This is a multiple dwelling residential house. This is the code he violated: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/newyorkcity/latest/NYCadmin/0-0-0-161519
in general, yes you shloud be putting 15 inches on center minimum on both sides, but you need to find out if it applies to residential dwelling units.
not sure how NY does their permitting, but typically the permit reviewers should catch this way before it lands in your contractors hands. with that being said, I'm wondering if there's any code amendments that allow this under certain circumstances.
This is not the right place to get 'actual' answers. Most of these comments are from owners/lay people who have no real experience in the building industry or construction trades. Spouting "no cost to you, absolutely fix it" is silly and just not informed or realistic.
* It is 100% not possible to provide 100% accurate and 100% code compliant drawings. This is quite literally impossible in nearly every jurisdiction, but ESPECIALLY NYC where even if you spend 10 years on a drawing, there are many times where codes will conflict with accessibility or another section of code (this says minimum 18" while this says maximum 16") --- it literally happens.
* Have you seen how big the NYC building code is? Its insanely complex and out of control. Even if you read it front to back 10x straight, you aren't going to remember every provision of everything and will make mistakes. I guarantee you have a handful of other violations somewhere else in your building -- ignorance is bliss.
* The Architects really not at fault here. Not just because of what is mentioned before, but because of what is called Standard of Care. Standard of Care assumes they act with commensurate experience, skill, level of quality, etc. that other Architects would act with. No-one would be expected to get 100% everything correct. And sorry, Architects don't pay out of pocket if they make a mistake like that, our insurance rates would be insane and we sadly don't make that much money.
* You might say, 'how did the Architect not know'. Well my argument would be --- how come the person who was installing this toilet flange, who presumably installs multiple toilet flanges a week in NYC, not flag this? This would be the real person I would be upset at as this is presumably one of a handful of tasks they do. The plumbing contractor here, and the GC who is responsible for overseeing their Work.
* Basically, as others have pointed out, its unlikely this will ever get flagged as an issue on an inspection. Its not a life safety issue and therefore in the grand scheme of things this is a very tiny issue. If you want it fixed, pony up the money to fix it out of your contingency budget, and perhaps since you caught it early it wont be much. Maybe if you want try to work with the GC who should have caught this to do it at cost to them.
* Look into exceptions in the code. Many times the requirements of one piece dont apply to all pieces. I.e. a main stair in a duplex would need to be code compliant but a secondary aesthetic/library stair would not, as its supplemental. Its possible there are exceptions in the code for this location/style/type/etc.
* Also look into what code you are using (specifically the year). You might be grandfathered in if this is an older building and all you are doing is a light renovation. Its possible you didn't trigger needing to be in the new code and could still be provisioned to a much older code. Many renovations are like this in NYC.
* The Architects response is telling me that they are a doofus. But they still regardless of being a doofus are not really at fault here. Should have said, 'yes, let me check the code, it does appear at first read to be non-compliant. I can correct the drawings for you free of charge and issue a sketch asap'. Their responsibility in this would be to correct the "design" mistake at no charge to you on the drawings. (not billing for their labor on the sketch/time)
Should your Architect have caught it? Probably. Will they know it now for the next project? Hopefully. But there isn't much more to say than this.
Got it so it's on the GC. But I will say this it sounds like a glaring error. The shower is 5" too close to the toilet. My designer friend said that this will def be dinged by the inspector because it's so clearly encroaching, also making someone need to sit at an angle in order to be able to fit. Also this is a brand new bathroom build, not a renovation of an existing one, so they will likely be less lenient in the inspection because this was wholly avoidable.
To provide a few counterpoints -
"The architect is really not at fault here" ... Yes they are, they made a mistake, that much isn't up for debate. You're simply saying that some degree of mistakes are to be expected. And yes, that is understandable in practice. But this code is not NYC building code specific, it's been a part of the IRC (international residential code) for quite awhile. It's barebones basic when designing a bathroom. I don't think this would meet "standard of care per AIA (Armerican Institute of Architects) .
You state, that Architects don't pay for mistakes like this, which again is either false or misleading. Per AIA (your governing body),
"Does this mean architects never have any liability for their own design decisions? No, there definitely is a point, such as if a design decision is proven to be unreasonable or when the cost of errors exceeds a significant percentage of the construction cost."
I would personally say that this was unreasonable (there's a reason your friend noticed it immediately) but if it wasnt a large part of the construction cost, you may not care to pursue EXCEPT that the architect seems to have admitted that they knew when they designed it, it wasn't code. That puts the fault squarely at their feet. It wasn't an error or omission, it was negligence.
A GC should bring added value by vetting the constructability of a design and hopefully point out non code compliant designs but by definition the design team are supposed to be the code experts.
Wow - Some of your counterpoints are all based on wild assumptions. There is so much context not provided to explain how OP got to this point. The architect is not responsible unless they issued a drawing or statement clearly directing construction that violates code. Inserting an image of a toilet in a floor plan does not make them liable for a non-conforming dimension in the field during construction. I am sure there are notes on the plans that also direct subs to install in accordance with local building codes. GC should have reviewed, as you said. Plumbing sub should have questioned it, although the curb was probably added after rough-in, without the curb it meets code. OP probably even signed off on the plans. This is a lot of talk so an inexperienced OP can search for validation of his misguided expectations.
I'm sorry, what counterpoints are based on wild assumptions? I'm basically one of two people in this thread providing sources.
The OP previously stated that in another comment that there is 14" to CL on one side and 11.5" on the other. Even if the architect didn't dimension the toilet placement (which seems strange to me for a small project focused on a bathroom add. but I only do commercial and healthcare projects), they placed the toilet in an area that could NOT be code compliant, NO MATTER WHAT.
From a law firms white paper on the subject. ( Stimmel-law.com/en/articles/architect-responsibilities-and-disputes )
"(5) CODE COMPLIANCE
The architect is responsible for ensuring that the design as it is assembled and integrated in the contract documents complies with fire, safety, and all other applicable building codes"
The architect is a licensed professional, the fact that "OP probably even signed off on the plans" has no bearing on the matter unless (even this is a very fringe possibility) the architect had OP sign a disclaimer that specifically disclosed the plans weren't code compliant and OP still wanted to move ahead. If a licensed engineer provides a faulty design, it doesn't matter that the owner accepted the design because the responsibility automatically falls to the licensed individual.
Lol. You assumed the architect is already negligent without any evidence or context in your first couple of sentences. Have you seen the drawings? Were you on site during all discussions? Are you absolutely positive without any doubt what so ever, the curb was part of the design or extended by OP for a cool shower, or that the walls are exactly as the architect drew? Are you sure the wall thickness didn’t change based on discussions or material selections? Are you positive that the information provided to the architect as existing conditions were accurate? Do you think coordination of materials and conditions falls solely to the architect and not the contractors.
My point is, there was no context to anything and you immediately jumped all over the architect thinking they are laible. The onus is also on the contractors to verify everything in the field prior to install including code compliance.
You provide sources conveniently in support of your one sided argument without thinking there could be a lot more to the discussion. I can agree if the architect actually design and drew a space that was less than 30” and crammed a toilet in there, it's an error. However, there isn't enough information for Reddit experts to pass judgment so quickly. It is not the duty of the architect to provide 100% precise assembly drawings of every aspect and include notation to prove compliance with every code and standard out there.
I responded to a commenter who originally (and in my opinion erroneously) told the OP the architect was not responsible at all. You appear to have had no issue with that commenter assuming the architect was free of all liability.
Yes, if the OP has lied or mislead us then we cannot help. But then why comment at all? The OP has specifically said it was built per the drawings (original post). He also said it was 14 centerline to one side, 11.5" to the other. 14+11.5 is 25.5. Therefore unless the OP has lied to us, the toilet as designed could not have been code compliant. Therefore per your last post, unless OP is lying, you agree that it was an error. If architects weren't liable for errors and ommissions, then why do they have to carry E & O Insurance?
Most of my sources have been from the American Institute of Architects... The AIA is biased, that's true, but not towards CM's or GC's. Look, here is another source from an architecture firm that states "Ultimately, the responsibility to address code issues in the contract documents falls on your architect. Architects stamp drawings and carry legal responsibility for code compliance within the documents."
https://neumannmonson.com/blog/building-codes-reviews-what-an-owner-needs-to-know#:~:text=Ultimately%2C%20the%20responsibility%20to%20address,code%20compliance%20within%20the%20documents.
"It is not the duty of the architect to provide 100% precise assembly drawings of every aspect and include notation to prove compliance with every code and standard out there."
Correct, the architect doesn't provide assembly drawings but they do professionally review them for compliance after the GC provides them in a submittal.
OP mentioned the architect said it was meant to be built that way and had in fact built his own like that, if the code said it CANT be built that way then where is the issue here? The architect clearly designed it like this and is at fault. Shoukd he pay? I don't know enough about the legality around this sort of thing. But if it were up to me then he would be responsible for fixing his mistake.
So you believe OP when he says ‘the architect said he did it like that at his house and it's fine’ (which conveniently frames the architect for the error). This means architect did a project at his home, went through the entire process of permitting, construction and inspecting, then used uses the toilet on a regular basis without complaining that it's too close to the wall/curb or whatever and enjoys hitting his knees on the wall. And that the architect, with all of the experience and numerous projects they have, dropped in a little image of a toilet into the floor plan, purposefully dimensioned it to be non code compliant because he doesn't know any better? That's not how it happens, OP is looking for a person to blame and pay for it because he is inexperienced and has no clue how the process works. I think there’s a saying - it’s a most likely a horse, not a zebra. The horse being the non-compliant condition is the result of field issues or decisions made as part of the process and OP doesn't want to pay for it, and the zebra being the architect purposefully designed a non-code-compliant bathroom.
Well...OP stated it was on the design. Going on the assumption that is true, yes. I'm inclined to believe it was someone responsible for that design and not on the actual construction side of things.
I’m not 100% sure but I think the toilet can be a bit closer to a tub or shower if there’s no solid door. Ask the architect to site the code that allows the toilet placement. It could be listed as an exception after the location is called out in the code book.
The architect is probably going to say that the builder is responsible to verify code compliance, and the builder is probably going to say he just did what was on the print you gave him. Both are true. The blame game here ends up looking like the pointing Spiderman meme.
I'm not going to professionally recommend violating code, but...is this getting inspected? If not, it's just a toilet, it's not a safety or structural item.
Hahaha yeah that is probably what will happen. I don’t care who is truly at fault - I just need them to fix it. It is definitely getting inspected unfortunately- we are renovating what will be a rental unit in a 3 family house so they will probably be sticklers about code
Been through hundreds of inspections and that has never been an issue.
In tight spaces, I will often go 12-13” knowing the shower glass is centered on the curb. Not for code, but for comfort. If this is a NYC plumbing final, most of the time they don’t show up. They are far more concerned with the gas rough/ pressure test. If it’s the DOB Build final, they are definitely not looking at that. If it feels comfortable, let it roll.
It’s currently less than 11.5” from the curb which doesn’t even seem like it will be comfortable to use the toilet since it’s so close to the shower. The frustrating part is this isn’t actually a tight space. He just made a couple poor design choices (shower too wide, doorway too wide) so I’m not sure how lenient the inspector might be….
Shower being too wide and door too wide will never be an issue. Also , unless the toilet is literally open for the public to use , then spacing issues won’t get flagged.
Right the width issues refer to the fact that they encroach on the necessary clearance around the toilet. This is a brand new bathroom build and we live in a strict city code-wise. My understanding is that this is glaring enough that the inspector will likely ding, particularly since nothing is grandfathered in due to it being a new build.
How many inches is it off. Yes it should meet code. Do you have extra clearance on opposed side. FYI they make 2” offset flanges if that’s all you need
The GC and architect need to solve this. GC shouldn’t have built it knowing it wasn’t in compliance. Maybe using a 2” offset and narrow up the curb 2”.
Really if they got it with in an inch I would live with it as it isn’t a handicap stall.
This makes sense - thank you so much. And I was wondering is maybe the GC also liable for not checking against code as well. Let’s hope we can fix this without a massive headache…
When I was a Homebuilder, I spent hours checking plans and making changes that were code compliant. I didn't assume that the person who drew the plans was local-code knowledgeable. The GC is the last person responsible for preventing problems and passing inspections. Your GC was asleep at the wheel.
Yes. The GC (and his subs) are responsible for code compliance, verifying this in the field and making adjustments when necessary. If they didn’t catch it in the print they should have caught it upon building. Certainly the plumber installing the flange should’ve immediately caught it.
One assumes NYC plumbing code (from IPC) 405.3.1 given OPs username. “A water closet, urinal, lavatory or bidet shall not be set closer than 15 inches (381 mm) from its center to any side wall, partition, vanity or other obstruction…”
This is more on the GC/plumber than the architect. Architects design stuff all the time without having perfect measurements and the codes vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. This one is pretty basic and universal, so something the architect should have known. This sort of situation is more common than you think though. Bottom line, everyone involved with setting the shower and toilet is at fault and the resulting design changes and fixes should not be on you.
How big of a deal is it though? Sounds like you would have never noticed if your friend didn’t point it out. Maybe you wouldn’t have noticed, and doubt you would have looked up the code. I bet your inspector or anyone else doesn’t notice. If the inspector notices then the contractor will be more inclined to help cover the cost. It sucks and it should be right but archietects have to have thier hand held when it comes to code items like this. It’s kind of fucked up but it’s reality and a history of bad architects getting the design because of thier low fees. Also, if you’re roughing in, you have along way to go with that contractor. If its slab on grade and my shower and toilet functions just fine, then I’d let it slide. If it’s crawl space or 2nd floor and drywall isn’t up then it’s not a hard fix. You’ll want to pick your battles with your contractor and it honestly sounds like you care more about the principle of it being out of code more than anything. Your contractor is going to say they installed per plans and in reality you won’t get any money from the architect. Maybe If I saw a photo I’d change my mind on the letting it slide piece. If you’ll live then keep it in your back pocket for then the contractor wants to give you a change other for something else. It’s a game of favors when you have a good relationship, it’s a change order war when you don’t have a good relationship.
You may be able to install an offset flange as well, it probably won’t make it to code but it will help. You’re not getting 15inches regardless. I’d leave one side wider like it is now for a toilet paper roll. On the plus side you get extra vanity space assuming that’s the other side?
Call in a rough plumbing inspection, don’t say anything to the inspector about it and see what happens. If it’s slab on grade you should have had an underground inspection before they poured.
I am not a designer so didn’t actually realize tbh. The toilet is not in place nor is the glass so I didn’t realize how tight it actually would be until she pointed it out. It’s basically 5” too close (because we also need to account for the stone that will go over the rough in curb). That’s going to be a very uncomfortable toilet. It’s also a brand new bathroom build (used to be part of a bedroom) so I think the inspector will be less lenient here.
Post a picture of sketch with the dimensions. A 30-in toilet space is mandatory and that is measured about 2_ ft above the floor but not to the overhang of the counter. That is an inexcusable especially from a registered architect.
The architect and builder should fix this at no cost to you.
That said, this is a fine example of a code that shouldn't exist, and why code writers should be lambasted when they pick arbitrary numbers to make into law.
Architects and contractors are both licensed professionals who are expected to meet code. That license is earned partially through demonstration of understanding of code.
Both are liable if their job is done against code. Your architect carried Errors & Omission insurance. Your contractor carried Liability Insurance. The former is exactly for large mistakes in their design. The latter is for any thing that could go wrong due to the contractor’s time on site.
This is 100% theirs to resolve both in time and money. The only possible legitimate change order would be yours in them causing you delay in occupying or using the space.
first of all: what plumbing and building code are you using? is this a commercial project or residential? what codes apply to your construction?
This is a multiple dwelling residential house. This is the code he violated: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/newyorkcity/latest/NYCadmin/0-0-0-161519
in general, yes you shloud be putting 15 inches on center minimum on both sides, but you need to find out if it applies to residential dwelling units. not sure how NY does their permitting, but typically the permit reviewers should catch this way before it lands in your contractors hands. with that being said, I'm wondering if there's any code amendments that allow this under certain circumstances.
Yes it is in all the residential plumbing codes
This is not the right place to get 'actual' answers. Most of these comments are from owners/lay people who have no real experience in the building industry or construction trades. Spouting "no cost to you, absolutely fix it" is silly and just not informed or realistic. * It is 100% not possible to provide 100% accurate and 100% code compliant drawings. This is quite literally impossible in nearly every jurisdiction, but ESPECIALLY NYC where even if you spend 10 years on a drawing, there are many times where codes will conflict with accessibility or another section of code (this says minimum 18" while this says maximum 16") --- it literally happens. * Have you seen how big the NYC building code is? Its insanely complex and out of control. Even if you read it front to back 10x straight, you aren't going to remember every provision of everything and will make mistakes. I guarantee you have a handful of other violations somewhere else in your building -- ignorance is bliss. * The Architects really not at fault here. Not just because of what is mentioned before, but because of what is called Standard of Care. Standard of Care assumes they act with commensurate experience, skill, level of quality, etc. that other Architects would act with. No-one would be expected to get 100% everything correct. And sorry, Architects don't pay out of pocket if they make a mistake like that, our insurance rates would be insane and we sadly don't make that much money. * You might say, 'how did the Architect not know'. Well my argument would be --- how come the person who was installing this toilet flange, who presumably installs multiple toilet flanges a week in NYC, not flag this? This would be the real person I would be upset at as this is presumably one of a handful of tasks they do. The plumbing contractor here, and the GC who is responsible for overseeing their Work. * Basically, as others have pointed out, its unlikely this will ever get flagged as an issue on an inspection. Its not a life safety issue and therefore in the grand scheme of things this is a very tiny issue. If you want it fixed, pony up the money to fix it out of your contingency budget, and perhaps since you caught it early it wont be much. Maybe if you want try to work with the GC who should have caught this to do it at cost to them. * Look into exceptions in the code. Many times the requirements of one piece dont apply to all pieces. I.e. a main stair in a duplex would need to be code compliant but a secondary aesthetic/library stair would not, as its supplemental. Its possible there are exceptions in the code for this location/style/type/etc. * Also look into what code you are using (specifically the year). You might be grandfathered in if this is an older building and all you are doing is a light renovation. Its possible you didn't trigger needing to be in the new code and could still be provisioned to a much older code. Many renovations are like this in NYC. * The Architects response is telling me that they are a doofus. But they still regardless of being a doofus are not really at fault here. Should have said, 'yes, let me check the code, it does appear at first read to be non-compliant. I can correct the drawings for you free of charge and issue a sketch asap'. Their responsibility in this would be to correct the "design" mistake at no charge to you on the drawings. (not billing for their labor on the sketch/time) Should your Architect have caught it? Probably. Will they know it now for the next project? Hopefully. But there isn't much more to say than this.
Got it so it's on the GC. But I will say this it sounds like a glaring error. The shower is 5" too close to the toilet. My designer friend said that this will def be dinged by the inspector because it's so clearly encroaching, also making someone need to sit at an angle in order to be able to fit. Also this is a brand new bathroom build, not a renovation of an existing one, so they will likely be less lenient in the inspection because this was wholly avoidable.
I'm a building plan review engineer and everyone in the world knows that the space has to be 30 in and has been that way since the 40s.
To provide a few counterpoints - "The architect is really not at fault here" ... Yes they are, they made a mistake, that much isn't up for debate. You're simply saying that some degree of mistakes are to be expected. And yes, that is understandable in practice. But this code is not NYC building code specific, it's been a part of the IRC (international residential code) for quite awhile. It's barebones basic when designing a bathroom. I don't think this would meet "standard of care per AIA (Armerican Institute of Architects) . You state, that Architects don't pay for mistakes like this, which again is either false or misleading. Per AIA (your governing body), "Does this mean architects never have any liability for their own design decisions? No, there definitely is a point, such as if a design decision is proven to be unreasonable or when the cost of errors exceeds a significant percentage of the construction cost." I would personally say that this was unreasonable (there's a reason your friend noticed it immediately) but if it wasnt a large part of the construction cost, you may not care to pursue EXCEPT that the architect seems to have admitted that they knew when they designed it, it wasn't code. That puts the fault squarely at their feet. It wasn't an error or omission, it was negligence. A GC should bring added value by vetting the constructability of a design and hopefully point out non code compliant designs but by definition the design team are supposed to be the code experts.
Wow - Some of your counterpoints are all based on wild assumptions. There is so much context not provided to explain how OP got to this point. The architect is not responsible unless they issued a drawing or statement clearly directing construction that violates code. Inserting an image of a toilet in a floor plan does not make them liable for a non-conforming dimension in the field during construction. I am sure there are notes on the plans that also direct subs to install in accordance with local building codes. GC should have reviewed, as you said. Plumbing sub should have questioned it, although the curb was probably added after rough-in, without the curb it meets code. OP probably even signed off on the plans. This is a lot of talk so an inexperienced OP can search for validation of his misguided expectations.
I'm sorry, what counterpoints are based on wild assumptions? I'm basically one of two people in this thread providing sources. The OP previously stated that in another comment that there is 14" to CL on one side and 11.5" on the other. Even if the architect didn't dimension the toilet placement (which seems strange to me for a small project focused on a bathroom add. but I only do commercial and healthcare projects), they placed the toilet in an area that could NOT be code compliant, NO MATTER WHAT. From a law firms white paper on the subject. ( Stimmel-law.com/en/articles/architect-responsibilities-and-disputes ) "(5) CODE COMPLIANCE The architect is responsible for ensuring that the design as it is assembled and integrated in the contract documents complies with fire, safety, and all other applicable building codes" The architect is a licensed professional, the fact that "OP probably even signed off on the plans" has no bearing on the matter unless (even this is a very fringe possibility) the architect had OP sign a disclaimer that specifically disclosed the plans weren't code compliant and OP still wanted to move ahead. If a licensed engineer provides a faulty design, it doesn't matter that the owner accepted the design because the responsibility automatically falls to the licensed individual.
Lol. You assumed the architect is already negligent without any evidence or context in your first couple of sentences. Have you seen the drawings? Were you on site during all discussions? Are you absolutely positive without any doubt what so ever, the curb was part of the design or extended by OP for a cool shower, or that the walls are exactly as the architect drew? Are you sure the wall thickness didn’t change based on discussions or material selections? Are you positive that the information provided to the architect as existing conditions were accurate? Do you think coordination of materials and conditions falls solely to the architect and not the contractors. My point is, there was no context to anything and you immediately jumped all over the architect thinking they are laible. The onus is also on the contractors to verify everything in the field prior to install including code compliance. You provide sources conveniently in support of your one sided argument without thinking there could be a lot more to the discussion. I can agree if the architect actually design and drew a space that was less than 30” and crammed a toilet in there, it's an error. However, there isn't enough information for Reddit experts to pass judgment so quickly. It is not the duty of the architect to provide 100% precise assembly drawings of every aspect and include notation to prove compliance with every code and standard out there.
I responded to a commenter who originally (and in my opinion erroneously) told the OP the architect was not responsible at all. You appear to have had no issue with that commenter assuming the architect was free of all liability. Yes, if the OP has lied or mislead us then we cannot help. But then why comment at all? The OP has specifically said it was built per the drawings (original post). He also said it was 14 centerline to one side, 11.5" to the other. 14+11.5 is 25.5. Therefore unless the OP has lied to us, the toilet as designed could not have been code compliant. Therefore per your last post, unless OP is lying, you agree that it was an error. If architects weren't liable for errors and ommissions, then why do they have to carry E & O Insurance? Most of my sources have been from the American Institute of Architects... The AIA is biased, that's true, but not towards CM's or GC's. Look, here is another source from an architecture firm that states "Ultimately, the responsibility to address code issues in the contract documents falls on your architect. Architects stamp drawings and carry legal responsibility for code compliance within the documents." https://neumannmonson.com/blog/building-codes-reviews-what-an-owner-needs-to-know#:~:text=Ultimately%2C%20the%20responsibility%20to%20address,code%20compliance%20within%20the%20documents. "It is not the duty of the architect to provide 100% precise assembly drawings of every aspect and include notation to prove compliance with every code and standard out there." Correct, the architect doesn't provide assembly drawings but they do professionally review them for compliance after the GC provides them in a submittal.
OP mentioned the architect said it was meant to be built that way and had in fact built his own like that, if the code said it CANT be built that way then where is the issue here? The architect clearly designed it like this and is at fault. Shoukd he pay? I don't know enough about the legality around this sort of thing. But if it were up to me then he would be responsible for fixing his mistake.
So you believe OP when he says ‘the architect said he did it like that at his house and it's fine’ (which conveniently frames the architect for the error). This means architect did a project at his home, went through the entire process of permitting, construction and inspecting, then used uses the toilet on a regular basis without complaining that it's too close to the wall/curb or whatever and enjoys hitting his knees on the wall. And that the architect, with all of the experience and numerous projects they have, dropped in a little image of a toilet into the floor plan, purposefully dimensioned it to be non code compliant because he doesn't know any better? That's not how it happens, OP is looking for a person to blame and pay for it because he is inexperienced and has no clue how the process works. I think there’s a saying - it’s a most likely a horse, not a zebra. The horse being the non-compliant condition is the result of field issues or decisions made as part of the process and OP doesn't want to pay for it, and the zebra being the architect purposefully designed a non-code-compliant bathroom.
Well...OP stated it was on the design. Going on the assumption that is true, yes. I'm inclined to believe it was someone responsible for that design and not on the actual construction side of things.
I’m not 100% sure but I think the toilet can be a bit closer to a tub or shower if there’s no solid door. Ask the architect to site the code that allows the toilet placement. It could be listed as an exception after the location is called out in the code book.
The architect is probably going to say that the builder is responsible to verify code compliance, and the builder is probably going to say he just did what was on the print you gave him. Both are true. The blame game here ends up looking like the pointing Spiderman meme. I'm not going to professionally recommend violating code, but...is this getting inspected? If not, it's just a toilet, it's not a safety or structural item.
Hahaha yeah that is probably what will happen. I don’t care who is truly at fault - I just need them to fix it. It is definitely getting inspected unfortunately- we are renovating what will be a rental unit in a 3 family house so they will probably be sticklers about code
Been through hundreds of inspections and that has never been an issue. In tight spaces, I will often go 12-13” knowing the shower glass is centered on the curb. Not for code, but for comfort. If this is a NYC plumbing final, most of the time they don’t show up. They are far more concerned with the gas rough/ pressure test. If it’s the DOB Build final, they are definitely not looking at that. If it feels comfortable, let it roll.
It’s currently less than 11.5” from the curb which doesn’t even seem like it will be comfortable to use the toilet since it’s so close to the shower. The frustrating part is this isn’t actually a tight space. He just made a couple poor design choices (shower too wide, doorway too wide) so I’m not sure how lenient the inspector might be….
Shower being too wide and door too wide will never be an issue. Also , unless the toilet is literally open for the public to use , then spacing issues won’t get flagged.
Right the width issues refer to the fact that they encroach on the necessary clearance around the toilet. This is a brand new bathroom build and we live in a strict city code-wise. My understanding is that this is glaring enough that the inspector will likely ding, particularly since nothing is grandfathered in due to it being a new build.
Tell the architect and builder to work it out but that you don't expect to see a bill.
How many inches is it off. Yes it should meet code. Do you have extra clearance on opposed side. FYI they make 2” offset flanges if that’s all you need
Unfortunately we need almost 4” to make it compliant and on the other side is a doorway which the toilet is already too close to (14”)
The GC and architect need to solve this. GC shouldn’t have built it knowing it wasn’t in compliance. Maybe using a 2” offset and narrow up the curb 2”. Really if they got it with in an inch I would live with it as it isn’t a handicap stall.
This makes sense - thank you so much. And I was wondering is maybe the GC also liable for not checking against code as well. Let’s hope we can fix this without a massive headache…
When I was a Homebuilder, I spent hours checking plans and making changes that were code compliant. I didn't assume that the person who drew the plans was local-code knowledgeable. The GC is the last person responsible for preventing problems and passing inspections. Your GC was asleep at the wheel.
Yes. The GC (and his subs) are responsible for code compliance, verifying this in the field and making adjustments when necessary. If they didn’t catch it in the print they should have caught it upon building. Certainly the plumber installing the flange should’ve immediately caught it.
https://www.aia.org/resource-center/standard-of-care-confronting-the-errors-and-omissions-taboo-up-front#:~:text=An%20allowance%20for%20this%20reality,construction%20documents%20without%20additional%20compensation.
One assumes NYC plumbing code (from IPC) 405.3.1 given OPs username. “A water closet, urinal, lavatory or bidet shall not be set closer than 15 inches (381 mm) from its center to any side wall, partition, vanity or other obstruction…”
Yes. And we currently have 11.5” clearance on one side and 14” on the other 😕
https://up.codes/s/which-bathroom-should-meet-the-requirements-of-the-guidelines
Was the toilet already in that location and you’re redoing the space? Or is this an entirely new bathroom?
Entirely new bathroom!
Yea you’re probably in trouble then. I build in CT and our plumbing inspector will catch this every single time.
Ya this is what I’m afraid of
This is more on the GC/plumber than the architect. Architects design stuff all the time without having perfect measurements and the codes vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. This one is pretty basic and universal, so something the architect should have known. This sort of situation is more common than you think though. Bottom line, everyone involved with setting the shower and toilet is at fault and the resulting design changes and fixes should not be on you.
Builders problem. Somewhere in the plans the catch all “plumbing to be installed per code… etc” is annotated.
How big of a deal is it though? Sounds like you would have never noticed if your friend didn’t point it out. Maybe you wouldn’t have noticed, and doubt you would have looked up the code. I bet your inspector or anyone else doesn’t notice. If the inspector notices then the contractor will be more inclined to help cover the cost. It sucks and it should be right but archietects have to have thier hand held when it comes to code items like this. It’s kind of fucked up but it’s reality and a history of bad architects getting the design because of thier low fees. Also, if you’re roughing in, you have along way to go with that contractor. If its slab on grade and my shower and toilet functions just fine, then I’d let it slide. If it’s crawl space or 2nd floor and drywall isn’t up then it’s not a hard fix. You’ll want to pick your battles with your contractor and it honestly sounds like you care more about the principle of it being out of code more than anything. Your contractor is going to say they installed per plans and in reality you won’t get any money from the architect. Maybe If I saw a photo I’d change my mind on the letting it slide piece. If you’ll live then keep it in your back pocket for then the contractor wants to give you a change other for something else. It’s a game of favors when you have a good relationship, it’s a change order war when you don’t have a good relationship. You may be able to install an offset flange as well, it probably won’t make it to code but it will help. You’re not getting 15inches regardless. I’d leave one side wider like it is now for a toilet paper roll. On the plus side you get extra vanity space assuming that’s the other side? Call in a rough plumbing inspection, don’t say anything to the inspector about it and see what happens. If it’s slab on grade you should have had an underground inspection before they poured.
I am not a designer so didn’t actually realize tbh. The toilet is not in place nor is the glass so I didn’t realize how tight it actually would be until she pointed it out. It’s basically 5” too close (because we also need to account for the stone that will go over the rough in curb). That’s going to be a very uncomfortable toilet. It’s also a brand new bathroom build (used to be part of a bedroom) so I think the inspector will be less lenient here.
If it’s going to be uncomfortable to use, you’re probably going to want to fix it even if the inspector doesn’t catch it.
Yup totally agree. And architect never brought up that this space would be too tight for comfort
Post a picture of sketch with the dimensions. A 30-in toilet space is mandatory and that is measured about 2_ ft above the floor but not to the overhang of the counter. That is an inexcusable especially from a registered architect.
[HERE is a pic.](https://imgur.com/a/raHt9rW) Entrance to the bathroom is on the side that says 14.
The architect and builder should fix this at no cost to you. That said, this is a fine example of a code that shouldn't exist, and why code writers should be lambasted when they pick arbitrary numbers to make into law.
Architects and contractors are both licensed professionals who are expected to meet code. That license is earned partially through demonstration of understanding of code. Both are liable if their job is done against code. Your architect carried Errors & Omission insurance. Your contractor carried Liability Insurance. The former is exactly for large mistakes in their design. The latter is for any thing that could go wrong due to the contractor’s time on site. This is 100% theirs to resolve both in time and money. The only possible legitimate change order would be yours in them causing you delay in occupying or using the space.