Is the landlord required to make a building code compliant?

[Number21]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? OR

I lease a small industrial warehouse. Much of the wiring and plumbing inside the building is NOT up to code and would not pass a building inspection today. (or when I moved in) It may have been code compliant in the past when it was built 20 years ago, but I still don't think so.

Is my landlord required to fix these code violations if/when they become a problem? Everything works "ok" now, but if there's an issue in the future, then EVERYTHING will have to be fixed in order to get the right permits. Is the landlord required to pay for that?

In other words, I know you have to fix that stuff before you can SELL a building, but is the same true for LEASING?

 

[Alaska landlord]

Ever hear of grandfather clauses as applied to building codes?

 

[Who's Liable?]

Again, AL is wrong, but that shouldn't really surprise anyone. It's his habit...

Depending on the severity of the work needed, the supposed "grandfather clause" would NOT be a defense the LL could claim.

 

[Alaska landlord]

As usual, Who's Liable response is UnreLiable.

OP has no way of knowing whether or not the plumbing and electrical system will pass inspection. That is unless he is an electrician and plumber familiar with the code at the time the property was built. Just because one thinks it will not pass inspection, without knowing the criteria one would be merely guessing. Maybe you should change your logon to Who’s Unrealiable

 

[Number21]

Ever hear of grandfather clauses as applied to building codes?

Yeah, like I said, it most likely wasn't up to code when it was built either. I can tell you bare wires hanging out of the wall was never, ever code. And the water heater, dated 1994, is not up to 1994 codes. That's just a few of many violations. I am very familiar with the codes and you don't have to be a plumber or an electrician to know that.

Like I said, this building could NOT sell in it's current condition. I know that for a fact. The question is does the same apply to a lease.

Alaska landlord, please don't reply further to my thread, you'll just turn it into another pissing match.

 

[Cvillecpm]

The building was up to code when it was built in order to get the electric meter/utilities hooked up and get a CO.....after that time, as subsequent tenants moved in/out, it may not have been brought up to code if permits were not pulled for work done.....it is doubtful it will be made to be brought up to code. Cities/counties are having a hard time with real estate tax revenue so keeping a commercial building OCCUPIED and the owner paying their property taxes is CRITICAL....assisting a tenant with a squabble with their landlord is probably not on their radar or important in their mission statement

 

[Tayla]

Number21, In answer to your direct question "Is my landlord required to fix these code violations if/when they become a problem?

If its cited as a code violation then it becomes the owners' responsibility to be up to code.

 

[Cvillecpm]

If its cited as a code violation then it becomes the owners' responsibility to be up to code.

Not if OP's lease requires tenant to comply with code and bring it up to code...this is a COMMERCIAL lease * NOT a residential one so the lease document rules absent any state law requiring the owner to bring it up to code which OP should have determined BEFORE lease was signed in the due diligence period.

 

[FarmerJ]

21 wrote > I lease a small industrial warehouse. < States normally only write laws pertaining to LL responsibility when its residential rental, they tend to stay out of commercial rental problems, since this is a commercial rental , yes you could attempt to argue that everything should have been up to code at the time you rented it BUT most commercial leases name the tenant ss responsible for any changes required to be able to do business. Now if your business is one that will have very infrequent if any city/county/state inspections then consider just sending the LL a letter re what you believe to be a poor install via certified mail. Keep copy for your self away from premise and take dated pics of it incase there ever is a problem like a fire started by the hot water heater and again store them off premise and save them with your letter for your insurance company , if the ins co legal dept sees fit to sue the LL because they have to pay they will. BTW codes do allow for older installs BUT fair odds are your lease says you are responsible for required changes. As with residential leases if you bring the city into it before carefully reviewing Any applicable state or local laws and your lease you could find your lease not being renewed.

 

[justalayman]

the building may or may not have been to code when built. Most likely it was as stated by cvillecpm.

So, is a LL required to bring a building up to code simply because it does not comply with current codes?

that depends on several factors, first of which is the lease, which may delegate the responsibility to the tenant. In such a case, it was within the tenants responsibility in exercising due diligence to ascertain whether the building was code compliant before accepting the building and negotiate the repairs prior to accepting. If the tenant failed to do so, they would now be responsible for updating, if required.


Now, something that makes no difference as to whether it was code compliant or not when built:

if some part of the building has fallen into disrepair, that is not a situation that any grandfather clause would permit to continue without repair. If, due to lack or maintenance or repair, there is something that has become non-code compliant, this will be required to be repaired and it will be required to be repaired to current codes in most situations.

so, in other words; if the building is exactly like it was when built, grandfathering would most likely allow it to remain, although there are some exceptions. Fire suppression and alarm systems being the most common of those exceptions.

If the item of concern is a code violation due to disrepair, it can, and most often will, be required to be repaired and brought to current code requirements.

the entity liable for the repairs is a negotiated item and could fall on either the tenant or the LL, depending on the contract between those two entities.

 

[Tayla]

Maintenance clauses in a commercial lease do carry weight in the court systems. It still stands that the BUILDING CODE INSPECTOR will Cite the OWNERS of property for code violations.
http://www.cbs.state.or.us/bcd/statutes.html

In the eyes of the Building Code authority they consider the owner responsible for repairs ultimately.
The LL has recourse by enforcing the Maint.- clause to the tenant for repair. If such code violation falls within the terms of the lease.

In this posters case its imperative to read and review what is the current business tenants responsibility for repair and what remains the LL's.

 

[Cvillecpm]

....and as we have read over and over on this forum, code enforcement rarely enforces code violations on the property owner and they OFTEN condenm the property, pull the electric meter AND the tenant is literally left in the dark * AGAIN!!!

Financial realities often take hold about the time the code enforcement "dweeb's" boss realizes how much tax revenue will be lost if the building goes DARK....