Greetings.
I’m a DIY guy, and I’ve done remodeling all of my adult life.
In our home we have a saying…When you open that wall, you seldom find hidden perfections.
But let me ask you pros out there…what do you do when you open up a wall or ceiling and find stuff that is clearly not to code or manufacturer spec. TJIs that have big holes way too close to the supporting member…14 gauge cable in a 20 amp circuit…circuits that don’t even have a ground wire in them, much less connected…that kind of stuff.
Thanks for any input y’all can give.
Replies
If this is your house, you have to let your conscience be your guide but as a general rule, never cover up a violation. If you are working for someone else, remember the world is full of lawyers and act accordingly. I would not cover up a violation without a waiver and if it was a danger, not at all.
It's my house...
And I cannot begin to say how frustrating this kind of stuff is. It means that some Electrical contractor/builder/homeowner combination decided to cut some corners to save nominal amounts in construction costs, and (given where i live now) may have paid off the inspectors.
And it raises another question. Code requires 20A circuits to kitchen plugs, if I remember correctly. So merely going back and putting in a 15A breaker isn't good enough, although safe.
unfortunate but i seriously doubt you will find a single house with a remodel under its roof that does not have issues like what you are describing.
if you have open walls and ceiling you should not have a problem at all re wireing the kitchen outlets.
floor joist are another issue, what are running through the holes?
i
Short answer: You fix it-- as time and money allows. If it's an immediate safety issue to your family, then you "beg, borrow, or steal" in order to fix it right away.
At the very least you're obligated to disclose known building code violations (determined by current code at time of construction) to a future buyer.
It's unclear what scenario led to the troublesome situation. You may have problems that were code violations in the original construction, due to lazy/ignorant/unscrupulous builders. You may have cases where the original construction was to code, but code has since changed (a lot of electrical stuff in this category). You may have stuff that was done by DIYers who either didn't know the right way to do it or simply couldn't be bothered. You may even (surprise!) have stuff done by remodeling contractors that isn't exactly to standards.
Partly you need to assess the situation and decide, in the grand scheme of things, how serious it really is. Some structural issues (undersized joists, eg) may lead to sagging floors (which would have already happened) but are not apt to create a hazard to person or property. Others (some of the plumbing and electrical stuff especially) can create hazards down the road. So you fix what's important.
And, as a general rule, always try to leave it better than you found it.
Hold Your Horses!
What do you mean "not to code?"
"Code" is always changing, as is the way we build things. Many things are assumed to be 'code,' but are simply common practices. My point is that the 'bad stuff' you find often proves to be just another method ... or was perfectly fine the day it was done.
The overwhelming majority of "wrong" stuff I find is stuff that was done well after the original construction, when some handy-dandy made 'improvements' to the building. Let me give a few examples, using my own 1957 house.
Someone decided to add a 'laundry room' to the side of the house. Their idea of a 'foundation' was to simply stack blocks on the ground. Lots of stacks, with a span of perhaps three feet average. While it "worked," this method was contrary to all manner of code sections that have been around longer than the house. Yet ... would you expect the plumber, called in for a stopped drain, to fix it? You're not fixing that without knocking the addition apart and starting over.
At another time, someone closed off the back of the carport. They did this as you would frame an inside wall. In doing so, they placed wood at grade (code issue- rot and termites) and pierced the siding of the house with their nails. They didn't get the details right, so rain was directed into the wall cavity and rot followed. This last part wasn't so much a 'violation' as failure to follow common trade practices; caulk is no replacement for proper flashing.
In the original construction, it appears the insulation guy had estimated each rolol would fill three stud bays .... and he was short by half a bay. So, every third bay is only partly filled. Shoddy? No doubt. Contrary to the plans? Certainly. Actual code violation? I don't know what, if any, actual requirements there were in 1957. I can probably let that get fixed as is convenient.
In contrast, my electrical panel was set inside a bedroom closet well away from the electric meter, and the wire from the meter had no special protection or way to shut off the power. Only with luck was a nail not driven into this cable when the room was covered in panelling. Yet, this installation was allowed under the code back then. Today, it's a major violation; small wonder insurance companies like to see things updated. My remodel added a disconnect at the meter and moved the panel to a hallway, with the wires encased in pipe.
I often hear tradesmen assert that you can't use galvanized pipe or copper tubing for gas. While that's certainly good practice, both are technically allowed here. That decision is up to your provider, and the quality of the natural gas he provides.
My house was built before there were ground wires and 3-prong plugs. All the receptacles are 2-prong. Even today I'm allowed to replace an old 2-prong receptacle with a new 2-prong receptacle. Yet, any new wiring needs to meet current code. It's a distinction between 'repair' and 'new work.'
It's your call what gets fixed, and when. You need to set priorities. Things that are posing actual dangers (electric you can't turn off) and causing damage (water entering from outside) get top priority. Things that are simply 'there' (missing insulation) can wait.
What is most important is that YOU don't create new problems. Examples: When I added a floor hatch to access my crawl space, I made certain that I knew what requirements there were for framing it. When I poured a slab next to the house, I made sure it did not direct water towards the house.
Which ones?
renosteinke wrote:
Someone decided to add a 'laundry room' to the side of the house. Their idea of a 'foundation' was to simply stack blocks on the ground. Lots of stacks, with a span of perhaps three feet average. While it "worked," this method was contrary to all manner of code sections that have been around longer than the house.
What code sections were being violated at your home that were in effect at or prior to 1957?
A Fair Question (If a tangent)
Violations would have included:
1) Lack of permit;
2) Foundation not tied to house foundation;
3) Foundation not extending below frost line;
4) Wash water being discharged into crawl space under the house;
5) 40" Opening made into bearing wall without header;
6) Use of extension cord material as stand-in for wiring; and,
7) Completely improper electrical to power the dryer (double-lugging the meter, running Romex exposed on the side of the house, no box used for the receptacle, open splices, etc.)
These are pretty basic code issues, typically in codes even before WW2.
While the HOUSE was built in 1957, I estimate the addition was made in the mid-80's.
There were other unhappy items, though not 'code violations' as such. These included:
1) Improper connection of new roof to existing, directing rain water directly into wall cavities;
2) Lack of any sort of 'house wrap' over the sheathing;
3) Use of non-standard lumber (pallet scraps) in several places; and,
4) Direct openings into attic.
One of the "walls" of this addition was the wall made to close off the rear of the carport. Not only was rain water directed to the inside of this wall, but the bottom wood was in direct contact with the concrete of the grade-level drive. This resulted in rot so extensive that most of this wall was actually free-floating, suspended above the floor by the nails holding the wall to the beam above. The wall was literally swinging in the wind. How this wall failed to become a termite magnet I do not understand.
Again, which ones?
I asked you for code section violations that existed at the time the house was built in order to substantiate your claim. You have yet to cite one.
Of course, you mention many items that we now take for granted as sub-par building practices and current IRC code violations, but they were not necessarily code violations at the time they were executed. I'm not saying they aren't code violation contained within the scope of your home that has been remodeled over time, but If there are, indeed, "all matter of code violations", then it should be a simple matter for you to cite the code section(s) that you claim was violated at the time.
Yup- You're Right!
I did not make a single statement that read anything like "Such and such was clearly in violation of Section ABC12.3.4 of the XYZ model code." Nor will you. Do your own digging.
Feel better? Treat yourself to a banana.
Sure you did. However, those imaginary "code sections" that you claim your home builder ignored simply didn't exist. IMO most of what builders practiced at the time your house was built, was what they saw their pappy or grandpappy do in the field. They couldn't have cared less about local, state, or international building codes because they either didn't exist, weren't adopted, or weren't enforced. In other words, you can reasonalby blame your builder for poor building practices in the 50's, but you can't unfairly blame him for buildling "contrary" to all manner of code.
My advice is if you can't back up your claims with facts, forget about spinning the yarn. You only wind up falling over your own words. Enjoy the trip.
UBC was started in 1937 and is what I started building under. NEC started in 1897.
KK
Yes, and th building code of
Yes, and the building code of Hammurabi dates back to well before Jesus Christ was born. Part of it has been deciphered to state "If a builder build a house for some one, and does not construct it properly, and the house which he built fall in and kill its owner, then that builder shall be put to death."
You probably build under this code as well.
change original to "unsafe practices" rather than "not to code." Now will you let it rest?
"My roof was built out of match sticks with an open flame underneath." Kinda not relevant whether the poster can cite a particular code section.
Actually, what's irrelevant is your bizarre anology. Allow me to bring you back toward reality:
If a poster is claiming that a builder violated all manner of code, then one has a right to question what particular code the poster is referring to; particularly when the main point of that poster's tirade was that the O.P. didn't consider the evolution of building code with respect to claiming possible violations.