I don’t think you will find a code enforcement officer coming into a Victorian Farm house and requesting or demanding the antique railing be improved or replaced. It just doesn’t happen that way as it is existing and has been that way in some cases for almost a century.
We as inspectors can only recommend improvement, but the fact is improvement is not retroactive, unless complete renovations or additions are being planned then it must meet current code.
No, I got it.
Yes, experience tells us the item is unsafe. You need to write it up. Not in a matter that reflects code, (or uses the term code), unless your state SOP or licensing require you identify codes.
Grandfathering is not the proper term and applies to land rights at the turn of the century, (Alabama).
A building must meet the code at the time it was constructed. Today’s code may not apply, but that does not make the condition less unsafe. You could say that “time has taught us that this condition could be unsafe and is no longer permitted,” then recommend the condition be corrected. Some codes and areas, AHJ, have retroactive codes that do apply. For instance the ADA requirements for Commercial buildings and the removal of architectural barriers. All buildings are now required to conform. Most do not and were built pre 1992. There is no such thing as “grandfathering” for these commercial buildings. CYA 101 for home inspectors.
Usually expressed as a percentage in the Existing Building Code chapters or Independent Code.
Examples:
ADA = 20% or more of cost of renovation to go to ADA conformance.
FBC = 25% to 49% of building cost entire system must conform to new code
FBC = 50% of building cost, entire building must be brought up to code or be demolished.