Silly Question?? Is building to code necessary if...

My state and county does not require a building permit for a residential building in the unincorporated areas.
So... does one need to follow the building codes if you don't need a permit?

Permits and inspections are a pain, and sometimes an angle for the local municipality to raise taxes on a property, but they also keep sketchy operators from taking advantage of the unwary. I have seen some dangerous and scary shite and would love to "chat" with the perpetrators, hammer in hand.

The best part of Code is that it draws on extensive, collective experience that comes from things that went wrong and did serious harm to people. Bad electrical causing fires, bad combustion appliances causing carbon monoxide poisoning, bad construction leading to toxic mould infesting the dwelling -- it's a long list.

So, the letter of Code is often ridiculous, but the spirit of Code is good personal practice. If you ever want to sell the property, I think being able to honestly state that you made every effort to build to Code is worth real money. My 2c.

My husband's attitude, is that you're better off building better than code. We can't do that if we don't know and understand the codes to begin with.

I would do a *lot* of reading of quality books on house design and building. For example, one thing that comes up a lot is that Canada's building code demands that any sleeping area must have 2 separate exits - usually a window large enough for someone to climb out, and a door. This is to decrease the risk of people dying in a fire - simple statistics support the point that this is a *really* good code to incorporate into your building even if you might decide that a composting toilet is fine and your local code says it's not.

Where one chooses to live is also a factor. My current house is fairly low risk for a serious flood, but it's a higher risk for both forest fires and earthquakes. So we would definitely consider building better than code for the fire and earthquake risk, but not for flooding.

I won't be able to turn those concerns into viable plans if I don't learn how houses are built and what the codes say is good practice, so I would suggest that education is step one.

The advantage of building to a code has benefits as listed;
- Enable a mortgage to happen.
- may be easier to sell.
- if built by a contractor it is built to a standard.
- will work as you expect.
- you may get better insurance at potentially lower cost.

I like Jays suggestion:

Jay said, is that you're better off building better than code.

Especially if this is where you and your family will be living.

And John makes a good point about mortgages and prospective buyers.

I don't mind dodging code requirements when it's a subject that I think I know enough about to make what amounts to a professionally-informed decision. But some people think they know better than the pros after watching three YouTube videos and that's plain dumb. Jay's mention of the composting toilet is a good one. I think I probably know more about that from reading and using them than 95% of people who might be in a position to outlaw it.

For most of my life I have lived in code free areas.  I still keep a fairly recent copy of building and fire codes.  To a significant degree I try to exceed those codes.   For example bedroom windows need to be large enough to allow egress. I installed French Doors in my bedroom.   We have electrical outlets spaced as required.   I have a number of outlets  3 feet above those to reduce the need for bending.

On the flip side, I have been known to seek middle ground. We have flush toilets in our home.  We also have a composting toilet.


In short, I seek to comply with the building codes even if I am not required to.   Besides there are always potential legal and insurance issues.   People can get injured on your property.   Any attorney would gladly point out that your house was not built to code, and insurance companies may feel that is a good enough reason to negate your protection.

I have only ever known of one building to collapse due to poor building practices.  Otherwise even the most scabbed together buildings want to stay standing,  They may lean and sag and rot way too soon but they stay standing.  

So is that one collapsed house an argument for needing to follow building codes?  
Or are the tens of thousands of not collapsed buildings in the area an argument against needing to follow building codes?

Fire would  be my biggest concern and the area I would follow code the most.

I personally think building code and inspections should be optional for owner occupied builders.  Even if it requires something on the property deed or a plaque by the front door stating this building doesn't follow building code.

I do think spec homes and large companies building homes should have some system of keeping them from cutting corners that make a house dangerous.

To anyone wondering the building that collapsed was because the builder built an open loft space with out ceiling joists, scissor trusses or a ridge beam and supports so once snow load got heavy enough the walls pushed out and the building fell on itself.  Any one of the three methods I mentioned would have prevented it form happening.

All good points above, especially about code being the bare minimum requirement and in many elements of constructing a house you should go above and beyond code. Here are some areas where I go with code, go beyond and where I'm comfortable disregarding it.

I'll typically stick to code for the wall, roof, floor, deck framing and electrical.

I'll typically go beyond code for insulation particularly regarding mitigating thermal bridging. I also like to go beyond code regarding indoor air quality. I also thinking venting the roof deck in warm climates is a good idea and not part of code.

I disregard code when it comes to plumbing codes(e.g. with AAVs venting through the wall versus through the roof) and Texas's definition of gray water and black water. For the latter, just make sure your system passes the septic inspection before making modifications.

I think of codes as a minimum. Some things I want better and some are good enough as written. What I find easy to ignore is when the code says you must be a “professional”.

When I built my last home it was done by nothing but helpers of the professional with the license. The pro never stepped foot on my property. I was fine with that and they had to be fine coming back and redoing odds and ends. Nothing major. I had a construction loan for that house so even if I had the time atm I couldnt  have done it myself. The bank could choose to inspect and they sort of did? Basically was they asking for the framing money, go see if the frame is up.

Both that house and current are out of the city on enough property to do without inspections or permits for anything. No permits.  

If you ever need to sell, you will be glad it is to code. Or else it will very likely be cash only. And once they find out that the buyer will walk or ask for a drastic reduction to fix it. Even if they are cool with it.

How much money can you actually save by skipping out on building codes?

Joe Hallmark wrote:

If you ever need to sell, you will be glad it is to code. Or else it will very likely be cash only. And once they find out that the buyer will walk or ask for a drastic reduction to fix it. Even if they are cool with it.

How much money can you actually save by skipping out on building codes?

I expect to have my house livable for about $7,500.  $1,300 of that is permits.  $2,000 is solar.

I went with a log building because there isn't a enforced code for log buildings here.  The only concessions I had to make to meet the best practices was to use metal fasteners(instead of wood pegs) and the thickness of the logs for their R value.

As far as resale value.  I went into it knowing my home may have zero value when it comes time to sell it.  But if we live there for 6 months we will be money ahead compared to renting a 1 bedroom apartment.

I don’t know about fasteners as I never used Timbers. R value is an item I want as much as practical. At some point you’ll never get the return on going absurdly efficient.

I don’t think you’ll regret being warmer.

J Hillman wrote:As far as resale value.  I went into it knowing my home may have zero value when it comes time to sell it.  But if we live there for 6 months we will be money ahead compared to renting a 1 bedroom apartment.

If I'm to believe a number of people, "home value" is a bit of a myth. It's not as dramatic as cars which loose significant paper value as soon as you drive them off the lot, but "home value" is a mix of what other people perceive as "value" and the value of the land it sits on. Land prices have been going up, at the same time as the life expectancy of houses built to "code" has been going down. My friend lives in a small house that's 150 years old. I was told that a group of modern houses near where I live, is nearing its end of life expectancy and they're only about 60 years old.

I think this is why the tiny house movement has taken off - housing stopped being a "safe place to live" and became a business to invest in, and convinced a whole lot of people that should be their dream too. Tiny houses are an effort to take that back. A effort to build what one needs to feel "at home" - they tend to be much more a reflection of the individual than a house in a tract of "little houses made of ticky-tacky and they all look just the same". (who wrote that???)

But my earlier statements apply - build a home that efficiently meets your needs, and is safe from the likeliest dangers. Sometimes that will meet codes, and sometimes, hopefully, that will exceed codes. I've seen too many natural disasters where whole neighbourhoods of housing has been wiped off the map. There are often relatively simple and cost effective ways to make sure our permie houses are the ones left standing. We can do it!

Joe Hallmark wrote:I don’t know about fasteners as I never used Timbers. R value is an item I want as much as practical. At some point you’ll never get the return on going absurdly efficient.

I don’t think you’ll regret being warmer.

I am fine with making those concessions.  I managed to buy the fasteners second hand cheap so now have enough for several lifetimes of building stuff and out of several hundred logs maybe 3 or 4 had to be set aside because they weren't thick enough.

But a modern home built to code is required to be so airtight and so well insulated that you almost need an air exchanger.  Which is a cost to buy, a cost to install, and assumes the house will have unlimited electricity 24/7 for the rest of its lifespan.  

I have lived in several homes that I am sure were built to code since they were in the city.

There were always things I could point out that something was not quite right.

Our current home was a shell that we finished the interior.

I can't point anything out that is not right because we did everything the right way or better.

We bought a house that is outside of city limits and therefore not subject to code, but we were using a USDA loan to purchase it, so the sellers had to fix things that were blatantly not code. Some of them I didn't really care about (railings for 3+ steps), others I did (a power strip wired into the wiring and mounted on a wall, improperly installed water heater tanks). Our inspector said there's a minimum standard/universal "builder's code" that he used to evaluate the property, since we weren't subject to a specific city/county code.

Like other's have said, it is probably best to build to at least a minimum standard so that 1) you can be sure it's at least mostly safe, 2) you have a framework to begin with for how to construct your place, and 3) so that if financing is needed or you want to sell it, you can accept a variety of bids instead of being limited to cash-only.  If you do ever sell it and the would-be buyers had an inspection done, you'd want to be sure that all the big stuff, like electrical and frame work, were up to a general code standard... but you should want that to be the case while you're living there too.

J Hillman, the topic is not about homes falling down.
I have built many sheds not to code and a few  huts on my farm.
They were not built to live in 100% of the time.
But I am of the belief a well built home will be efficient with energy use and may save the additional cost of building to code.
Essentially where I am located codes are for the benefit of any subsequent purchaser, and I guess less damage may occur in storms if built well resulting in better insurance premiums.

I think the success of codes is a reasonable they are not often valued.
The buildings that are not up to the minimum standard that code represents are the most likely to fail and the most likely to be torn down before they fail.
My great aunts house started as a chicken shack and was built into a frame home with plaster walls, electricity and plumbing .
She lived there most of ther 106 years on earth.
It was not a good house while she lived there, and a year being vacant turned it pretty near worthless.
We still own it, it's a burden.

My grandmother's house was built post ww2.
The framing was solid.
The wiring aluminum, and I personally has to deal with blackened outlets as a result.
My father and uncles sold it and people are living there.
I'm suprised they got a loan.
I'm glad they have a home, but I will take my nearly 100 year old knob and tube wiring over any aluminum wiring, any day of the week.

I have much more resistance to building regulations based on looks, than I do for thoses on based safety
When you live cheek to jowls with other property owners,  your structure fire can quickly become their structure fire.

I'm tickled pink at all of the extensive replies as I was really just looking for a yes or no as to whether code is required if a permit was not required... from all these answers I take it the answer is no.

I was asking this question not because we wish to build out of code, but because our home (framing is already up) is like 2 inches too short to accommodate stairs to code. The original floorplan had a ship's ladder but we are looking to put stairs in instead.

I was nervous having stairs that aren't to code would mess us up.. but considering our original plan had a ship's ladder I really don't know why it would.

I'm intrigued by what John had to say.

John C Daley wrote:The advantage of building to a code has benefits as listed;
- Enable a mortgage to happen.
- may be easier to sell.
- if built by a contractor it is built to a standard.
- will work as you expect.
- you may get better insurance at potentially lower cost.

Has anyone had any experience getting a mortgage with a building that is not 100% to code?

I’m a builder for my day job. We build in areas with code and inspections, and we build in areas without. There are many times the code is out of date or just plain wrong. There are better ways to build, either new materials or new methods, that are both stronger and cheaper but not allowed per code.

It is important to understand the WHY of the code. Then you can figure out the best way to meet that need for your needs.

Rebecca Blake wrote:I was asking this question not because we wish to build out of code, but because our home (framing is already up) is like 2 inches too short to accommodate stairs to code. The original floorplan had a ship's ladder but we are looking to put stairs in instead.

What is important, is that *every* riser is the same height, and every step are the same depth - basic math, but tricky if you've never done it. This is a  safety thing, to stop the stairs being more dangerous than stairs already are. We were transferred from out of Province and had 1 week to find and buy a house. Whoever inspected our house didn't notice that the stairs aren't consistent. I suspect that no one will notice if yours are only out by 2 inches spread evenly over all the steps! But if they walk up them, and a single step is short by 2 inches, they will notice.

Rebecca Blake wrote:Has anyone had any experience getting a mortgage with a building that is not 100% to code?

I have this bad habit of buying properties that are really cool but the buildings are decades old and are definitely not up to code. I have never had a hitch getting a mortgage on these -- if you can make the payments, the banks don't care.

And if you sell, be up front and give full disclosure: these stairs are not quite up to code. "As-is, where-is." If they sign off on that, you are protected.

The wild card is insurance. They can be pissy about the details.

Hi Douglas,

Great post.  Yes, the moment someone offers a price below asking ( and they always do) I always add the condition of “as is”.

How would your stairs be "out of code" if the total height is 2" less (than what?) Did you mean the available length on the floor is 2" less than code would require for standard risers and treads? As long as they are consistent as mentioned, and not much too tall per riser or short per tread, they will work fine. There are several rules of thumb for safe stairs, such as rise plus run per step about 17". 7" or 7 1/2" per riser is great for residential stairs, 8" is okay though maybe out of code. 9" or 10" per riser is getting unsafe. 10" per tread is pretty standard, not counting the overhang above the tread below (using 2 x 12 or 1 x 12 lumber gives 1 1/4" overhang at 10" run per tread). A tread surface you can put all of your shoe on is ideal. Less than a total tread surface depth of about 9" would be unsafe, especially for closed risers with no extra room under the tread.

Another idea for a constrained stair space would be alternating tread stairs. Think about walking up stairs. Your left foot lands on one side of the tread and your right foot lands on the other side of the next tread, so half of each tread is not used. Cutting out that unused half allows the run per tread to be reduced so the stair takes up around half of the usual length, yet each step of your feet is no higher than usual and there is enough space to put your foot safely.

I have one in my house leading to a balcony that is currently used as a bedroom. It takes some getting used to, but once familiar works fine. There are pros and cons and code considerations, as well described in this article.

Rebecca Blake wrote:

I was asking this question not because we wish to build out of code, but because our home (framing is already up) is like 2 inches too short to accommodate stairs to code. The original floorplan had a ship's ladder but we are looking to put stairs in instead.

Hi Rebecca,

We originally planned for a spiral staircase but later decided to change our floor plan to use a more traditional staircase. Space was limited so we ended up with a winder design where the last few steps at the bottom turn 90 degrees. Code requires a minimum tread width at the narrow end of at least 6". We could not fit this into the space so made the conscious decision to violate the code believing that the mostly straight run of stairs would be both safer and preferable to a spiral staircase. I can say that the narrow end of the stairs is a bit more tricky to navigate and a wider tread would have been better but overall we are happy with the stairs. There are no building code inspections for framing in our area but other than the stairs everything has been verified by a structural engineer and built to (or usually better than) code.

There is a good visual guide to stair code in Colorado here:

https://timnath.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/2018-RESIDENTIAL-STAIR-GUIDE.pdf

Drawing 11 illustrates the area where we varied from code.

Our old house has very steep stairs where I have to place my foot twisted a bit to completely rest it on the tread. If you are only 2" short in the horizontal (or vertical) direction I doubt you will even notice it evenly spread over 12-16 treads.

I went to the Building dept in my county in Alabama to ask about a project that may or may not have met code here. Basically the inspector said on my property I could pretty much do what I wanted without permits or inspections as long as no neighbors made a complaint. Even then they really couldn’t do anything. His main point was that the power company would not connect electricity to a non permitted structure and when or if I sold it would create an issue that would effect price or even influence someone to pass on buying my property.
He said if he didn’t know about it it didn’t bother him. I said thanks and “I was never here.” His reply was “I don’t even know your name.”

Todd Brewer wrote:I went to the Building dept in my county in Alabama to ask about a project that may or may not have met code here.

Pretty laid back! He made some good suggestions, though. Insurance (fire, liability) may not be quite so relaxed.

But yeah, I find that bypassing the front-end staff (by-the-book drones) and talking to a manager or inspector directly, you get straight answers about where the go/no go line really is.

I would; it's a health and safety thing.  If they have inspectors, I'd ask about getting the construction inspected, as well, because if you have insurance, your carrier will want to know you built to code.

Karen Isaacson wrote:I would; it's a health and safety thing.  If they have inspectors, I'd ask about getting the construction inspected, as well, because if you have insurance, your carrier will want to know you built to code.

The project I was wanting to do was a portable building to live in as a temporary dwelling. That never happened so it’s a non issue now.
The insurance company only cares if they have to pay a claim, I promise they will take your money every month.
I personally have had the inspection process cost me when I built everything to code. I put drains in my pad for the red iron building on my property for a future bathroom. Since I did that I had to have a septic system installed before the inspector would sign off for power to be hooked up. Was a pile of money for a system that didn’t even have a sink connected to it for over 10 years.  I have also seen building depts that were flat out corrupt. The town where I live now used to be the city building inspectors were also contractors. 1 inspector in particular would go out of his way to be a pain on jobs he wasn’t working.
2 sides to every coin. I freely admit that I have issues with people that are doing things “for my own good”.

Hey Todd. Nasty experience! Most of us don't have to deal with outright gangsterism, only bureaucracies that are endlessly obtuse.