


----------



## mtlogcabin

R311.7.5 Landings for stairways.

There shall be a floor or landing at the top and bottom of each stairway.

Exception: A floor or landing is not required at the top of an interior flight of stairs, including stairs in an enclosed garage, provided a door does not swing over the stairs. A flight of stairs shall not have a vertical rise larger than 12 feet (3658 mm) between floor levels or landings. The width of each landing shall not be less than the width of the stairway served. Every landing shall have a minimum dimension of 36 inches (914 mm) measured in the direction of travel.

If the 36 inches cannot be maintained at all times then it doe not meet the code. A door or gate would encumber that space at the bottom of a set of stairs for which there is no exception to the landing. The exception for a door encroaching into a landing is specifically spelled out at the top of the stairs JMHO


----------



## KZQuixote

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> The exception for a door encroaching into a landing is specifically spelled out at the top of the stairs JMHO


Good Point MtLC.

Thank You

Bill


----------



## Sifu

The Q&A book for IRC addresses this but still doesn't put it to bed.  It displays a picture of a stair with a door at the bottom and a 36" landing in between but does not spell it out.  I agree that nowhere does it specifically indicate the length of the landing.  I agree more that the egress is encumbered if you are trying to open a door while reaching down from the last tread.  I think the intent is for a 36" landing and that is how I have been enforcing it but here I like to have good words to back it up.  Where words fail I ask for opinions.  It seems that most agree with the 36" intent.


----------



## jim baird

If the bottom "landing" is occupied by a door it ain't no landing at all, not to mention the headroom problem.

I have seen this a lot, mostly in "bonus rooms" where a staircase is shoehorned into the building to access a partial floor over a garage.  I have had the issue with "big-time" builders who crank them out a little to fast, and who hire a college kid to be the jobsite super.  I went round with one of those whose idea of an inspector's job was that the inspector had to instruct him in how to solve his problem.

Have seen it often too in basements that are more or less "built out".  Problems most often arise where ceiling heights cause shortages of overall run, thus messing up the floor plan.

One custom builder who made a basement stair that did have a landing and a two-way second flight but only 72" of headroom at the bottom of the upper flight lied through his teeth and said his client's family had built those stairs.


----------



## Sifu

You have people lie to you?  Well now I've heard it all!

I was wrong about the Q&A not spelling it out.  I retype it here to put it to bed.

2006 IRC Q&A

_"Q:  If the future homeowner wanted a door at the bottom of the stairs to the basement, what would be the minimum required landing at the bottom of the stair before the door?_

_A:  The landing would need to be at least the width of the stair and not less than 36 inches measured in the direction of travel per section R311.5.4"_

The figure in the book that accompanies this illustrates it.

The question asks about the landing "before the door" so I guess this puts it to rest.


----------



## fw.

I attended a class a copule of years ago called "What the Coroner can tell you about building code violations", the class was given by the Hennepin County Coroner.  Could be pretty graphic at times, one was a man who slipt and fell down a flight og stairs where the door was right at the bottom of the stairs, no landing.  The man was wedged between the door and the stairs.  He died from positional asphyxiation.  There needs to be a landing there.


----------



## Francis Vineyard

Would you allow a 30" door to remain open over the landing towards the stairs? Or a door to swing open from the adjacent wall that would block the bottom landing?

The code does not say doors shall not be before a landing at the bottom of the stairs.

Until it does; it will be enforced differently by AHJ even though some states and municipalities had amended this section to clarify it is permitted to have a door before the landing.

Francis


----------



## Sifu

fw. said:
			
		

> I attended a class a copule of years ago called "What the Coroner can tell you about building code violations", the class was given by the Hennepin County Coroner.  Could be pretty graphic at times, one was a man who slipt and fell down a flight og stairs where the door was right at the bottom of the stairs, no landing.  The man was wedged between the door and the stairs.  He died from positional asphyxiation.  There needs to be a landing there.


I can't think of a more interesting code class!  I would love to find one of those.


----------



## Sifu

Though the Q&A may not be an enforcable interpretation I think it pretty clearly illustrates the intent.  The accompanying figure shows a set of steps in a stairwell contained by walls with a landing at the bottom then a door.  I believe the door is an outswing but since the swing of the door is not mentioned in the text I suppose that one is still up for grabs.  I guess if one wanted to it could be said that the door in the open position couldn't reduce the width of the landing but that is a stretch.


----------



## Big Mac

Sifu - you are clearly on the right track.  But regardless of what advisory manuals, commentaries or other resource materials say, there are those who will maintain that black is white, and visa versa.


----------



## Alain Roy

Hi, the back door at the back of my house is high off the ground. The landing I believe up to code (36 inches deep and 48 inches wide). I would like to make it bigger much bigger. I would like to walk out about 5 feet and have my bbq there. How much bigger can I make the landing without being considered a deck?


----------



## cda

Alain Roy said:


> Hi, the back door at the back of my house is high off the ground. The landing I believe up to code (36 inches deep and 48 inches wide). I would like to make it bigger much bigger. I would like to walk out about 5 feet and have my bbq there. How much bigger can I make the landing without being considered a deck?




Check with the great state of Canada/ locals 

it may be:: around

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.


There is a fellow up stater on the site that should know the answer


----------



## Alain Roy

cda said:


> Check with the great state of Canada/ locals
> 
> it may be:: around
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> There is a fellow up stater on the site that should know the answer




Hi thank you for replying this quickly. Deck surface is well above 30 inches.


----------



## cda

Alain Roy said:


> Hi thank you for replying this quickly. Deck surface is well above 30 inches.




Check with the locals

What I quoted was Uncle Sam Code, not north of the border code.


----------



## tmurray

Alain Roy said:


> Hi, the back door at the back of my house is high off the ground. The landing I believe up to code (36 inches deep and 48 inches wide). I would like to make it bigger much bigger. I would like to walk out about 5 feet and have my bbq there. How much bigger can I make the landing without being considered a deck?


Why are you concerned with it being called a deck?


----------



## cda

tmurray said:


> Why are you concerned with it being called a deck?




Permits??

Pesky inspectors?


----------



## tmurray

cda said:


> Permits??
> 
> Pesky inspectors?


It doesn't really change the code related requirements. Just wondering if this is a zoning thing.


----------

