# Is it an accessible parking space?



## Rick18071 (Dec 1, 2022)

Did an inspection the other day on a building that is undergoing alterations affecting an area containing a primary function which the code then requires an accessible route to it. The route between the building and the accessible parking space had many cracks and uneven surfaces. I told them thy need to repair this. But the code does not require an accessible parking space when doing alterations only a route from one if there is an existing accessible parking space.
The accessible parking space only had a short accessible parking sign, no linage or access aisle and  too much of a slope to comply as an accessible parking space. 

This made me think later that if the accessible parking space does not comply 100% to the code is it really an accessible parking space and can I require an accessible route from it to the building?

No definition of an accessible parking space in the ICC A117.1 but definition of accessible describes a site, building, facility or portion thereof that complies with this standard. Since  the space does not comply to this standard it can't be considered an accessible parking space?


----------



## mark handler (Dec 1, 2022)

IMPO, if a stall does not meet the standards, it can't be considered an accessible parking space.
Can you require an accessible parking space(s)?

If there are no accessible parking spaces, there does not need to be an accessible route.

Are there accessible routes to the Public way? Do they comply?


----------



## RLGA (Dec 1, 2022)

IEBC Section 306.2 requires existing buildings to comply with the alteration and existing building requirements of ANSI/ICC A117.1. IEBC Section 306.5, regarding accessibility for changes of occupancy, directs you to Section 306.7 for alterations. IEBC Section 306.7 requires compliance with IBC Chapter 11. IBC Chapter 11, Section 1104.1, requires an accessible route within the site from accessible parking spaces to the accessible building entrance. 

ANSI/ICC A117.1 Section 502 has the requirements for accessible parking spaces, and Chapter 4 covers accessible routes. So, if the parking space and the route from the parking space to the building entrance do not comply with those requirements, then they are not accessible and are in violation of the IEBC.

Additionally, 2010 ADA Standards, Section 206.2, requires an accessible route from site arrival points to the accessible building or facility, and accessible parking spaces need to comply with Section 502 and the accessible route with Chapter 4. Noncompliance with the ADA will leave the owner open to a DOJ complaint and potential lawsuit(s).


----------



## JPohling (Dec 1, 2022)

So, because the existing accessible space is not in 100% compliance you think that would then allow you not to provide an accessible path from it?  That makes no sense


----------



## steveray (Dec 1, 2022)

[BE] ACCESSIBLE ROUTE. A continuous, unobstructed
path that complies with Chapter 11.

It includes the parking...

SECTION 1106
PARKING AND PASSENGER LOADING FACILITIES
1106.1 General. Parking shall comply with Sections 1106.2
through 1106.8. Passenger loading zones shall comply with
Section 1106.9.
1106.2 Required. Where parking is provided, accessible
parking spaces shall be provided


----------



## Yikes (Dec 1, 2022)

Not sure about ANSI 117.1, but here in California the division of the State Architect has defined the "Path Of Travel" as "connecting a particular area with an exterior approach (including sidewalks, streets and parking areas)".

I've had plan checkers interpret this to mean a remodel per ADAS/CBC 11B-202.4 must have an accessible path of travel to the available parking area, even when that parking area does not have an accessible parking stall.


----------



## Rick18071 (Dec 1, 2022)

steveray said:


> [BE] ACCESSIBLE ROUTE. A continuous, unobstructed
> path that complies with Chapter 11.
> 
> It includes the parking...
> ...




We use 2018 ICC codes
Accessible Route is only in Section 1104
Parking and Passenger Loading Facilities is in a different section (1106) which does not call it an accessible route anywhere in this section.

Also  the IEBC requires an accessible parking spaces and an accessible route for only a change of occupancy for the whole building (this was only a partial change of occupancy and alterations). I would think it would also say an accessible parking space would be required for alterations or/and partial change of occupancy if it was required, not just an accessible route.


----------



## Jean Tessmer-HI (Dec 2, 2022)

JPohling said:


> So, because the existing accessible space is not in 100% compliance you think that would then allow you not to provide an accessible path from it?  That makes no sense


Here is what the DOJ ADA 2010 states on maintenance of accessible features (I think there is also similar language in the ICC):  
*§ 36.211 Maintenance of accessible features.*

(a) A public accommodation shall maintain in operable working condition those features of facilities and equipment that are required to be readily accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities by the Act or this part.
         (b) This section does not prohibit isolated or temporary interruptions in service or access due to maintenance or repairs.
   (c) If the 2010 Standards reduce the technical requirements or the number of required accessible elements below the number required by the 1991 Standards, the technical requirements or the number of accessible elements in a facility subject to this part may be reduced in accordance with the requirements of the 2010 Standards.


----------



## Rick18071 (Dec 2, 2022)

Jean Tessmer-HI said:


> Here is what the DOJ ADA 2010 states on maintenance of accessible features (I think there is also similar language in the ICC):
> *§ 36.211 Maintenance of accessible features.*
> 
> (a) A public accommodation shall maintain in operable working condition those features of facilities and equipment that are required to be readily accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities by the Act or this part.
> ...




I don't enforce ADA. I don't know of a thing like that in the IBC. We don't inspect or enforce maintenance of anything here. Building was built before we had codes, I don't think the parking space ever complied to code, not sure when the accessible parking sign was put up.


----------



## Robert (Dec 3, 2022)

Yikes said:


> Not sure about ANSI 117.1, but here in California the division of the State Architect has defined the "Path Of Travel" as "connecting a particular area with an exterior approach (including sidewalks, streets and parking areas)".
> 
> I've had plan checkers interpret this to mean a remodel per ADAS/CBC 11B-202.4 must have an accessible path of travel to the available parking area, even when that parking area does not have an accessible parking stall.
> 
> View attachment 9821


I was told the same...."get them into the building"....they can be dropped off in a paking lot even if it doesn't have a compliant space. Just make an accessible path to the entry.


----------



## my250r11 (Dec 13, 2022)

Local zoning may require the spaces and route also, no work required. We have owners do the parking spaces for business license inspections if not provided as well as a route to the door.


----------



## Paul Sweet (Dec 13, 2022)

If a parking space that doesn't meet 100% ADASAD or ANSI A117.1 isn't accessible, than 90% of the accessible parking spaces in the country would probably fail.


----------



## Rick18071 (Dec 13, 2022)

Paul Sweet said:


> If a parking space that doesn't meet 100% ADASAD or ANSI A117.1 isn't accessible, than 90% of the accessible parking spaces in the country would probably fail.


I agree.

It would be the same thing for restrooms around the country. We see changes done to them after the C. O. was issued all the time which makes them not comply as an accessible restroom all the time.

Definition from 2018 IBC

[BE] ACCESSIBLE. A site, building, facility or portion
thereof that complies with Chapter 11.

Then of course chapter 11 sends you to ICC-A117.1 which has the same definition. So if the parking space or anything else does not comply to code they are not "Accessible" according to the definition, so I can't enforce them to have an accessible route to an parking space (when required in the IEBC) that does not *completely* comply to the code as accessible.

This is how I look at it but you can change my mind. 

If you disagree with me and think they are still accessible if they do not comply fully to the code how many of the code requirements would it take to make it accessible? It looks like there are about 12 sections to comply to in ICC-117.1 for a normal accessible parking space in a parking lot. Would you say if the parking space complies to 50% of them it would be accessible? More or less?


----------



## JPohling (Dec 14, 2022)

I would say that an accessible feature is still an accessible feature even if it has deficiencies.  It is not fully accessible.  Try parking in an accessible parking space that is deficient to the letter of the code and try and argue your way out of that ticket on the basis that it is not an accessible parking space.


----------



## Paul Sweet (Dec 15, 2022)

A parking space that falls short of full compliance is still usable by a large number of disabled people, such as people using canes or walkers, or younger fit people in wheelchairs, even though an older weaker person in a wheelchair might not be able to use it, and it requires an accessible route.


----------



## Rick18071 (Dec 16, 2022)

JPohling said:


> I would say that an accessible feature is still an accessible feature even if it has deficiencies.


This seems to me that goes against the code definition.

At the site I was talking about the only thing this parking space had was a old rusty 2' high sign that said "H D" . No painted lines or anything else. But if you look real hard you can see a faded handicap symbol under the dirt, You wouldn't see it from inside of a car.


----------



## JPohling (Dec 16, 2022)

Rick18071 said:


> This seems to me that goes against the code definition.
> 
> At the site I was talking about the only thing this parking space had was a old rusty 2' high sign that said "H D" . No painted lines or anything else. But if you look real hard you can see a faded handicap symbol under the dirt, You wouldn't see it from inside of a car.


I can guarantee you that I can find a deficiency in nearly 100% of all accessible features.  So your saying that these are no longer accessible features?


----------



## Msradell (Dec 16, 2022)

Rick18071 said:


> This seems to me that goes against the code definition.
> 
> At the site I was talking about the only thing this parking space had was a old rusty 2' high sign that said "H D" . No painted lines or anything else. But if you look real hard you can see a faded handicap symbol under the dirt, You wouldn't see it from inside of a car.


The problem with your definition is at what point does it not become a handicap parking space? Wrong color paint, rust and sign, wrong width, etc., which ones would have to be wrong to no longer considered a handicap parking space?


----------



## Rick18071 (Dec 19, 2022)

It's not my definition, it's the code. They could of changed it to;

BE] ACCESSIBLE. A site, building, facility or portion
thereof that complies *with part* of Chapter 11.

This parking space has no lines at all and is on a slope. All it has is a 2' high sign that says H C. It would be better if someone dropped off a disabled person closer to the building where it's level.
Does this make this spot near the building an Accessible Passenger Loading Zone even though it does not comply with  chapter 11 and ICC 117.1 just like you think about the parking space?


----------



## steveray (Dec 19, 2022)

What are their planned 20% upgrades to the route?


----------



## Yikes (Dec 19, 2022)

Rick18071 said:


> So if the parking space or anything else does not comply to code they are not "Accessible" according to the definition, so I can't enforce them to have an accessible route to an parking space (when required in the IEBC) that does not *completely* comply to the code as accessible.


Under this analogy, if a police officer pulls over my vehicle for speeding and also for missing a license plate, can I get out of the speeding ticket by claiming I was not driving a legal motor vehicle?


----------



## steveray (Dec 19, 2022)

I think we are arguing semantics...It IS NOT "accessible", but was it intended to be or not when it was constructed or altered?....That is the question


----------



## Rick18071 (Dec 19, 2022)

steveray said:


> I think we are arguing semantics...It IS NOT "accessible", but was it intended to be or not when it was constructed or altered?....That is the question


Probably not Building was built before codes and no accessible anything was required.


----------



## steveray (Dec 20, 2022)

Rick18071 said:


> Probably not Building was built before codes and no accessible anything was required.


And not modified?


----------



## tbz (Dec 20, 2022)

Rick,

Here in lies the question, the fact it is an alteration and that they have initiated a handicap parking space by installing the sign in the first place, if the sign was not there, then I would agree.  However, since the property has a sign, the intent was from the property owner to provide the handicap parking space, its not your fault it was not installed correctly, the sign is there in place for the unknowing to use as noted.

Not sure you can make them fix the actual parking spot, but from where I sit there needs to be a route to the designated spot simply because the sign is there.  

Definition or not

That is the way I see it, and remember that Feds passed ADA in 92, so any work done after that even if PA did not have codes for that area unit after 2004 there still was a requirement they did not follow that you don't have jurisdiction over, unless the area was built prior to 1992.


----------



## steveray (Dec 20, 2022)

All about intent...


----------



## Rick18071 (Dec 21, 2022)

tbz said:


> Here in lies the question, the fact it is an alteration and that they have initiated a handicap parking space by installing the sign in the first place, if the sign was not there, then I would agree. However, since the property has a sign, the intent was from the property owner to provide the handicap parking space, its not your fault it was not installed correctly, the sign is there in place for the unknowing to use as noted.
> 
> Not sure you can make them fix the actual parking spot, but from where I sit there needs to be a route to the designated spot simply because the sign is there.


So if I go back and the sign is no longer there (and I may have forgotten there was one there) the accessible route to it will no longer be required?


----------



## Msradell (Dec 21, 2022)

As long as a facility itself has a handicap parking space you are correct. However even though this 1 doesn't meet the strict definition of the code requirements it is a handicap parking space and answer such building will need one or possibly more after the work is completed.


----------



## tbz (Dec 22, 2022)

Rick18071 said:


> So if I go back and the sign is no longer there (and I may have forgotten there was one there) the accessible route to it will no longer be required?


If the alteration per PA reg,s does not require that compliant HD parking spaces be installed, aka you can require it trigger, but only if there is one then you have jurisdiction for an accessible route, and there are no parking spaces designated by one form or another for the common visitor to see hey thats a HC spot, then yes, no sign no requirement for you to expand on.

However, if there was one there IMO and someone took it away, I would call them out on it.  The simplest way I have found to do this is Google maps street view.  IF you can see it from there it existed.

Not sure how much coverage Carbon County area has with google maps, just tried using it in Jim Thorpe just the other day and I was able to see enough to read the manhole covers looking for sewer covers and sanitary covers to save me a 65-mile round trip.  Stayed in the 68 rather than the out in the 23.

Just the way I see it


----------



## Rick18071 (Dec 22, 2022)

Having only a sign to make it an accessible parking is like putting the symbol for handicap on a rest room door makes it an accessible restroom even though nothing compiles inside of it. A person would not expect they could get stuck inside with a wheel chair because of no turning or maneuvering space. It would be safer with no sign.

If this parking space has a sign indicating that it is accessible a disabled person would expect it to be safe for them and not have a bad slope with space to get the wheel chair out. When they come back to the car someone could of parked in the space they need for the wheel chair. It would seem safer to me not to have the sign at all.


----------



## tbz (Dec 22, 2022)

Rick18071 said:


> Having only a sign to make it an accessible parking is like putting the symbol for handicap on a rest room door makes it an accessible restroom even though nothing compiles inside of it. A person would not expect they could get stuck inside with a wheel chair because of no turning or maneuvering space. It would be safer with no sign.
> 
> If this parking space has a sign indicating that it is accessible a disabled person would expect it to be safe for them and not have a bad slope with space to get the wheel chair out. When they come back to the car someone could of parked in the space they need for the wheel chair. It would seem safer to me not to have the sign at all.


I would agree it is probably safer for no sign to be there for a user, if the spot does not comply, but the fact of the matter is the sign is there.

I am not up on the IPMC or the IEBC to these levels, but was always told go for the simplest path of travel, let the others argue the gray areas.

Alteration requires an accessible path to the designated handicap parking
Handicap parking sign is in place designating a location to travel to.
So the way I see it
Point "A" is the alteration area
Point "B" is the designated parking spot with the intended existing Handicap sign 
Point "C", connect point "A" to Point "B"

If they disagree with your call have them put it down on paper, make the call and pass it up the food chain if they don't like your decision.


----------



## steveray (Dec 23, 2022)

306.3 Maintenance and repair. A facility that is constructed or altered to be accessible shall be maintained accessible during occupancy. Required accessible means of egress shall be maintained during construction, demolition, remodeling or alterations and additions to any occupied building.
Exception: Existing means of egress need not be maintained
where approved temporary means of egress and
accessible means of egress systems and facilities are
provided.
306.3.1 Prohibited reduction in accessibility. An alteration that decreases or has the effect of decreasing accessibility of a building, facility or element, thereof,
below the requirements for new construction at the time of the alteration is prohibited.


----------



## Paul Sweet (Dec 23, 2022)

If the parking space was marked before ADA, and the jurisdiction hadn't adopted ANSI A117.1, just putting up a sign might have been all that was required to make it an "accessible" space.  I remember Charlottesville put up handicap parking signs at a lot of spaces on streets with a 5% (or greater) grade. 

The original (1961) version of A117.1 didn't specify a slope for accessible parking spaces (although it limited walks to a 5% grade), and just required a 12 ft. width.


----------



## Rick18071 (Dec 27, 2022)

steveray said:


> 306.3 Maintenance and repair. A facility that is constructed or altered to be accessible shall be maintained accessible during occupancy. Required accessible means of egress shall be maintained during construction, demolition, remodeling or alterations and additions to any occupied building.
> Exception: Existing means of egress need not be maintained
> where approved temporary means of egress and
> accessible means of egress systems and facilities are
> ...


What code book is this in?



Paul Sweet said:


> If the parking space was marked before ADA, and the jurisdiction hadn't adopted ANSI A117.1, just putting up a sign might have been all that was required to make it an "accessible" space.  I remember Charlottesville put up handicap parking signs at a lot of spaces on streets with a 5% (or greater) grade.
> 
> The original (1961) version of A117.1 didn't specify a slope for accessible parking spaces (although it limited walks to a 5% grade), and just required a 12 ft. width.


No idea when someone stuck the sign in the ground. New owners don't know too.

Why does everyone here avoid the definition? If we can't agree on the definition in the code book it's hard to have any agreement at all.
IBC: ACCESSIBLE. A site, building, facility or portion
thereof that complies with Chapter 11.
ICC A117.1: ACCESSIBLE: Describes a site, building, facility or portion thereof that complies with this standard.

To me this means what it says. If it does not comply 100% to the code it is not accessible.

If alterations are done in an existing building but not on any doors and you are complying with the section that requires directional signs to an accessible exit at a non accessible exit would you send people to an exit that is not 100% accessible even if there are no exits that are 100% in the building at all?


----------



## steveray (Dec 27, 2022)

Rick18071 said:


> What code book is this in?


IEBC....2021 If i had to guess


----------



## Rick18071 (Dec 27, 2022)

steveray said:


> IEBC....2021 If i had to guess


Don't know what this had to do with it. The parking space was not changed during, before or after the construction. It always was not compliant.


----------



## tbz (Dec 28, 2022)

Rick18071 said:


> Don't know what this had to do with it. The parking space was not changed during, before or after the construction. It always was not compliant.


Rick,

Not true, if you can't date the sign then if installed prior to the 1992 ADA being adopted, or for your local which might not have required A117.1 prior to 2004, then locally which you enforce it was compliant for the code that was in place at the time, if done before adoption of the local code.  Pretty common in PA.  

Just because the code changed, does not mean it was not compliant at some point if done prior.  Hence without knowing when it was installed and being able to verify that date, you can only state that it does not meet the current minimum requirements, but as to being compliant for the intended use per the AHJ you can't walk into a parking lot and say well all these, 10 plus spots are not fully compliant, thus none exist.

Definition is very important for what is compliant at this date.....  but the intent at some point was for it to be there for that reason, aka the sign exist. 

Your current jurisdictional authority is not to determine if the parking spot is compliant, only that something is designated to be that type of spot, the sign gets you there.  Your current jurisdictional authority is to make sure that there is a path from point "A" to Point "B".  Not to make the call on the compliance of a "assigned" designated HD parking location in the lot, hence the sign only.

Splitting hairs is like reaching for a pot of boiling water, eventually it is going to come back and burn you, eventually.


----------



## steveray (Dec 28, 2022)

If....at some point.....someone installed the sign.....the INTENT was for that spot to be or become accessible.....Every time you remodel, you become more accessible, which takes us back to the origin of this thread. Next remodel they will fix the grade or move the spot to a more compliant location....


----------



## Rick18071 (Dec 28, 2022)

steveray said:


> If....at some point.....someone installed the sign.....the INTENT was for that spot to be or become accessible.....Every time you remodel, you become more accessible, which takes us back to the origin of this thread. Next remodel they will fix the grade or move the spot to a more compliant location....


An accessible parking space would only need to be required if it was a change of occupancy or an addition unless the code is changed.

So the definitions are meaningless? Can't find "intent" in the code.

If it was intended for an exit to be accessible before there was codes I can't make them put up a directional sign to an exit that does comply when required in the IEBC?

Requiring the directional signs to accessible exits at non accessible exits was always the number 1 reason by far why I failed finals on existing buildings and usually more than once because they don't get the signs made right the second time (and the third time too). Sometimes it takes weeks to get these custom made signs. I would be happy if I would not need to enforce this because all the old exits were intended to be accessible when built before codes.


----------



## steveray (Dec 28, 2022)

Accessible egress is generally not required to be upgraded in existing buildings....

306.7.2 Accessible means of egress. Accessible means of
egress required by Chapter 10 of the International Building
Code are not required to be added in existing
facilities.

Unless you just broadly use 306.7....

306.7 Alterations. A facility that is altered shall comply
with the applicable provisions in Chapter 11 of the International
Building Code, ICC A117.1 and the provisions of
Sections 306.7.1 through 306.7.16, unless technically infeasible.
Where compliance with this section is technically
infeasible, the alteration shall provide access to the maximum
extent technically feasible.


----------



## Rick18071 (Dec 28, 2022)

I don't know how requiring a directional sign would be technically infeasible but I am not allowed to say what is technically infeasible per PA code law.

What I should have said is Requiring the directional signs to accessible exits at non accessible exits was always the number 1 reason by far why I failed finals on existing buildings* and new buildings.*

I know existing buildings do not require accessible exits but still are required to have the directional sign to a accessible exit at non accessible exits when a c of o.
Follow the path of the code:

*IEBC 305.4.2* Complete change of occupancy. Where an entire
building undergoes a change of occupancy, it shall comply
with Section 305.4.1 and shall have all of the following
accessible features:
1. Not fewer than one accessible building entrance.
2. Not fewer than one accessible route from an accessible
building entrance to primary function areas.
*3. Signage complying with Section 1111 of the International
Building Code.*
4. Accessible parking, where parking is being provided.
5. Not fewer than one accessible passenger loading
zone, where loading zones are provided.
6. Not fewer than one accessible route connecting
accessible parking and accessible passenger loading
zones to an accessible entrance.
Where it is technically infeasible to comply with the
new construction standards for any of these requirements
for a change of group or occupancy, Items 1 through 6
shall conform to the requirements to the maximum extent
technically feasible.
Exception: The accessible features listed in Items 1
through 6 are not required for an accessible route to
Type B units.

*IBC 1111*
1111.2 Directional signage. Directional signage indicating
the route to the nearest like accessible element shall be provided
at the following locations. These directional signs shall
include the International Symbol of Accessibility and sign
characters shall meet the visual character requirements in
accordance with ICC A117.1.
1. Inaccessible building entrances.
2. Inaccessible public toilets and bathing facilities.
3. Elevators not serving an accessible route.
4. At each separate-sex toilet and bathing room indicating
the location of the nearest family/assisted use toilet or
tion
1109.2.1.
*5. At exits and exit stairways serving a required accessible
space, but not providing an approved accessible means
of egress, signage shall be provided in accordance with
Section 1009.10.*
6. Where drinking fountains for persons using wheelchairs
and drinking fountains for standing persons are
not located adjacent to each other, directional signage
shall be provided indicating the location of the other
drinking fountains.

*IBC 1009.10 *Directional signage. Directional signage indicating
the location of all other means of egress and which of those
are accessible means of egress shall be provided at the following:
*1. At exits serving a required accessible space but not providing
an approved accessible means of egress.*
2. At elevator landings.
3. Within areas of refuge.


----------



## steveray (Dec 28, 2022)

Good call Rick, I just usually don't see a complete COO there is always some storage use that stays storage use.....Like the basement...


----------



## Rick18071 (Dec 28, 2022)

steveray said:


> Good call Rick, I just usually don't see a complete COO there is always some storage use that stays storage use.....Like the basement...


Get a lot because a many existing buildings here have no pervious CO's because codes did not start till 2004.


----------

