I believe we all know how, what, and why, when it comes to handrails and guardrails.
My suggestion on saying that;
The client is advised that all buildings older than brand new are likely to have building code violations.
Is perceived to be taken as a fact of the existing conditions as would be compared to today’s standard or Code requirements of newer buildings.
It is in fact that an older building does not have to be brought up to Code unless a change of use is into play or the dwelling is going to be modified and renovated to more than 50%.
Most localities around here tend to revolve around that pretense.
So as an HI. you inspect an older home that is far from meeting the now established Codes of today, what do you do?
Tell the Client that this house in whole does not meet Code!
First you tell them that I will point out what it should be to today’s standard and point out the issues that would pertain to the safety of the occupants whether it is Code or not.
These particular items would be noted as a safety concern that needs to be corrected as soon as possible.
Any of the Code requirements of the IRC on stairs and railings,relating to older structures, would become an issue and a Violation in today’s new construction.
That is all I am trying to point out.
Ex. Trying to finish this $8,000,000 College addition and renovation.
Pointed out an existing condition of a baluster rail with spacings of 5".
Architect backed me up, but the owner or client said and called it an existing condition.
I told him it would not fly when the Fire Marshal walks through and replied he would just play dumb and fix it at that point.
I covered my you know what, and my Companies too. Left it at that.
We can not expect to have any of these old Dwellings to meet Code and what you will see and have already is that they would be in violation to todays standard Code requirements.