I was curious if anyone out there from the Los Angeles area (particularly the city of Los Angeles) has any knowledge of the consequences of not complying with an alleged code violation on an existing, permitted and passed, structure?
We have neighbors that asked me since I was in the trade, but I’m not sure myself, so I said I’ll post it here. Basically, what they’ve got is a window and balcony part cantelevered, part not facing the neighboring property. According to the city inspector, there shouldn’t be a window at this particular spot because of it’s proximity to the property line. The owners are confused because the plans were permitted, the building passed all inspections and they recieved their certificate of occupancy.
I guess they missed it during the plan check phase and are now, after the fact, trying to enforce the violation.
Can they do this? It sure doesn’t sound right to me.
Thanks!
Replies
I doubt that this situation is directly addressed in The General Statutes in your state, but check it anyway.Let me shed some light in this area.
First, check the building code and see what it says. You should find it in the building planning section ( section R302 in the IBC ). There may be an interpretation to the exception on openings in the fire rated area. Windows perpendicular to the line used to determine the fire separation are allowed in the IBC, BOCA & CABO. Some Code Officials may allow openings in walls that are less than 90 deg. to the property line.
Second, this can be considered a life saftey issue. So if the code official(s) did not pick this up on the plan review, framing inspection or the final inspection it still may be a life saftey issue. The inspection department would rather look bad in front of the city council now ( if the contractor/owner refuses to correct the violation ) than look bad in a courtroom later after property damage.
Third, if the contractor/owner wants to maintain a good relationship with the inspection dept they would likely make the repair.
Slash. I assume that by the IBC code you mean the UBC code? GeneL If you do mean International Building Code(IBC) has California--Los Angeles- adopted the IBC code? My understanding is that they presently operate under the UBC code.
Edited 5/9/2002 10:51:42 AM ET by GENE_LEGER
Los Angeles has its own codes, published in three thick looseleaf binders.
-- J.S.
Gene,
I don't know what California uses. I used the IBC as a basis because that's what I use here in North Carolina. The UBC is published by the International Conference of Building Officials (IBCO). The IBCO, BOCA and SBCCI were used to develop the IBC. They are very similar but as you well know...........make sure.
Speaking of making sure, was this inspector who pointed out the alleged violation the supervisor of building inspections? If he's not, I bet the supervisor is something less than happy. Statements like that should come from above. Before anybody "Lawyers up" a meeting between the building inspector supervisor and contractor/owner should take place.
Lots of different codes but the ONLY one that counts is the one that was in effect at the time the job was approved.
Excellence is its own reward!
Slash. Tnx for the reply. Sounds like some of these building inspectors don't have both oars in the water. GeneL.
They need a lawyer for this one. There are too many possible variables for Breaktime experts to sort out.
That said, generally speaking there is a good faith provision in most areas where representatives of the governing body act for that body. That is that if I hire a manafger to act for my business and empower him to do certain things, I am bound to abide by his actions in the absence of a company policy specifying otherwise. I have things on my property that were OK'd by a previous inspector that would most likely not be approved today but bvecause they were approved by an authority weilding rep of the governing board, they are allowed to stand. This is in areas that are open to interpretation or gray areas that are not clear and specific in the ordinance.
Dollars to dognut holes this inspector making noise is not the same one that signed the approval.
I want to know why no one is pointing the finger at the architech, plans examiner and all the inspecters who signed off on the inspections. We're not talking about something the builder is hiding. It is absolutly crazy to say the builder is responsible. I have had similar situations on a smaller scale and it really pisses me off. When the builder wants the architech to make modifications to his plan to simplify the process of the job, it is like pulling teeth. With that kind of ego they should be resonsible for their work. In my opionon, if the city wants it done now have the arch, plans ex and inspecter split the cost. Otherwise, unfortunatly, the lawyer.
You might have something there. That's why they carry Errors and omissions insurance. I just found out it's about three times aas high a rate as my contractors liability ins.
Excellence is its own reward!