Accessibility Provisions for Existing Buildings Undergoing Alterations

When older buildings are repaired, updated or repurposed, one of the biggest questions is how to make them more accessible. Section 306 of the 2024 International Existing Building Code® (IEBC) exists to answer that question.  

Its purpose is simple: to set the minimum accessibility requirements that must be followed when working with existing buildings and facilities. 

Building codes include requirements to ensure people with physical disabilities can enter, move throughout, and use buildings independently. This has been a subject that the building codes have regulated since the early 1970s. They have consistently relied on a consensus national standard, ICC A117.1: Accessible and Useable Buildings and Facilities. Over time, these efforts have been strengthened by major federal laws such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Fair Housing Act. With these guidelines in place, accessibility is a shared responsibility across the entire building industry. 

Because of these joint efforts and concerns, the International Code Council (ICC) works closely with federal agencies, advocacy groups and industry experts to keep accessibility requirements aligned and updated to address new ideas and technologies.  Representatives from interested accessibility groups, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (ATBCB, commonly referred to as the Access Board), have been participating in the code change process for the IBC and ICC A117.1 for many years. In addition, the ICC has participated in the public comment process on the development of federal regulations for accessibility. 

Minimum Criteria for Accessibility  

The primary purpose of Section 306 is to establish minimum criteria for accessibility when dealing with existing buildings and facilities. 

Alterations are never required to exceed new construction requirements (Section 306.4).  For example, Accessible hotel rooms are added based on the number of guestrooms being altered.  If the Accessible hotel rooms already exist in the facility, none would be required to be added in the alteration.    

Areas and elements of buildings or portions of buildings undergoing alterations are generally expected to fully comply with the accessibility provisions. The idea is that what you alter, you fix.  For example, if a door and frame are relocated or replaced, the door must meet the requirements for width, height, maneuvering clearances and hardware. If just the doorknob is being replaced, then the requirement is that that hardware be replaced with lever hardware.  

Structures to Become More Accessible Over Time 

The principle behind this approach to upgrading existing buildings is that they will become more accessible over time. This is not intended to be a mandatory retrofit. A valid time to work toward that goal is when a structure is being altered. Special considerations are offered because of the difficulty involved in dealing with existing facilities that may not have been built with accessibility for persons with physical disabilities in mind. Exceptions are provided to indicate the conditions under which less than full accessibility is permitted (see Section 306.7). 

For example, if an accessible route is required to be added between floors, it may be difficult to find space for a typical passenger elevator.  Section 306.7.8 and 306.7.9 allow for Limited Access/Limited Use elevators or platform lifts to be used to provide that route.  (ASME A17.1 and A18.1 would still apply for maximum rise.)  Section 306.7.10 would sometimes allow for the elevator or vertical platform lift to be located where a stairway was being added instead of being added in another location of the building. 

Other exceptions are included when accessibility improvements have been added to the code that could have extensive impact on existing building or sites.  For example, exterior accessible routes can be reconstructed with a 36-inch width instead of the new 48-inch width (Section 306.7.6). 

Other examples under which full compliance with accessibility provisions is not required is if it is technically infeasible to provide full accessibility in an existing building.  

Technical Infeasibility  

Technically infeasibility is defined in order to provide a basis for the application of accessibility provisions to existing buildings. Bringing any altered existing site or building into full compliance with all accessibility requirements applicable to new construction may require extraordinary effort because of existing physical characteristics.  

The code utilizes the concept of technical infeasibility to provide a basis for exceptions from strict compliance with the provisions for new construction in an existing building. Determining technical infeasibility requires a site-specific assessment of constraints or complications in relation to the planned scope of work. An essential part of a structural frame can depend on the type of construction.  

Examples of physical site constraints inside a building might include not being able to enlarge a bathroom due to a vertical shaft that contains a stairway, elevator, a main plumbing wall or duct shaft. Combing two stalls to make an accessible stall might result in the fixture count falling below the minimum required number of fixtures. Examples of site constraints outside include something like a setback requirement or a building exterior wall being at a public sidewalk so that there is insufficient space for a ramp at an entrance, or flood provisions not allowing for regrading or adding fill in certain areas. 

Where technical infeasibility is encountered, compliance is still required to the maximum extent technically feasible. 

This is considered reasonable since, if not provided for, plans for alterations may be otherwise abandoned by the building owner; the opportunity to upgrade and increase the current level of accessibility in an existing building would then be lost. 

This concern is also embodied in the requirement that an altered element or space is expected to be made accessible to the extent to which it is technically feasible to do so. In this manner, the code accomplishes the greatest degree of accessibility while recognizing the justifiable difficulties that may be involved in providing full accessibility.  

Examples are, where it is technically infeasible to alter the men’s and women’s bathroom to be fully accessible, a single occupant accessible bathroom can be provided in the same area (Section 306.7.12). However, the existing bathrooms should be improved where possible, such as providing accessible lavatories, signage indicating where the accessible bathroom was located, etc.  

Adding an Accessible Route 

The next thing to consider is if the space being altered is a primary function.    

Primary function areas contain the major activities for the building or space. Determination of what constitutes a primary function space can be somewhat subjective. There can be multiple areas containing a primary function in a single building, and primary function areas are not limited to public use areas.  

For example, both a bank lobby where customers come in, and the bank’s employee areas, such as the teller areas and bank offices, are primary function areas. Areas that are not primary function spaces are support and circulation spaces (refer to the list in the last sentence of the definition). Determination of the primary function areas for a building will also determine when the route to that area and associated toilet rooms and drinking fountains must be evaluated for accessibility. If these items are not accessible, additional alternatives may be necessary. This may require work outside of the area originally intended to be altered. 

With this background, it is clear that areas containing a primary function are critical in terms of the purpose for which people enter and use the facility; therefore, where such areas are altered or added, it is important to require that an accessible route to the primary function area be evaluated. This includes any restrooms and drinking fountains serving the primary function area. This is not just the route to the bathrooms and drinking fountains; the bathrooms and drinking fountains themselves must also be improved when not accessible. 

There are conditions under which it may not be reasonable to strictly enforce this requirement for an accessible route to an altered or added primary function area. 

Exception 1 approaches this by utilizing the cost of the alterations or addition as a basis for determining if providing a complete accessible route (including restrooms and drinking fountains) is reasonable. The requirement for a complete accessible route does not apply where the cost of providing it exceeds 20 percent of the cost of the alterations or addition to the primary function area. These costs are intended to be based on the actual costs of the planned alterations or addition to the primary function area before consideration of the cost of providing an accessible route. For example, if the planned alterations will cost $100,000, not including the cost of an accessible route to a primary function area, this exception would apply if the additional cost of providing improvements to the accessible route would exceed $20,000. 

It is not the intent to exempt all requirements for accessibility where the total cost for providing the accessible route exceeds the 20 percent threshold. Improvements to the accessible route are required to the extent that costs do not exceed 20 percent of the cost of the planned alteration or addition; it is not required that the full 20 percent be spent. If the accessible route (including accessible restrooms and drinking fountains) is already provided, no additional expenditure is required. Note that there is not a priority list given for where money should be spent on improving the accessible route. The logical progression is access to the site, accessible exterior routes to accessible entrances, access throughout the facility, access to services in the facility, toilet and bathing rooms and, finally, drinking fountains. Evaluation on how and where the money available should best be spent must be made on a case-by-case basis. For example, if an accessible route is not available to an upper level and the cost of an elevator is more than 20 percent of the cost of the renovation, then other alternatives could be investigated, such as a platform lift or limited use/limited access elevator or adding the elevator pit and shaft at this time, with elevator equipment added later. If all such items are in excess of the 20 percent limit, perhaps the money available could be spent toward making the toilet rooms accessible. The idea is that existing buildings would become fully accessible over time. 

Exceptions 2 and 3 identify certain alterations that are not intended to trigger the requirement for providing an accessible route to a primary function area. Alterations limited to such elements as windows, hardware, operating controls, electrical outlets, signage, mechanical, electrical and fire protection systems, including alterations for the purpose of abating a hazardous materials circumstance, do not affect the usability of a primary function area in the same manner as alterations that affect the floor plan or the configuration, location or size of rooms or spaces. It is, therefore, considered unreasonable to require the installation of an accessible route where the scope of alterations is limited to that reflected in these exceptions. 

Note that the costs for these items are not “backed out” of the total cost for the alteration before applying Exception 1. Exceptions 2 and 3 are alterations limited to the specific items referenced. 

Exception 4 is intended to avoid penalizing a building owner who is undertaking alterations or additions for the purpose of increasing accessibility. It is appropriate to encourage owners to make such alterations without requiring them to do more work simply because they chose to increase the accessibility of the space. This could otherwise have the opposite effect of discouraging such alterations to avoid the expense of undertaking more work and expense than was originally planned. For example, federal law (ADA) requires that owners of existing buildings remove certain existing barriers to accessibility. Removal of such barriers may require a permit from the code official. It would be unreasonable to have such activity trigger the mandatory requirement for further alterations to accomplish accessibility beyond the originally planned work. In principle, the code takes the view that some extent of greater accessibility is positive progress and should be encouraged, not penalized. 

Where the alterations result in Type B dwelling units being provided where none previously existed (see Section 306.7.4), Exception 5 would obviate the need for any additional money to be spent toward providing an accessible route to those Type B dwelling or sleeping units. This is intended to encourage the creation of such units without penalizing building owners. Similar to Section 306.4, this exception is intended to address the concerns of site impracticality for providing accessible routes to and into existing buildings providing Type B dwelling units. 

This also reinforces the intent that the inclusion of Type B units is not meant to require elevators when alterations are performed on upper floors in nonelevator buildings (see IBC Section 1108.7, exceptions). These areas would have been exempted if built new under the FHA and IBC and should continue to be exempted. 

Section 306: The Big Picture 

Section 306 reinforces a simple idea: every time an existing building is altered, it should become more accessible than it was before. While full compliance isn’t always possible, the code ensures that accessibility improves to the greatest extent feasible, balancing practical limitations with the ongoing need to create spaces everyone can use.  

Over time, these incremental upgrades help communities move toward buildings that are safer, more inclusive and more aligned with national accessibility standards and federal laws.