April 6, 2015
The California Codes-knowledgeable folks might now wake up and think about your question in terms of the California Codes.
I won't venture to respond about the California amended existing building code.
Under the 2015 model IEBC, this would be a Level 3 Alteration (the work area is more than 50% of the building). Level 3 requires compliance with Levels 1 and 2. In Section 804.2.2, it appears that the project might require automatic sprinklers if the building has an occupancy of more than 30. Accessibility requirements kick in under Sections 705 and 806.
February 19, 2018
2016 Building and Fire Code with California Amendments.
And, it looks like they have adopted the "existing building" code.
I'm still not clear if a new restaurant can move into an existing, completely gutted to all four walls, including the removal and replacement of roof, can move into this building shell and assume the existing nonconforming, A2 status of the previous occupant. No fire sprinklers, fire alarm, ADA.
April 6, 2015
First and foremost, what are the edition years and codes that the jurisdiction requires existing buildings to comply with? In older IBC editions, there was an existing building chapter. There was also a separate Int'l Existing Building Code which might also have been adopted. Newer editions of the IBC "removed" the Existing Building Chapter and pointed to the Int'l Existing Building Code.
So, the first questions are "What codes are being enforced today?" Is there an existing building code adopted?
February 19, 2018
I'm new here, my primary occupation is SFR fire sprinkler design so I need so help on this situation that is out of my expertise.
Here is the situation and question. An existing, empty 5,900 sqft single story building. It was previously occupied/leased by a mexican restaurant, an A2 occupancy, for the last 30 years. It would be considered legal / nonconforming with current codes. The business owners grew old and decided to go out of business rather than sell the business. They sold off their equipment and furnishings. The building sat empty for about a year before a new tenant, a restaurant, leased the building. It was competly gutted and the roof was replaced due to water damage.
They are arguing that the new tenant is not required to conform to current building and fire codes, but rather assume the previous restaurants legal /non conforming status. Thus they avoid ADA, fire sprinklers, fire alarm, and whatever else is required in the current codes.
My question is, is this argument legit? I wouldn't think so. If not, how do you counter their claim to existing legal / nonconforming status?
Thanks in advance for your input.
Most Recent Topics
- movable partition walls
- transformer & separately derived system grounding and bonding
- Delayed Pick up of Plans
- The benefits of solar cable
- Stair requirements
- New Guy from DC area
- Acetylene - Flammable Gas or Reactive Gas MAQ
- Solar Cable Market: Recent Industry Developments and Growth Strategies Adopted by Players
- Computer based plans pearson vue