Clarification on Change of Use

If a building or portion of a building was originally constructed and classified as an A occupancy, later modified with permits to a B occupancy, then changed back to an A occupancy with permits, would it require "all" aspects of new code requirements be met for an A occupancy?
Original Post
What were the dates of the occupancy changes on the permits or CofO? If the permit has already been signed off, why are the being concidered for A changes under the current editions of the codes? Or are they now reappling for the change over the A from the B? If the later then full current A unless the AHJ allows the A under the previous occupancy date.
Jesse,
The "A" occupancy provisions in 1972 were under the 1970 UBC (yes I am that old). There are significant differences that need to conform to the 2010 CBC. The most difficult will be the structural requirements. Chapter 34 is the main operative code portion for the conversion "back" due to occupancy change.
Fortunately, in 1986 when they did the TI to convert the area to a B occupancy, they were doing a substantial amount of work to the building set in motion to correct issues addressed in a notice and order to abate a dangerous building. They retrofitted the building structurally and for seismic provisions, and added an elevator. We have verifiable plans and inspections to coroborate the work done to make the building structurally compliant.
Structurally this building must comply with the 2010 structural provisions. In 1986, the 1982 UBC was in effect and generally is not considered equivalent. You may need to have a structural engineer do a comparison study for the static equivalent loading criteria and assess the connection detailing for how compliant compared to 2010 CBC. You are better off than a 1970's vintage structure and if any deficiencies are found in the comparison analysis they may not be too severe.

All the other stuff such as allowable floor area, stories, fire resistive due to property line proximity, construction types, fire sprinklers, fire alarms, exiting and etc etc must still be done for compliance to current code.
I did not mean to imply that compliance with current structural provisions were not necessary, just that they are much better-off having had a retrofit done in 1986.

So far, the comments have been consistent with my own interpretation of the requirements. Thank you all for your input. It provides much-needed support for consistency in applying the codes.

Add Reply

Likes (0)
×
×
×
×
×