# Unisex bathroom in office space.



## Bill Seegmuller (Jan 29, 2020)

I am reviewing a set of plans for an office space in NY (not NYC) and the occupant load is 45.  They have 2 bathrooms, one being ADA accessible.  They called me and asked if one of the bathrooms can be unisex, and I am having a hard time finding an answer.  Can anyone help?  We are using the 2015 IBC.


----------



## RLGA (Jan 29, 2020)

The code says you must have separate facilities for men and women, but the code doesn't say you have to mark them as men's and women's. In my opinion, you can have two unisex restrooms. 

2010 ADA Standards, Section 213.2, Exception 4, and IBC Section 1109.2, Exception 3, allow 50% of single-user toilet rooms located in a cluster to be accessible. So, if these two unisex restrooms are located adjacent to each other, then I would say one must be accessible and the other does not have to be.


----------



## ADAguy (Jan 29, 2020)

careful, if you intend for two side by side unisex (either or as to user) "bathrooms" then it would appear "both" would have to be accessible as what you suggest is not a ganged situation.


----------



## RLGA (Jan 29, 2020)

ADAguy said:


> careful, if you intend for two side by side unisex (either or as to user) "bathrooms" then it would appear "both" would have to be accessible as what you suggest is not a ganged situation.


Then explain why the two exceptions I mentioned above would not apply...

If one was labeled "Men" and the other "Women," then I would agree that both need to be accessible, or if the two unisex toilet rooms were located in different locations, then I would also agree with you. But if they are both unisex and are located next to each other, then they are technically a "cluster" and the exceptions would apply. However, to be considered unisex, the number of fixtures would be limited per 2010 ADA Standards, Section 213.2.1 and IBC Section 1109.2.1.2.


----------



## Bill Seegmuller (Jan 29, 2020)

Bill Seegmuller said:


> I am reviewing a set of plans for an office space in NY (not NYC) and the occupant load is 45.  They have 2 bathrooms, one being ADA accessible.  They called me and asked if one of the bathrooms can be unisex, and I am having a hard time finding an answer.  Can anyone help?  We are using the 2015 IBC.



Just to clarify, these bathrooms will be side by side.


----------



## classicT (Jan 29, 2020)

*2902.1.2 Family or Assisted-Use Toilet and Bath Fixtures*
Fixtures located within family or assisted-use toilet and bathing rooms required by Section 1109.2.1 are permitted to be included in the number of required fixtures for either the male or female occupants in assembly and mercantile occupancies.

*2902.2.1 Family or Assisted-Use Toilet Facilities Serving as Separate Facilities*
Where a building or tenant space requires a separate toilet facility for each sex and each toilet facility is required to have only one water closet, two family or assisted-use toilet facilities shall be permitted to serve as the required separate facilities. Family or assisted-use toilet facilities shall not be required to be identified for exclusive use by either sex as required by Section 2902.4.


----------



## RLGA (Jan 29, 2020)

I should clarify my first post (post #2 in the thread). IBC Section 2902.2.1 allows a building or tenant space to use "family or assisted-use toilet facilities" when only one water closet for each sex is required (per the occupant load mentioned in the OP, that would be the case) and they would not need to be signed as required by Section 2902.4. The requirements for a family or assisted-use toilet facility are provided in Section 1109.2.1. The minimum accessible features a family or assisted-use toilet facility is required to have is be on an accessible route and have a 30- by 48-inch clear space beyond the door swing.

Thus, if two family or assisted-use toilet facilities are provided per Section 2902.2.1, then only one must be fully accessible per Exception 3 of Section 1109.2--the other need only comply with the minimum requirements of a family or assisted-use toilet facility.


----------



## rgrace (Jan 30, 2020)

RLGA said:


> Thus, if two family or assisted-use toilet facilities are provided per Section 2902.2.1, then only one must be fully accessible per Exception 3 of Section 1109.2--the other need only comply with the minimum requirements of a family or assisted-use toilet facility.



Technically, you can look at this two ways, with the 2015 IBC leaning more toward not permitting this because it is not intuitively clear. However, changes to the 2018 and 2021 codes clears this up more. Simply by changing the labels from "family or assisted-use" to "single-user," this is permitted and only one need be accessible per 1109.2. I've included a pdf of the upcoming changes and you can see the direction IBC is going with single-user toilet facilities.


----------



## RLGA (Jan 30, 2020)

rgrace said:


> Technically, you can look at this two ways, with the 2015 IBC leaning more toward not permitting this because it is not intuitively clear. However, changes to the 2018 and 2021 codes clears this up more. Simply by changing the labels from "family or assisted-use" to "single-user," this is permitted and only one need be accessible per 1109.2. I've included a pdf of the upcoming changes and you can see the direction IBC is going with single-user toilet facilities.


rgace, that the trend is moving towards nongendered restrooms, but I think the fundamental issue in this thread is...can one be accessible and the other not? Based on the occupant load mentioned (less than 23 per sex) in the OP and what Section 2902.2.1 of the 2015 IBC says, two nongendered (i.e., unisex) restrooms can be used, so there's no issue in this particular case with the 2015 IBC to allow this condition.

However, what may be unclear is the accessibility requirements for family or assisted-use toilet rooms. First of all, the ADA Standards don't even address "family or assisted-use toilet rooms"--they only mention "single user toilet rooms," and that is within the context of the exception I previously mentioned (Section 213.2, Exception 4) as well as portable toilet units (which don't apply here). So, the issue with accessibility for family or assisted-use toilet rooms lies entirely within the IBC.

The section for family or assisted-use toilet rooms (Section 1109.2.1) falls under the more general section for "Toilet and bathing facilities" (Section 1109.2). This more general section has a section similar to the ADA Standards that requires only 50% of _*single-user toilet rooms* _to be accessible. I emphasized the single-user part because I believe this is where the confusion begins. The IBC doesn't define what a "single-user toilet room" is. It also doesn't define what a "family or assisted-use toilet room" is beyond the description within Section 1109.2.1. Section 2902.2.1 changes family or assisted-use toilet rooms into defacto single-user toilet rooms (as they would be the only toilet rooms available for everyone). Thus, as a single-user toilet room, Exception 3 of IBC Section 1109.2 would only require one (50%) of the single-user (i.e., family or assisted-use) toilet rooms within a cluster to be accessible. But because Section 2902.2.1 mentions family or assisted-use toilet rooms, then those restrooms must comply with the requirements of Section 1109.2.1, and nowhere within that section does it require that a family or assisted-use toilet room be fully accessible.

In the eyes of the ADA, family or assisted-use toilet rooms would be considered single-user toilet rooms and a similar exception in the ADA Standards requires only 50% of them within a cluster to be accessible.


----------



## Tim Mailloux (Jan 30, 2020)

1109.2 exception #3 states “Where multiple single-user toilet rooms or bathing rooms are clustered at a single location, at least 50 percent but not less than one room for each use at each cluster shall be accessible.”

The way I read that, you must first provide (1) men’s handicap toilet & (1) women’s handicap toilet and once you have met that minimum if there are additional single user toilets in the cluster you can look at making some non-accessible. If you only have two toilets in the cluster, they both need to be accessible.


----------



## RLGA (Jan 30, 2020)

Tim Mailloux said:


> 1109.2 exception #3 states “Where multiple single-user toilet rooms or bathing rooms are clustered at a single location, at least 50 percent but not less than one room for each use at each cluster shall be accessible.”
> 
> The way I read that, you must first provide (1) men’s handicap toilet & (1) women’s handicap toilet and once you have met that minimum if there are additional single user toilets in the cluster you can look at making some non-accessible. If you only have two toilets in the cluster, they both need to be accessible.


I believe that is referring to situations where toilet _and_ bathing rooms are provided--not for each sex.


----------



## rgrace (Jan 30, 2020)

The way I read 1109.2 Exception 3 is men's is considered a "use", women's is considered a "use", single-user is considered a "use" and family or assisted-use is considered a "use," in the following statement 50% but not less than one for each "use" at each cluster. Technically, the "use" single-user is not really used anywhere else in the IBC until 2018 and 2021.

RLGA, I believe you explained well how the 2015 code isn't intuitively clear on this matter. 2902.1.2 is where you are permitted to substitute one male and one female toilet facility with a family or assisted-use facility for each. First clarity - does that mean you then go to 1109.2.1 or to 1109.2 Exception 3? Going to 1109.2.1 will just confuse the issue more since it's only applicable to A and M occupancies. I think the intent of 2902.1.2 was for a B occupancy, like a coffee shop. If my intent assumption is correct, you go to 1109.2 Exception 3 and provide accessibility provisions for only one of these two toilet facility "uses" since they are of a similar use and clustered together. Again, I think the upcoming changes clarifies this much better.


----------



## RLGA (Jan 30, 2020)

If there is one consistent thing about the building code is that it is not always consistent. Sometimes the code makes reference to specific sections and sometimes it doesn't. For example, in Sections 420.2 and 420.3, it stipulates that dwelling units must be separated using fire partitions and horizontal assemblies in accordance with Sections 708 and 711, respectively. However, Section 420.4 states that smoke barriers shall be provided in Group I-1, Condition 2; but nowhere does it reference Section 709. Does that mean a smoke barrier in this application does need to comply with Section 709? Of course not. The same situation applies between Sections 2902.2.1 and 1109.2.1

Section 1109.2.1 is the parent paragraph for all family or assisted-use toilet and bathing rooms. It basically establishes where they are required and all the following subparagraphs describe how they are to be designed. Just because Section 1109.2.1 mentions assembly and mercantile occupancies, does not mean that family or assisted-use toilet rooms used for other applications or as permitted by other sections of the code need not apply to the subsequent requirements for those types of toilet rooms.

As for the meaning of "use," it seems the meaning is more in line with what you said, but the exception would still be permitted in this situation. Here is what the _Commentary _states:

Exception 3 specifies where toilet rooms are clustered
together (i.e., entrance doors next to each other
or across the hall), not all need to be accessible. In
such configurations, typically found in a doctor’s
office or drug test center, the requirement is reduced
to a 50-percent minimum. If these toilet rooms are
clustered in separate locations, such as in a multiclinic
facility, the 50-percent minimum would be
applied to each cluster. A single-occupant women’s
bathroom adjacent to a single-occupant men’s bathroom
is not considered a cluster since they each
serve a different sex. *The IPC does have an allowance
that would let some small occupancies have two
unisex single-occupant toilet rooms, rather than having
the same rooms labeled men’s and women’s (see
Section 2902.2.1)* *If these toilet rooms are clustered,
they can use this 50-percent exception since they are
the same type.
*​In the OP's situation, each toilet room can be a family or assisted-use toilet room per Section 2902.2.1. Thus, it is one type of "use"; therefore, only 50% (or one in this case) needs to be fully accessible.


----------



## steveray (Jan 30, 2020)

I'm with Ron and actually used that recently to keep the cost down on a small project...


----------



## rgrace (Jan 30, 2020)

Yea, I think we're on the same page, just saying it differently. 2018 IBC Section 2902.1.2 will clarify that "family or assisted-use" and "single-user" are actually two different uses. I think IBC is attempting to use the term "family or assisted use" only when it is applicable to 1109.2.1. All other rooms that contain only one water closet and one lavatory will be identified as a single-user use. This is also evident when the 2021 IBC deletes 2902.2.1 and replaces it with exception 5 to 2902.2 - *5. Separate facilities shall not be required to be designated by sex where single-user toilets rooms are provided in accordance with Section 403.1.2.*

Here's another to give thought to - 2902.1.2 states that fixtures located in family or assisted-use toilet rooms required by 1109.2.1 are permitted to be included in the number of required fixtures for either male or female in A and M occupancies. If family or assisted-use toilet rooms are installed in excess of that required by 1109.2.1, are these additional fixtures *not* permitted to be included in the total number of required fixtures? This is also fixed in 2018 IBC with this language - *The plumbing fixtures located in single-user toilet facilities and bathing rooms, including family or assisted use toilet and bathing rooms that are required by Section 1109.2.1 of the International Building Code, shall contribute toward the total number of required plumbing fixtures for a building or tenant space. *

Again, I think we're on the same page, we're just in different time zones.


----------



## RLGA (Jan 30, 2020)

Yeah, I agree. Although the 2015 edition only mentions counting fixtures in family or assisted-use toilets toward Group A and M occupancies, I've never had an issue with a building department when counting them for other occupancies. I'm glad the 2021 edition will clean that one up.


----------



## Tim Mailloux (Feb 3, 2020)

RLGA said:


> In the OP's situation, each toilet room can be a family or assisted-use toilet room per Section 2902.2.1. Thus, it is one type of "use"; therefore, only 50% (or one in this case) needs to be fully accessible.



Playing devils advocate here………common sense would say that an assisted use facility (large enough for an able-bodied person to assist a handicap of otherwise impaired person) has to be accessible by definition. If one of these two toilets is made non- accessible per the 50% rule, then that toilet is no longer a family / assisted use facility. You would have one Family / assisted use toilet & one non accessible toilet, and no cluster to qualify for the 50% rule......anyway, that just how my messed up brain sees it.


----------



## RLGA (Feb 3, 2020)

Tim Mailloux said:


> Playing devils advocate here………common sense would say that an assisted use facility (large enough for an able-bodied person to assist a handicap of otherwise impaired person) has to be accessible by definition. If one of these two toilets is made non- accessible per the 50% rule, then that toilet is no longer a family / assisted use facility. You would have one Family / assisted use toilet & one non accessible toilet, and no cluster to qualify for the 50% rule......anyway, that just how my messed up brain sees it.


Quote: "...has to be accessible by definition."

There is no definition for "family/assisted-use toilet rooms" either in Chapter 2 of the IBC or in the ANSI standard -- the "definition" is determined based on the requirements established by the IBC.

The only accessible requirements of a family/assisted-use toilet room per Section 1109.2.1 are:

Be on an accessible route (Section 1109.2.1.4); and,
Have a 30- by 48-inch clear floor space that is not within the door swing (Section 1109.2.1.6).
ANSI A117.1-2009 edition does not even mention family/assisted-use toilet rooms.


----------



## ADAguy (Feb 4, 2020)

Nor does the ADA mention it?


----------



## RLGA (Feb 4, 2020)

ADAguy said:


> Nor does the ADA mention it?


Not exactly; only "single-user" and "unisex" toilet rooms are mentioned, for which the latter is also defined as a "Single-Use or Family" toilet room per the ADA Standards (ref. Section 213.2.1).


----------



## rgrace (Feb 4, 2020)

As a code official, I have to enforce adopted codes, and the ADA code adopted in my jurisdiction is ICC A117.1. Aside from that, this post refers only to IBC requirements.

I'm going to side with Tim here. I think the intent is to require they be accessible, thus the changes to the future codes seperating them completely from single-user toilet facilities. Also, 1109.2.1 (the bullseye for all IBC family or assisted-use rooms) starts out with "an _accessible_ family or assisted-use toilet room shall be provided." Here is another round-about, devils advocate argument .... This toilet room is not intended to be a single-user toilet room, so 1109.2 exception 3, which uses the term "single-user," is not applicable to family or assisted-use toilet rooms  These rooms are intended for use by multiple occupants. Just because single-users will use this room (just as those same people will use the accessible stall when they do not need it, or park in an accesible space when thay do not need it) does not take away the intent of these rooms.


----------



## RLGA (Feb 4, 2020)

The family/assisted-use toilet room is intended to be _used_ by a single user, but not necessarily _occupied_ by a single person.


----------



## rgrace (Feb 4, 2020)

or I would add .... of course a toilet can only be used by a single _user, _but once one gets done and the other uses the toilet, do we now have multiple _users_ in a single user room? Does this qualify as a multi-user toilet room or is it still a single user room? BTW, nowhere in the code that I am aware of does a toilet room refer to being an occupied space. That would trigger many other unnecessary requirements.


----------



## Tim Mailloux (Feb 4, 2020)

Section 1109.2.4 required that Family / assisted use toilets be located on an accessible route, which would imply that the family / assisted use toilet itself is required to be accessible.


----------



## RLGA (Feb 4, 2020)

Just the implication that they are accessible is not a requirement; if there is nothing that directly says they are required to be accessible then they are not required to be accessible. There are other instances where areas are required to be on an accessible route, but the area itself is not required to be accessible (e.g., employee work areas).

I don't believe it is the intent for the IBC to be more restrictive than the ADA. The ADA Standards, as I mentioned above, do not use the term "family/assisted-use" toilet rooms, but instead use single-user and unisex toilet rooms, which means single-use or family. Per the ADA Standards, when multiple single-user (i.e., unisex) restrooms are clustered, only 50% are required to be accessible--this is nearly identical to what the IBC requires. Thus, the intent of the IBC language is to codify the ADA Standards within the building code.


----------



## ADAguy (Feb 4, 2020)

Intent? yes it is but achieving concurrence (as in safe harbor) continues to be an issue.


----------



## rgrace (Feb 6, 2020)

I had this counterpoint all prepared when I discovered a change to the 2021 IBC that weakened that counterpoint significantly. So, I contacted the five proponents (of which included a member of the US Access Board and a member of the United Spinal Association) of that change and asked them specifically if their intent was to include family or assisted-use toilet rooms in the 1109.2 Exception 3, thus allowing one of the two clustered family or assisted-use toilet rooms to be non-accessible. The response I received from them was "affirmative." This should clear things up


----------



## ADAguy (Feb 6, 2020)

Does that mean it is equal to but no less than ADA minimums? Does DOJ agree?


----------



## rgrace (Feb 6, 2020)

ADAguy said:


> Does that mean it is equal to but no less than ADA minimums? Does DOJ agree?



I think you'll find the answer to that will be yes, but I am not the source to confirm that. The proponent I spoke to referred much to the ADA Standard, and has/had the knowledge and experience in assisting with the revisions to that standard back in 2010. Her current position title is Director, Accessibility Codes and Standards.


----------



## ADAguy (Feb 7, 2020)

See AccessibilityOnline webinar archives for 2/6/2020 Using the ADA and ABA Standards Series: Scoping. Clustered restrooms was discussed yesterday.
Note: this is an excellent "free" source for ADA issues.


----------

