Do you consider whats Grandfathered?

[jeffghooper]

Additional note:

EVERYTHING is in the code because someone was hurt, injured, died or damage occurred to a building.

Codes are remedial. We learn through experience and change them.

[Robert J. OConnor]

Industry standards and model codes are updated periodically, partly to address safety issues with existing installations and lessons learned (sometimes the hard way). Legally you cant make the new requirements retroactive to existing installations, but it doesn't mean that the existing condition is safe.

If I find a safety concern or hazard (like substandard railings, where there have been countless injuries and deaths ... particularly with small children) it gets written up every time. If the client chooses not to heed your warnings or follow your recommendations, that is their call. At least they are aware of the potential risks to make an informed decision.

JMO & 2-nickels ...

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by jeffghooper

Safety IS Code! You cannot separate them.

You are missing the point, Jeff. The issue brought forth in the title of this thread has to do with unsafe conditions which, because the item met code at the time it was installed (a standard outlet near a kitchen sink installed prior to GFCI requirements) and is "grandfathered", should it be written up in a report?

A code inspector would "pass" such a finding due to grandfathering. A home inspector would comment on its existence, the fact that it is unsafe, and recommend a GFCI - without regard to code, grandfathering, etc.

Many knew of this unsafe condition long before it finally made it into the code books. Knowing what is safe and unsafe is not synomous with knowing code.

[James H. Bushart]

One other point I would like to make on this topic, if I may, is that "code" is a minimum basic standard. Sprinkler systems are being installed by prudent home buyers to reduce risk/insurance premiums today...the code books may catch up, tomorrow.

Government inspectors of food manufacturing plants have their "code" that allows a certain ppm of rat feces to be allowed in luncheon meat. To hell with the "code" inspector.

The safety "code" utilized by government OSHA inspectors was written in 1971 and takes an act of Congress to change. People are being killed and maimed on the job everyday by conditions that meet "code" and are unsafe.

I can see why a seller and his agent would prefer to apply "code", but a buyer should be able to count on his inspector to provide him more than that. Just my opinion.

[Dan Bowers, CMI]

Guys -

Don't make a very simple process hard. Example: A house in the boonies with no codes AT ALL. It has a deep pool in the backyard and no fence around the pool. Do you report on it (not fail it you don't have the authority to pass or fail - just report and give your opinion or recommendations)??

Well do you report on it OR do you say nothing because there are no building codes out in the boonies AND our standards say we don't do pools, etc, etc.

If for no other reason than self protection of your own familys financial well being, you'd report this as a safety hazard to your client. If you don't you're dumb as a box of rocks, and a trial attorneys best wet dream come true.

In short, a sane and smart HI does not "Grandfather" safety hazards. Let the realtor or local code authority do that. If something really nasty happens to the clients it will be the other guys standing in court - not you.

[rwand1]

I don't think you will find a code enforcement officer coming into a Victorian Farm house and requesting or demanding the antique railing be improved or replaced. It just doesn't happen that way as it is existing and has been that way in some cases for almost a century.

We as inspectors can only recommend improvement, but the fact is improvement is not retroactive, unless complete renovations or additions are being planned then it must meet current code.

[jeffghooper]

You are missing the point, Jeff. The issue brought forth in the title of this thread has to do with unsafe conditions which, because the item met code at the time it was installed (a standard outlet near a kitchen sink installed prior to GFCI requirements) and is "grandfathered", should it be written up in a report?

No, I got it.

Yes, experience tells us the item is unsafe. You need to write it up. Not in a matter that reflects code, (or uses the term code), unless your state SOP or licensing require you identify codes.

Grandfathering is not the proper term and applies to land rights at the turn of the century, (Alabama).

A building must meet the code at the time it was constructed. Today's code may not apply, but that does not make the condition less unsafe. You could say that "time has taught us that this condition could be unsafe and is no longer permitted," then recommend the condition be corrected. Some codes and areas, AHJ, have retroactive codes that do apply. For instance the ADA requirements for Commercial buildings and the removal of architectural barriers. All buildings are now required to conform. Most do not and were built pre 1992. There is no such thing as "grandfathering" for these commercial buildings. CYA 101 for home inspectors.

[jeffghooper]

unless complete renovations or additions are being planned then it must meet current code.

Usually expressed as a percentage in the Existing Building Code chapters or Independent Code.

Examples:
ADA = 20% or more of cost of renovation to go to ADA conformance.
FBC = 25% to 49% of building cost entire system must conform to new code
FBC = 50% of building cost, entire building must be brought up to code or be demolished.