Multifamily Residential Development: 419 Issues Including Critical Fire, Egress & Code Violations
A comprehensive plan review of a multifamily residential development uncovered 419 issues—including 35 critical violations affecting fire protection, egress, accessibility, structural design, and extensive document coordination errors—before permit submission.
The Project
A large-scale multifamily residential development requiring comprehensive code compliance across multiple disciplines including fire protection, egress, accessibility, structural design, mechanical systems, plumbing, electrical, and extensive civil/site work. The project required strict adherence to 2021 IBC, 2021 IFC, 2018 IMC, and 2018 IPC standards, with particular focus on fire protection systems, accessible routes, structural integrity, and document coordination across numerous drawing sheets.
Code References:
Critical Findings (28)
Top of Pond Elevation Conflict - Storm Drain G Detention Pond
The Overall Drainage Plan shows the detention pond associated with Storm Line G having TOP OF POND ELEV = 737.50', POND SPILLWAY ELEV = 736.50', and BOTTOM OF POND ELEV = 732.00'. However, the Storm Drain G Plan and Profile shows the same pond with TOP OF POND ELEV = 735.50', POND SPILLWAY ELEV = 736.50', and BOTTOM OF POND ELEV = 732.00'. The top of pond elevation differs by 2.0 feet between drawings. Furthermore, the profile top of pond value (735.50') is physically impossible as it would be 1.0 foot below the spillway elevation (736.50').
Legal Description Conflict: Section Number Mismatch
The Overall Drainage Plan specifies the project location as 'SECTION 35' while the Storm Drain D Profile specifies 'SECTION 33' within the same Township, Range, and County. Both sheets are for the same project.
SW3 Shear Wall: Conflicting Holdown Requirements
The shear wall specification explicitly states that holdowns are not required. However, it also directs the reader to use the 'TYP. MULTI-STORY SHEAR WALL DETAIL' which explicitly depicts a holdown and holdown anchor to the footing. These requirements conflict for SW3 if the detail is intended to be the typical multi-story condition.
Sanitary Sewer Pipe Material Conflict: PVC SDR 26 vs Ductile Iron
The Overall Utility Plan contains a general note specifying that sanitary sewer pipe shall be PVC SDR 26. However, the Sanitary Sewer B Profile shows all sanitary sewer pipe segments as 8" D.I. (Ductile Iron) with various slopes. This is a direct material specification conflict for the same sanitary sewer system.
Maintenance Building Finished Floor Elevation Conflict
The Civil Site Plan shows the Maintenance Building with a finished floor elevation of 746.00 FFE, while the Landscape Plan shows the same building with a finished floor elevation of 745.50 FFE. This represents a 6-inch (0.5 foot) vertical discrepancy for the same structure.
Masonry Veneer Supported on Wood Framing
Detail shows a 'CONTINUOUS BRICK SOLDIER COURSE' being supported by 'CANTILEVERED 2X4'S @ 24" O/C'. This is a direct violation of IBC Section 2104.1.1, which explicitly prohibits masonry from being supported on wood construction.
Non-Compliant Vertical Threshold Offset at Unit to Porch/Breezeway Transitions
The drawing details for floor construction indicate a vertical offset at the threshold between interior units and exterior porches/breezeways. The typical floor/ceiling construction specifies a 3/4" gypcrete topping over 3/4" plywood (1.5" total), while the porch deck and breezeway floor details specify 1 1/2" lightweight concrete over 3/4" subfloor (2.25" total). As the subfloor framing is shown as continuous and level across the wall interface, the exterior floor surface will be 3/4" higher than the interior unit floor.
Sprinkler Room Access Through Dwelling Unit Violates Ready Access Requirement
The 1st floor plan explicitly notes 'SPRINKLER ROOM ACCESS FROM UNIT' at both ends of the building. This indicates that access to the automatic sprinkler system riser room requires passage through a private dwelling unit. Section 902.1.1 requires that automatic sprinkler system risers shall be provided with ready access. Access through a private dwelling unit does not constitute ready access because the unit may be locked, occupied, or inaccessible when fire department personnel or maintenance staff require entry.
Sprinkler Room Access Through Dwelling Units Does Not Provide Required Immediate Access
The 1st Floor Plan explicitly notes 'NOTE: SPRINKLER ROOM ACCESS FROM UNIT' at both ends of the building. Section 509.2 requires that access 'shall be provided and maintained for all fire protection system equipment to permit immediate safe operation and maintenance of such equipment' and that equipment be 'readily accessible.' Access routed through a private dwelling unit cannot satisfy the requirement for immediate access, as entry would require coordination with or permission from residents who may not be present.
Inadequate Fire-Resistance Rating for Exterior Bearing Wall
The drawing specifies a 1-hour fire-resistance-rated floor/ceiling assembly referencing UL Design L550 and a 1-hour roof assembly referencing UL Design P556. According to IBC Section 711.2.3, the construction supporting a horizontal assembly must be protected to afford the same fire-resistance rating as the assembly it supports. The exterior bearing wall shown in the section is the supporting construction for these 1-hour assemblies, yet the exterior wall construction specifies only a single layer of 1/2-inch regular gypsum board on the interior face. A single layer of 1/2-inch regular gypsum board on wood studs does not provide the required 1-hour fire-resistance rating.
Missing Accessible Route (Elevator) to Second Floor
The building is a two-story Residential Group R-2 occupancy. The floor area of approximately 12,660 sq. ft. exceeds the 3,000 sq. ft. threshold for the accessible route exception. Additionally, the building contains more than four dwelling units. Per IBC 1104.4, an accessible route must connect each story. The drawing shows two staircases as the only means of vertical circulation, with no elevator, ramp, or lift provided to reach the second floor.
Flashing Slope at 110 Degrees Prevents Required Drainage
Detail 10 (Inside Corner) specifies 'SLOPE FLASHING AT 110 DEGREES AT HORIZONTAL.' A 110-degree angle from horizontal positions the flashing surface 20 degrees past vertical, angling back toward the wall. This orientation would cause water to flow toward the building rather than draining away from it, directly contradicting the code requirement that the exterior wall envelope prevent water accumulation and provide a means for draining water to the exterior.
Incorrect Chemical Abbreviation for Nitrous Oxide Medical Gas
The drawing legend identifies 'NO' as the abbreviation for 'NITROUS OXIDE' for both the piping system and the wall outlets. Per 2021 IFC Section 5306.5, medical gas systems must be labeled in accordance with NFPA 99. The chemical symbol for Nitrous Oxide is N2O. Use of 'NO' is specifically reserved for Nitric Oxide, which is a highly toxic gas.
Omission of Required Hot Water Supply System to Dwelling Units
The plumbing plans for the 2nd and 3rd floors exclusively specify and show the distribution of Domestic Cold Water (CW) to the apartment units. Per IPC Section 607.1, hot water must be supplied to all plumbing fixtures in residential occupancies used for bathing, washing, culinary purposes, and laundry. The drawings fail to show any Hot Water (HW) distribution piping or the installation of water heating equipment required for these dwelling units.
Prohibited Louvered Opening in Fire-Rated Unit Entry Door
Details contain a note specifying a 'RECIRC. VENT IN BOTTOM OF DOOR' for the main unit entry doors. These doors are located in walls identified as 'UNIT SEPARATION' walls requiring fire-resistance-rated construction. According to IBC Section 1020.2 and Table 1020.2, corridors in Group R occupancies must be fire-resistance rated. A louvered vent in the bottom of an entry door breaches the fire-resistance and smoke-control integrity required for doors opening into rated corridors.
Sample High Priority Findings (7 Total)
Conflicting Duct Sizing Notes Between M1.0 and M2.0
M1.0 Mechanical General Note 5 states that duct sizes shown are sheet metal dimensions and that duct sizes are not required to be increased to account for liner. However, M2.0 General Note 5 states that sizes of plans have been shown to include duct liner. M2.0 General Note 1 directs to refer to M1.0 notes for all systems, yet these duct sizing statements appear to conflict.
WH-3 Water Heater Schedule References Drawing but WH-3 Not Shown
The instantaneous water heater schedule shows WH-3 with LOCATION 'COMMUNITY' and REFERENCE DRAWING/DETAIL. However, the referenced drawing only shows water heater WH-2 - WH-3 is not shown anywhere on the drawing. Additionally, the schedule location 'COMMUNITY' does not correspond to the building shown.
Exterior Wall Interior Gypsum Board Thickness Conflict
Wall Note 3 on one sheet specifies all exterior walls be covered with 5/8" Type X gypsum board at the interior. However, the wall sections specify 1/2" gypsum board as the interior finish for exterior walls. This is a direct conflict in the specified gypsum board thickness and type for exterior walls.
Cross-Reference Mismatch: Detail Referenced for Handrail Shows Wall Assembly Instead
Sheet references detail for a steel handrail in the Top Floor Handrail Extension Detail. However, the referenced detail is titled '1-HOUR UNIT SEPARATION WALL DRAFTSTOP' and shows fire-rated wall assembly construction with draftstopping, not handrail details.
Roofing Material Specification Conflict: Standing Seam Panels vs Metal Shingles
The Roof Vent Detail specifies 'STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF PANELS' and explicitly references the wall sections for additional information. However, Wall Section specifies 'METAL SHINGLES' as the roofing material. Standing seam metal panels and metal shingles are distinctly different roofing products with different profiles, interlocking mechanisms, and installation methods.
Value Delivered
"Finding 419 issues before permit submission prevented months of delays and costly rework. The fire protection access violations, missing accessible routes, and structural conflicts alone would have failed inspection. The extensive document coordination errors would have caused major field coordination problems and change orders during construction."
— Project Team