It only has to be built to the code in effect at the time if the build. Not current codes. If it met code then, that is grandfathered in, until you make changes to the home now. Also, homes have changes made on the fly during construction all the time. Omit a wall there, put a door here. Happens all the time. That's not against code either.

What is not up to code?

I doubt it as well.

well, it can depend a bit ...

so, our first house, we were total newbies. split entry, with the deck off the (second floor) dining room converted to a den. supports looked really spindly, owner claimed 'it met all codes'.

our inspector said it wasnt safe, my husband went to town hall and saw no permits were pulled for the conversion, owner had to upgrade supports as a condition of the sale. so, your situation might depend on what the owner/ owner's realtor told you about the condition.

If someone reno's a building without a permit when one is required that's not the cities fault. In that case you may have a case against the previous owner if you have proof that they said "it met all codes". I believe there are some jurisdictions that require the seller to disclose these things, if they do not or they make false statements then you could go after them.

Graham

20 year old house is not an old house and most likely 20 years ago nobody signed off on the plans which are not code compliant if that State follows adopted International building code.

Could be that the work was performed after the fact by a homeowner or someone they hired, you be surprised what I come across when called to do do code violation repairs, it's crazy what people do, no one in their right mind would even consider it.

I must have taken a really long nap and woke up in 2020 ;). The International Building Codes have not been around for 20 years yet, not to mention, it took a few years after 2000 for many places to adopt it.

Thats the International code, but local codes been around longer than that before everyone started to adopt International codes. I built first development in 1985 or 86 and plans already had to be aproved and we had all inspections in place.

Perhaps if you could explain how the house was not built to the code that was in place when it was built, someone could give you better advice.

Why do you ask? Are you thinking of buying or selling this property?

Before the International Codes, local codes could be very different, or even nonexistent in many more areas than now. Without knowing the specific code problems, and where this is located, there is no way of knowing what was a violation at the time the house was built.

Fred, you right... You been sleeping for two long. I just dug up some of my notes from when I was taking my building inspectors course and the fact is, that Boca, Nec and Plumbing code came out in 1975 and it went into effect in 1977 and it was used until 2000 when IBC and IRC was adopted.

In 1983 Cabo code came out which was less restrictive in comparison to Boca and that was mainly used for residential construction and later on in 2000 IRC code was adopted and it replaced the Cabo code and the same year IBC replaced Boca.

I'm glad you brought this up... I found my first 2000 code book IBC and IRC :)

Well, don't forget the Uniform Building Code (UBC) 1927-1997 ;)

...or the SBC 1945-1997...

I've owned the home for a while but in trying to resolve extensive noise from an incredible amount of floor flexing, recently found that the joists are only 2x8's when the plans called for 2x10's. This isn't the first thing we found that wasn't built to plan and seems to be structurally not ideal. However I believe based on my internet research that 2x8's may have been the minimum acceptable even though all modern build would have used 2x10's. It sucks, the amount of money we're spending trying to resolve issues like this.

The current grading system ASTM D 1990-00 has been around since 1991.

http://www.awc.org/pdf/codes-standards/publications/nds/AWC-NDS2005-Supplement-0905.pdf

The design values have been in the code books even longer. I have code books before 1980 that have the same design values for different species of lumber as the most current code books. They have just become more "standardized" throughout the country.

There are a few things that could have happened in your case to make the difference in lumber size that would still be within "code". (Not to discount the fact that is MAY be not to code)

1) they may have used a different species of lumber, such as DF-L (Doug for -larch) instead of H-F (hem-fir). It is hard to tell the difference for most people.

Table R502.3.1(2)

http://premiumaccess.iccsafe.org/document/code/553/9813211

2) the design values of some grades of lumber have been decreased since the lumber that they are using now grew faster than the older stuff, and therefore is not as strong.

3) the actual "code" deflection limits and load values actually allow for a very bouncy floor. The first time I used an engineered floor truss, I was surprised at how bouncy it was. One solution was to load the floor with more weight. It worked, but that should not be the proper solution. The next option was to tie all the trusses together more frequently so that they all work together. This is called cross-bracing in dimentional lumber joists. Ultimately, the best solution was to make sure that the engineer used better design values than required by code when using trusses, or joists for that matter.

Depending on the wood species/grade, you can end up with a stiff, but weak floor, or a bouncy, but strong floor, or something with both strength and stiffness, and still be within code.

House next door burned to the ground. Owner is going to rebuild on the footprint.

Original house was not to code. It was 16 inches from house next door which

sustained heavy fire and water damage. Burned house has no front yard, no back

yard and no driveway. Is there any way to make owner change design to make

more space between houses

Check at the local building dept, no way anyone here would know for certain.

Lucy:

I had a neighbor who built his house too close to the adjacent vacant lot. Builder told him to buy the lot, move his house, or get sued, because the lot was unbuildable. He bought the lot. Tried to get a vairance, but was turned down.

Years later, his house burned to the ground. He built the new one in the right place this time. The lot is buildable.