Hi, I’m a non-builder looking at a very tiny fixer-upper house. Because it is so small, I’m investigating what it would take to make the attic into a bedroom. I need help determining whether there is room to put stairs to the loft bedroom that meet code, however. I believe the ceiling is just a little over 7 feet high if that. The space for stairs is about 7.5 feet long and about 5 feet wide. (The whole bedroom is 7.5′ by 9′, but it would be really awkward to take up any more space then I said. Even at that, less space is better.
I understand that you must have stairs that are 3′ wide with about a 7.5″ rise on each step and a tread of about 10.5″ deep. I would need to make the stairs pretty steep to fit into the 7.5′ run, but I don’t know how steep you can be and still meet code. Or, do you just make stairs that do not meet code and only “use the room for storage? (Note, the only other place for a bed would be in the bedroom where the stairs are or the living room (not my choice).
I just need to know what my limitations would be with this house given the space.
Thank you for any help you can provide!
Replies
Get someone over there to take a look.
The ceiling height to figure stairs is not the crucial number (except for headroom). You'll need the distance from finished floor (down) to finished floor (up) to get the total rise of these stairs. It should probably fall in the 11-12 risers, so you'll need about 10 ft minimum of space to put these stairs.
Passing under an obstruction within the stair well, you'll need 80" measured vertically from the nose of the tread to the ceiling, header or whatever.
Presuming there's perhaps rafters above in that "attic", you'll need to avoid them with the above obstuction number.
If you decide to deviate from code approved-be carefull. I've lived in a couple old places where you could go up the stairs no problem-coming down, you had to go sideways because of the less than deep tread depth and the steepness of the rise.
Thank you for getting back to me. As I've researched through the night, I found a piece of information that said you can use steeper stairs for attics or lofts that are less than 200 square feet in most place. Also, after really thinking about the house, I found a way to open up the area above the living room and put a tiny karina stair in a corner. This would leave the ground floor bedroom untouched and it would put the stairs right under the peak of the roof so there would be plenty of headroom as one enters the attic space. It would enable me to use the attic space as storage and office space and it might offer a little character to the house as well.
One more thing
This space-if used for a bedroom-would need another approved means of egress. This to both satisfy code and to ensure your safety.
What code requires is not an issue at all if you don't get a permit. There are millions of houses in the US with non-code compliant stairs. FH has featured houses with ladders to bedroom lofts. I built a 3 story for a guy once that had to have stupid stairs to meet code. As soon as we got the final and the customer tore out the stairs and built new ones that didn't meet code but met his needs.
This can be a real nightmare
That kind of off the book mod can result in a real nightmare.
The insurance company can cancel his policy in a heart beat, and could use it to deny any claims against the policy if they don't.
Plus, it will be nearly impossible to legally sell in most jurisdictions. How do you disclose that you made a noncode modification after the final inspection, and expect any buyer to get underwriting for a new loan. If you disclose it kills the sale. If you don't and they find out later, it's fraud.
Can you point to any cases such as you cite? Do you know of anyome whos insurance was cancelled because the old stairs don't meet current code? I don't. So all those older homes built in the last 100 years thta don't meet code can't be sold now? We're talking real life here, people do things thta don't meet the new codes every day in theor own homes. I happen to be a builder who believes it's none of anyone elses business what I do to my own home. If I make changes that make the home unsafe then no one will buy it, otherwise I assume adults can make adult decisions about what is safe for themselves and their own familes.
It's no more a "legal nightmare" than having an older home with non-code windows, doors, electrical or any of a thousand other things.
Everyone wants to sue everyone over anything and you'd recommend building non-code compliant stairs? Good luck with that one! lol!
Honestly if someone in my family fell down some stairs and were injured I'd not have a hard time finding an agressive attorney to sue the builder who knowingly built non-compliant stairs, the realtor who knew they were concealing this from be prior to purchase, the previous owner who had the work done without a permit, and probably also the carpenter who actually did the work knowing it was illegal/unpermitted/unsafe.
Unless they are a total idiot the realtor will have plausible deniability since they get signatures that there's been full disclosure on any unsafe conditions. The carpenter is probably judgement proof since he won't have any assets, or is about bankrupt so I'm far down the list of guys who will get money from him. The builder may or may not have any assets, but my attorny will chase down as much money as possible from him and the guy who bought the house to flip now finds out that in his rush to squeeze in another bedroom it just cost him the value of the flip, all his toys, and half his regular paycheck for the next 50 years!
Get a good attorney to structure your assests so you're judgement proof and then build the stairs however you want. If you think I'm kidding just have an informal sitdown with a lawyer to describe it in more detail.
Oh and that liability insurance you have won't cover gross negligence, which it would be to knowingly build stairs outside of the commonly accepted guidelines. In some states gross negligence makes you personally liable even if your company is incorporated so you're putting your livelihood at risk.
How do I know this? Many of my clients are attorneys! lol
But we aren't talking about a builder here are we? We also aren't talking about a builder or a carpenter are we? We're talking about a homeowner who wants to make use of unusable space in his home. I've been in plenty of new houses with legal spiral stairs that were truely dangerous they were so steep. I've seen houses with stairs to sleeping lofts. I've been in lots of yachts with narrow, steep stairs with turns, try that while the boat is underway! What about all the old homes with back staircases thta have 6 inch treads and 10 or 12 inch risers? Those are all legal.
I think you'd have more trouble winning a lawsuit than you think if you fell down stairs in a home you owned, had had inspected, had received a mortgage on and had homeowners on. What would be your complaint, you didn't know the stairs were there? Nobody noticed they were steep? How would you prove the previous homeowner had built them?
How do I know this? Many of my friends and children are attorneys! Lol
If this is a homeowner doing this on their own house then they accept the liability and probably nothing will come of it. On the other hand I get a feeling that this house is being flipped, and that's the reaon to make it into something it's not. If a homeowner is doing the work they are still acting as the gc and carpenter - the city still requires the work to be done right. If they choose not to get permits and to not do the work safely nobody will know - until it's sold. If they lie and say they didn't do the work guess what happens when that's found out?
If you're a homeowner/house flipper you won't be incorporated or have other risk managment techniques in place so how much of your personal assets can you afford to lose?
So ask your children and friends what they'd do if someone was paralyzed falling down stairs that the original homeowner built without permits and knew didn't meet safety codes, and purposely concealed this fact to the realtor and buyer so the house would sell. You would honestly be ok being on the wrong end of that lawsuit?
So very very sad
Who decides if it is safe to cross a street? I do
Who decides if it is safe to take a walk on icey streets? I do.
Who decides if it is safe to go rock climbing? I do. And if I fall, who do I sue?
Who decides if it is safe to climb a ladder to a loft space? The one to climb the stairs. Are we not all capable of determining our physical abilities? Are we not all capable of knowing our limitations?
So pathetic. And we all buy this sue sue sue mentality and justice. Very sad.
We deserve an 1984 state.
No accusaiton to you, Don, just a commentary.
ok
I'm off early and come here to spew nonsense.
Your world is the ideal not the reality.
If there were no codes nor enforcement we would be in deep shit.
I have been in this trade now over 40 years and have uncovered, seen, testified as a witness in court, been paid for qualified consulting. If we left it up to the unregulated builder-be it homowner of hack, there's a real good chance there'd be serious injury way more often than not as result of their construction.
Your panacea while perfect in idea cannot possibly fly in the existing world.
Something as simple as the "no greater than 3/8'ths difference in rise or run on a stair" could turn out to be catastrophic.
In reality, do you really believe in what you wrote?
I had decided to stay out of this fray, but I'm going to support your thoughts with another example: plumbing.
What people do to the plumbing in their own homes can put their neighbors at risk--even lethally--if they are on a community or municipal well. (Never mind that that they might harm themselves or their own families.)
Unregulated building practices can also greatly increase fire hazards to neigboring houses and to firefighters.
Of course, examples can be cited that show excesses in code requirements, or situations where codes don't always adequately address special needs or practical difficulties, but that is not a valid reason to abolish codes and let builders and homeowners do as they see fit.
And, the arguments will also extend to the question of just where should the codes draw the line between safety and pracicality; that is, when does the cost outweigh the safety advantages? I don't accept that anybody truly believes the oft-repeated "the cost is worth it, even if it only saves one life." If we believed that, stairs of any kind would be outlawed since falls on stairs are one of the most common causes of death by in-home accidents.
no fray yet......
And I thank you for further backing up the need for codes and enforcement.
I also certainly agree with your assessment of excesses and practicality.
What concerns me the most are the unseen or unrecognized problems that could harm a resident and as you suggest-others in the community. These might not be uncovered or even investigated by a potential buyer and so the problems carry on. Sure, your tough luck if your in the boonies and the place fails or catches fire. Maybe only you or your family is hurt.
But, I've worked on many "first house on the blocks" that became a neighborhood after 20 yrs.
And once it's covered up, god knows the common person isn't going to have the background nor the hint to take a real good look at things that matter.
I'm all for individual rights, but this isn't the frontier any more.
That is fine
That is why one would have THE FREEDM TO NOT BUY THAT uninspected home. As I said, I suspect 99% of houses built would opt to be inspected and theref ore code compliant, just for resale value PERIOD. But an individual (you might call them foolish or an idiot) should have the right to build whatever he wishes to what ever standard he wishings. As I said, let Darwin take care of it.
As to the point of issue which might impact a neighbor, of course! This is always a tenant, I might add obvious tenant, of freedom. Although I am not sure a community well is an example, Even city water systems do not require anti-siphon controls since each home is under positive presure. Free hazards? Duh.
Let Freedom Ring
DoRight wrote:
That is why one would have THE FREEDM TO NOT BUY THAT uninspected home. As I said, I suspect 99% of houses built would opt to be inspected and theref ore code compliant, just for resale value PERIOD. But an individual (you might call them foolish or an idiot) should have the right to build whatever he wishes to what ever standard he wishings. As I said, let Darwin take care of it.
As to the point of issue which might impact a neighbor, of course! This is always a tenant, I might add obvious tenant, of freedom. Although I am not sure a community well is an example, Even city water systems do not require anti-siphon controls since each home is under positive presure. Free hazards? Duh.
Backflow preventers on the water meter George Washington.
none where we live
None wehere we live.
But again, apparantly people are incapable of reading at a third grade level. I said no one has a rigth or a freedom to do anything which can harm a neighbor. I said OF COURSE there are law to prevent this. But alas people are incapable of read and or just wish to be butts. Which? Don't know.
As for codes being necessary. I am buiilding in a county with no building department, no codes and no inspections. In the county are thousand so multi-million dollar homes as well as average family homes. They are not collapsing under 100 pound snow loads, are not burning down, flooding, etc. How can this possibley be. I realize this is hard to phathom for people who need a permit as well as instructions to wip ... I mean change a toilet paper roll. But it is a reality.
But even at this, it still would come down to a choice or freedom to buy inspected homes or one which is not. But again for people used to their mother tucking them in and aliving in nanny state itis unthinkable. Sad but true.
do
Do me a favor-
find a youtube clip of Louis Black.
he pretty much sums up my reply to you.
thanks.
Great example! The county forced all new meter hookups to install backflows starting about 10 years ago. That included meter replacements too. We had to install one one a rental unit we owned. Costs us over $900.00 then had to pay $150.00 to get it inspected. That was 10 years ago and no one has looked at it since. All the plumbers who thought they were going ot get rich inspecting backflows are back to doing repairs. The citizens are out millions for nothing at all.
Thanks
Appreciate the comment.
One question tho, of all the wrong things with this country and it's codes and rules etc, are there any that you approve of?
Do you see any situation where we do need laws, codes, guidelines?
Come on Calvin, you're starting to sound like Dan.
Of course we need laws and I never said or implied anything that said otherwise.
But, no, I don't think we need building codes and many places in the US still don't have them. Every bridge that collapses in America was designed by engineers and minutely inspected and yet they still fail. Dams that took teams of engineers years to plan and contractors more years ot build fail in spite of inspectors all over the place. Why do you think a guy who doesn't have a contractors license is more qualofied than you to determine if what you are building is safe?
Codes make buildings more expensive and put houses out of the reach of many people. The new law requiring fire sprinklers in every new house is a great case in point. Around here that adds $5,000.00 minimum to the house price. it may be a good idea or not but 2 or 3 "good" ideas like that price people out of homes. I don't see where the state has any interest in whether my house burns down or not.
Fla.
Now that hurt.
But, I do believe we need codes, if not for us that have been doing this (right?) for all these yrs, then for those that don't have a stink'n clue.
Admittedly there are excesses, and the fire suppression you mention could be one. I believe that it has been tempered in upcoming code changes and remember, local variations do exist.
As far as not caring if the house burns down, not too long ago on the point in NY, blocks burnt down presumably from one house. So yes, they do care.
Condo's, apts. and these only 2 story with a few units. 4 units went up in our town on one windy night.
Dams and the other stuff, well-I admit there's been failures, but I won't believe that there wouldn't be more with no laws, codes and controls.
So I don't think your extremes trump mine.
I hope it's not an extreme position. Just for the record I pull permits all the time and encourage my customers that it's fpr their own protection.
But let's take an example of building a house in the woods. There are no other houses within a mile and all the land betwen me and them belongs to me. Why should the state have any interest in my house at all beyond tax revenue?
I don't want a sprinkler system.
I don't want temperature sensing valves on my showers.
I don't want balusters 4 inches apart.
I don't want a comfort height toilet
I don't want insulation in my walls
I have a well, why am I required to install a backflow device?
The list goes on and on. My insurance company may have requirements and i don't have a problem with that but what business is it of anyone elses?
I thnk the problem is that once a buracracy is established the normal course is to expand its mandate and power. That's what I see in building departments.
I could point out about 100 homes in this county that were "out in the woods" 40 years ago but which are now shoulder-to-shoulder with other homes.
So what? The USA is covered with millions of homes that don't meet the most rudimentry code. that includes houses in cities as well as the suburbs. .
I have no problem with your proposition, as long as you can ensure one thing - you burn it to the ground so no one who is NOT as expert at living in the house you built lives there after you move out. Building codes don't protect you, they protect everyone else in the community who will live there for the next 100 years.
Actually, you can pretty much buy that house already at WalMart... they stock them near the fishing gear and bikes!
Yeah, but they have to be off the ice by March 15.
I disagree, I don't hink codes provide much protecyion for anyone. But even if they did why is it any business of the state? Is there a code for selling your used car? What if you've done some shade tree mechanical work that creates problems down the line? What about the tens of millions of older homes that don't meet codes? Who protects the people who buy those houses? Do you have pressure balancing valves in your showers? If youdon't will you make sure you change them before you sell? Will you bring your house up to the new codes? No? Who will protect the people who buy your house?
There is "code" for new cars,
There is "code" for new cars, and all used cars were once new.
No, there is no code for cars. There are Federal laws that affect certain aspects of cars but not the whole car. Florida has no car inspections of any kind.
But all houses were new once too. . Once again, so what?
The federal laws and regulations governing cars are quite extensive, covering safety features, lighting, pollution, gas mileage, such things as the height of bumpers, et al. Many states mirror the federal laws, but likely don't put a lot of effort into it since the federal regulations are so comprehensive. On a dollar-for-dollar basis I'll bet there are more regulations on cars than on houses.
Right on Brother
Hey Florida. I agree wholeheartedly with you. As a FYI, here in communist Illinois, many of the small subruban building departments are requiring code inspections when you sell. As a way to both generate income for the municipality, and to visually snoop on what type of building you have so your tax records can be updated.... we all must pay our fair share you know. Also I am hearing that the code deficient items WILL have to be brought up to current code within some agreed upon timeframe. How this works is once the original owner has sold the house, there is no more "grandfather" rights. I see any time "legal" issues are discussed, there is much interest from the audience. Too bad that our focus cannot be on just improving our craft, instead of worrying about staying away from the legal system. Our great country was built on the premise of individual freedom, not a gigantic bureaucracy.
If the backflow preventer was installed and inspected, why would it need to be reinspected?
And why would you think installing backflow valves was going to make plumbers rich?
And how are the citizens "out millions"? Do you know how many backflow events have been prevented?
Let's see, maybe it's because the law they passed requiring backflow preventers said they had to have an annual inspection?
I didn't think that, the plumbers did, lots of them.
The citizens,.like me, had to spring for large chunks of money for devices that didn't do anything that the check valves they replaced didn't already do. . I had shopping centers where the bill was in the hundreds of thousands. That was to replace the code manadated backflows that were already in place.
No, I don't know how many of any backflow events have been stopped do you? I do know that since the backflow devices we had to install are fairly complicated no one has any idea whether they work or don't work because no one is paying to have them inspected.
"As to the point of issue
"As to the point of issue which might impact a neighbor, of course! This is always a tenant, I might add obvious tenant, of freedom. Although I am not sure a community well is an example, Even city water systems do not require anti-siphon controls since each home is under positive presure. Free hazards? Duh."
Your statement about each home being under positive pressure shows that you are under the very same misconception that can lead to unintentional contamination of the water system when untrained people do plumbing: No water system is immune to accidental negative pressures that cause backflow. It happens during power outages, or when fire trucks pump down the system, or when water mains break, or for a host of other reasons.
And an anti-siphon device for the home's main water supply line is not actually needed if every water outlet in the house is protected against backflow, which is exactly what modern plumbing codes require, and what plumbing inspectors check for.
And, while I think all here on this forum agree with you that our society needs more emphasis on personal responsibility, community life requires rules and enforcement. Sometimes the rules go too far and become extreme, but the opposite extreme is no answer, either.
An interesting little incident, having absolutely nothing to do with stairs:
My wife heard a noise downstairs one afternoon and went to investigate. By the time she got there the noise had stopped, but water was sprayed all over the utility room. No active leak was seen.
I got home maybe 15 minutes later and investigated further. The water (perhaps a gallon or two) had apparently originated in a spray from the stem packing of the cold water shutoff behind the washer. This valve had not been operated in probably 10 years, and, on inspection, no problem with it could be found. It was not leaking, and operating it caused no leaks.
A couple of weeks later: It was (past) time to replace the "whole house" water filter, so I went into the utility room, shut off the main water supply, drained the pipes a bit, and unscrewed the filter housing.
Inside was a mess. It was filled with some brown/black gunk. (Our water is pretty rusty and sometimes a bit muddy, but not THAT bad.) Got some newspaper and dumped the mess out onto it on the floor.
Then I examined the filter. It was a charcoal-filled filter, and the side had split open. This is where the gunk came from -- charcoal from the filter. But here's the thing: It took a substantial BACKWARDS flow of water to split the filter open that way.
Then I put 2 & 27 together: When the spraying incident occurred, it was probably preceeded by a backflow event. A vacuum was drawn in the house's water lines (there is no backflow valve on the service entrance), and the "weakest link" was the packing of the cold water shutoff valve behind the washer. Air was drawn in there, allowing enough flow to rupture the filter (likely air actually flowed into the filter). Then, when the water pressure came back, all that air and a fair amount of water blew out through the packing before it re-sealed itself.
So, backflow happens.
"Backflow happens"
Your
"Backflow happens"
Your experience (blowing out the filter) is a new one on me, but it shows how it can happen, and it shows how hard it might be to know when backflow has actually happened.
Years ago, Boeing in Seattle had one of the most spectacular backflow incidents ever: I don't remember the exact details of the piping arrangement at the time, but the bottom line was that, during a fire-pumping incident, jet fuel was sucked into the water main and sprayed over the fire.
Afterward, the solution for a "device" to prevent backflow was to make a barometric loop, about 40 feet high--high enough to prevent backsiphonage under any condition of negative pressure on the line.
To my knowledge, the largest liability claim ever paid out was for a similar incident. A plant using Hexane had a leak. hexane has a neat property in that it is a gas that is heavier than air so as it leaks out, it seeks the lowest point...and what is always the lowest point? A drain ...in this case connected to a sewer. the Hexane leak went undetected for some time until it finally found an ignition source. The hexane combined with the sewer gas was a pretty explosive combination. Destroyed a significant portion of the towns sewer system sprayed water in various states from toilets and provided an unexpected enema to several poor souls minding their own business doing their business.
That sounds like the Louisville explosion ca 1973.
Gee, ...
Gee, someone on this board insisted that ALL houses have backflow preventers. Hmm, they must be wrong or you are very confused. Maybe the white glue failed. Interesting, all of it. LOL.
Yes I do beleive it
What part of having an optional inspection system is so hard to phathom (spelling?)? If you don't want to by a house not inspected and of unknow quality don't buy it.
Does your mommy tuck you in at night so you don't fall out of bed? Seriously, is there any personal responsibility left. Do people need a boy scout to walk them accross a street? If not why not?
This really is not that complicated. It is not going to happen for alot of reasons, but mostly because we as a people have decided to abdcate (spelling?) our freedoms in exchange for what we beleive to be security. those that do deserve neither.
Leave free to disagree as it is clear you do.
But what I suggest worked for years. If it does not today let Darwin handle it.
Listen......
What I'm saying is, you are wrong.
And no need to bring my deceased mother into this either.
You wanna try to raise my father from the grave too?
The house is built.
Was lived in for 20 yrs.
You think a house inspector is going to know the frame?
or any of the other rough?
He can't see any of it.
Well?
If all you're worried about is the roof, a leaking chimney flashing, an outlet that doesn't work...........a double tap............. slow drain, ..............perhaps if you're lucky and he does a thorough inspection-you find the rot.
So yeah, perfect world................sure thing.
reality?
no way.
"Your world is the ideal not
"Your world is the ideal not the reality."
"Ideal" isn't the term I'd use -- "nightmare" is closer.
What you say is true, but ...
What you say is true in our society, in the system in place today. No doubt.
But it is interesting to think about my last post. If there were no code requirements then no one could sue anyone over such things. We would live in a non-nanny-state where people are big girls and boys and decide for themselves if climbing stairs are safe for them or not.
We build these systems in order to create criminals and feed lawyers.
Who is John Galt?
Amen Florida.
Who is John Galt?
Codes are fine, but I do not believe anyone should be required to build to them. People gasp at the thought, but really, what is the problem. You have codes, communities offer the option to have inspectors inspect and certify compliance. Then when a home is sould it can be shown to be code compliant, if that is important to a buyer. If someone buiilt a house and it was not inspected then a potential buyer would know this and chose to buy it or not. My guess is that the vast majority of houses would be built to code and inspected just to increase marketibility. But in a free society (of course I ask anyone to show me one of those) anyone should be allowed to build whatever they want to any standard they want.
Florida
i can give you an example about the insurance aspect..
the homeowner redoes the stairs after the final inspection ( happens more often than a lot of people think )
a casual visitor falls and injures themselves .. maybe thru no fault of the stairs..... but it happens anyways
the casual visitor files suit againt the homeowner
the homeowner's insurance company sends out a claims adjuster..
he recommends denying the claim and canceling the insurance
the injured party's lawyer sues YOU as a third party defendent..
you contact your insurance company to defend yourself ...
the whole thing turns into a big sh*d ball
not a good idea to ignore code or encourage others to ignore it
Okay, so let me see if I have this right. You have never done anything in your own home or that of a customer that needed
a permit you didn't get? Never changed a shower or tub valve? Never built a deck, installed a new window or door? You've never changed an outlet of added a circuit?
Around here any work over $100.00 in value needs a permit. if I or anyone else pulled permits on all the work we do we'de have to double our prices.
if a permit is required
i get one..
the short term gain is not worth the long term risk
the risk might be legal..
it might be the homeowner becomes disgruntled
it might be a question of trust with the building inspector..
who does he have to keep an eye on.. and who can he take at their word ?
BI's usually stick around for about 20 years..
i'm working with the third one so far, in my career.
if your prices reflect YOU not getting a permit.. then you are not running a legitimate business
your prices should reflect everything a legitimate business has in direct and indirect costing
do you have a business ?
or is it just an expensive hobby ?
really ?
does your business plan include working without permits ?
Sure you do. I believe you. Really,
Permits Required
Over here, you need to pull a permit to change a door knob or replace a pane of glass..... It is getting really old.
jerry
Really?
Can you point to something in print regarding this requirement?
thanks.
You could also approach your local building official with a design for an alternating-step stairway, which is what I did to provide access to our wine cellar.
In our case, the stairwell was only 7 feet long, and the drop was also 7 feet. By using alternate-step stairs, I was able to have a 3-foot landing at the bottom and still have each step be only 7-1/2" high with an 11" tread. The stairs have a handrail on each side, and are very secure-feeling in use.
Building officials usually have the authority to accept alternate materials/methods that deviate from the letter of the code if they are convinced that the alternate will still provide safety, durability, etc.
Alternating-step stairs have been used in ships and homes for many decades.
What if there is an outside compliant staircase
My situation is this.
I have a smallish log home in the mountains. There is a circular staircase that i assume meets code to the second floor. The circular staircase eats up quite a large chunk of the downstairs living room. (poor disign) My tow questions are:
1. If I move the circular stair case to the outside and put a deck off the loft would that make the space compliant.
2. Then I would build a steep or alternating stair case near the wall from the interior side. Rise is 9 feet run is 8 feet
Would this meet code?
Thanks
Greg
There's lots of variations in stair codes, and lots of differences in how they will be interpreted by your AHJ.
However, in most jurisdictions it's going to be hard to get a rise/run greater than 1:1 approved.
Couldn't you make a small addition on the side of the house that only houses the stairs?
Log Cabin
Not sure a small addition could be done aesthetically.
It is not necessary to meet old stairs with the current code; every one must be free what he wants to do with his house.
Hello - It really depends on your city's local zoning codes. You haven't stated where you are located so it is tough to tell. When I was remodeling my house, I was told the rules are less restrictive when it comes to the interior of your home. Of course, if your new stairs have something to do with the foundation of your home or you plan on building an outdoor spiral staircase, then you should be sure. Since you have a small space, I think a spiral staircase would be best. I have a weird space right above my second floor bedroom that I turned into a small office space and the spiral stairs really bring the floors together. My stairs were spam link removed. They seem to have many resources on stairs, so it could help! Good luck
mak
Zoning laws?
rules less restrictive on the interior of your house?
Go try to sell your spam somewhere else-
Link Removed from above.