Thread: Toilet clearance

New home, toilet room is 31" wide, toilet is 13" to center on one side.
I'm beating myself up on this for not addressing this..
Would you write it up?

Similar Threads:

• Propane regulator clearance
• Gas Fireplace Chimney Clearance
• Toilet position
• insualation clearance from draft hood
• Who needs 6" of clearance for single wall

"Would you write it up?"

You betcha.

Depends on the width of my clients posterior?

I wrote up some which were 14-1/2" just the other day ... plan specified 16".

I wrote up some which were 14-1/2" just the other day

Anything under 15'' gets written up. A little under 15" is pretty common when room's are tight...still not right.

Another one on a new home 1.5 yrs later.
Todays toilet was 12" from the wall 20" to the sink.

The only thing I found is the 30" wide clearance.
Is there anything that states 15" from the wall?
The customer is concerned about large guests being able to use the potty.
I got a feeling since this home has a PT slab the builder is going to do a lot of talking with no action, unless I can come up with something the customer can take to the city bld inspector

Dan,

Did you look at Jerry M's posted diagram above?

Originally Posted by Dan Harris

Another one on a new home 1.5 yrs later.
Todays toilet was 12" from the wall 20" to the sink.

The only thing I found is the 30" wide clearance.
Is there anything that states 15" from the wall?

It is required to have at least 15" to each side from the center of the toilet to the first obstruction (wall, cabinet, pipes, shower door, tub, etc.)

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

It is required to have at least 15" to each side from the center of the toilet to the first obstruction (wall, cabinet, pipes, shower door, tub, etc.)

THANKS! I was just getting ready to spell check, and finish the report.

they could use an offset closet ring and pherhaps meet code?

Maybe it was a 12" rough toilet that they just set the wrong direction,,lol

It's a high handicap toilet. I believe it's the same width as a regular toilet.
The customers 93 Year old aunt could not use it.

Would you consider this one to close to the vanity cabinet?

rick

Originally Posted by Rick Hurst

Would you consider this one to close to the vanity cabinet?

rick

I would not.

Originally Posted by Rick Hurst

Would you consider this one to close to the vanity cabinet?

If I put my tape measure down across the toilet to the vanity and the 15" mark went past center of the toilet ... yep, I sure would consider it too close ...

By the way, those photos like that are MUCH better when you photo the tape measure showing the 15" is over by the right seat hinge bolt ...

Now if that was a pedestal sink in the same location that hung out as far as that vanity would you write it up?

Originally Posted by David Bell

Now if that was a pedestal sink in the same location that hung out as far as that vanity would you write it up?

.Yes.

Originally Posted by Rick Hurst

Would you consider this one too close to the vanity cabinet?

rick

No, the cabinet is too close to the toilet.

Originally Posted by John Kogel

No, the cabinet is too close to the toilet.

Well ... the toilet WAS 'there first'.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

If I put my tape measure down across the toilet to the vanity and the 15" mark went past center of the toilet ... yep, I sure would consider it too close ...

Jerry, when you say yep it's too close, is that yes for a resale, and a new home inspection, or just for a new home or code inspection?

Originally Posted by Dan Harris

New home, toilet room is 31" wide, toilet is 13" to center on one side.
I'm beating myself up on this for not addressing this..
Would you write it up?

If it were a new house without a COA issued I'd mention it. If it were an older house with a newer toilet or vanity I'd write something to the affect, "Remodeling has taken place in the home which does not appear to meet current standards. I suggest verifying the remodeling and permit history with the sellers and / or local code jurisdiction."

I do it that way because I'm not a code enforcement official, I'm a home inspector. If the local authority wants to allow it they can.

Here's another one. This is a crappy thread isn't it?

Have to have some skills to back a big rig into that stall!

Originally Posted by Dan Harris

Jerry, when you say yep it's too close, is that yes for a resale, and a new home inspection, or just for a new home or code inspection?

Dan,

All the above.

I am new to this forum so please be patient if I am repeaing old questions that have been answered. ANyway, would you write up a TP holder encroaching in the 15" space? Or a counter top if the side obstruction was a cabinet 15" from the centerline of the toilet - but the tile counter hung over the cabinet 1 inch? BTW - cabinet is 36" high. How about baseboard at floor or crown moulding at ceiling.

"I am new to this forum"
Good to have you here.

" so please be patient if I am repeaing old questions that have been answered."
Not a problem
" ANyway, would you write up a TP holder encroaching in the 15" space?"
I would not. TP holders can be easily moved if needed.
Or a counter top if the side obstruction was a cabinet 15" from the centerline of the toilet - but the tile counter hung over the cabinet 1 inch? "
Most likely I would not, but you would be accurate if you did.
How about baseboard at floor"
No.
" or crown moulding at ceiling."
No

Thank you for your quick answer. Do you know when "15 inch to center of water closet" was added to the Plumbing Code. Section 2904 of the 1997 Building Code (which was in effect when the house was built) simply states "The water closet stool in all occupancies shall be located in a clear space not less than 30 inches in width"

Originally Posted by Daniel MacBeth

Thank you for your quick answer. Do you know when "15 inch to center of water closet" was added to the Plumbing Code. Section 2904 of the 1997 Building Code (which was in effect when the house was built) simply states "The water closet stool in all occupancies shall be located in a clear space not less than 30 inches in width"

From the 1994 Standard Plumbing Code, which was from SBCCI, which morphed into the ICC with the other model codes agencies:
- P403.4 SETTING
- - Fixtures shall be set level and in proper alignment with reference to adjacent walls. No water closet or bidet shall be set closer than 15 inches (381 mm) from its center to any side wall or partition nor closer than 30 inches (762 mm) center-to-center with adjacent fixtures. No urinal shall be set closer than 12 inches (305 mm) from its center to any side wall or partition nor closer than 24 inches (610 mm) center-to-center with adjacent urinal fixtures. See P708.

Been in the codes a lot longer than that, that is just the oldest I have readily accessible on my computer.

Agreed. What I find interesting is the loose UBC language which most general contractors use more than the specific codes such as the Electric, Plumbing, Mechanical, and fire codes. My bigger concern is how I have built hundreds of houses in a 30" opening with the toilet never perfectly centered. That is a lot of technical violations through the years - usually because the efficiencint spacing of the cabinet. For more than forty years we have always instructed the cabinet maker to stay 15" away from the center of drain. Unfortunately, I got written up recently because the counter top and TP holder encroached. The Tp holder is easy to relocate - but the counters will look worse than the fat lady who can't fit in the 30" stall if I have to lop them off.

Originally Posted by Daniel MacBeth

I have built hundreds of houses in a 30" opening with the toilet never perfectly centered.

I've often wondered why on earth a builder would ever consider building a 30" opening KNOWING that the toilet would NEVER be EXACTLY centered, and, why would the builder build a MINIMUM width space anyway ...

Care to answer ...

That is like architects designing stairs around the 7/11 rule and then wondering why the stairs do not meet code when the 7" is exceeded and the 11" is not quite met ... come on, guys, design with construction errors in mind so that the work will STILL meet code when the errors we all know WILL HAPPEN actually DO HAPPEN.

The million dollar question is -- where do you draw the line concerning wasted space? An inch here; half inch there and bam - you've lost a lot of livable square footage. I build in Newport Beach where a 3000 square foot lot costs $2,000,000 inland and $5,000,000 plus on the water front. Every owner fights for every square foot of livable space that the zoning code will allow. There are two well known Architects here in town who have been sued and lost the battle for not maximizing the property's potential. Square footage, property utilization, and view are the usual claims.

Originally Posted by Daniel MacBeth

The million dollar question is -- where do you draw the line concerning wasted space? An inch here; half inch there and bam - you've lost a lot of livable square footage. I build in Newport Beach where a 3000 square foot lot costs $2,000,000 inland and $5,000,000 plus on the water front. Every owner fights for every square foot of livable space that the zoning code will allow. There are two well known Architects here in town who have been sued and lost the battle for not maximizing the property's potential. Square footage, property utilization, and view are the usual claims.

I don't consider it wasted space, and none of my clients did either, of course, though, they were only building homes from $500k to $25 million ...

"There are two well known Architects here in town who have been sued and lost the battle for not maximizing the property's potential."

They would win with any decent first year law school student who produced a signed agreement agreeing to what was drawn as being accepted by the client ... oh, the architects did not have signed agreements from their client accepting the plans as drawn ... sheit, no wonder they lost.

Did you ever wonder why rookie cops give out more tickets than veteran cops? I used to think it was gung hoe valor. I later learned it was tolerances within reason based on experience. Fortunately, cops rarely give tickets for driving 56 MPH in a posted 55 zone. I hope the independent property inspectors learn tolerance and reason as the cops have. With that said, please explain the actual harm of a toilet 14.875 inches from an obstruction instead of 15 inches as codified.

Originally Posted by Daniel MacBeth

I hope the independent property inspectors learn tolerance and reason as the cops have. With that said, please explain the actual harm of a toilet 14.875 inches from an obstruction instead of 15 inches as codified.

I would certainly hope NOT.

The 15 inches is there for a reason, the code is MINIMUM, and by gosh there are NO EXCUSES for not meeting it, no matter how much sugar you try to spread on it.

Any builder who tries to ... make that EXPECTS TO ... get away without meeting that simple MINIMUM REQUIREMENT would tweak my curiosity as to WHAT ELSE DID THEY FUDGE ON? PROBABLY EVERYTHING, expecting that an 'Oh, well, it is close.'

Sorry, but THERE IS NO EXCUSE to do less than the MINIMUM REQUIRED, and THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR DEFENDING IT EITHER.

Apparently there are many other contractors like you who are learning that, in my AHJ, "almost" does not cut it. No friggin' wonder so many roofers have to go back and re-nail roofs, they figure 'close is good enough' ... got news for you ... not around any inspectors I know. Applies to ALL contractors, not just roofers.

THERE IS NO EXCUSE for doing the MINIMUM REQUIRED, and absolutely NO EXCUSE for trying to get away with even less.

"please explain the actual harm of a toilet 14.875 inches from an obstruction instead of 15 inches as codified."

Maybe you can explane why you feel it's OK to cut .125" on a $5M + home, or even a $100K home.

" For more than forty years we have always instructed the cabinet maker to stay 15" away from the center of drain."

Because you, as the builder, did not require you subs to do the job correctly, the home buyer (your customer) has to accept something less.

Originally Posted by Daniel MacBeth

Did you ever wonder why rookie cops give out more tickets than veteran cops? I used to think it was gung hoe valor. I later learned it was tolerances within reason based on experience. Fortunately, cops rarely give tickets for driving 56 MPH in a posted 55 zone. I hope the independent property inspectors learn tolerance and reason as the cops have. With that said, please explain the actual harm of a toilet 14.875 inches from an obstruction instead of 15 inches as codified.

Spoken by a man (obviously TINY/SHORT MAN) who has never gotten down to deal with a nasty and clean/sanitize a throne (and behind it) and didn't want to contact same with his face, or had his knees restricted and couldn't "land", "manuever" or "rise" gracefully otherwise pinned in!

Dang give me the miminum plus five inches - the party who cleans it will thank you!

Don't get me started on 21" vs. 24" minimumal "address" or frontal clearance/floor space - I'm an old guy (and not tiny OR short either)!

Bad planning is bad planning, period! Reminds me of that Mars lander that some idiot forgot to convert the US/metric measurements for the landing that plowed into Mars a few years ago. What a waste!

Should I write this one up or let him go with a warning?

Why does somebody need 30" to take a crap? Take a look at the size of an airline seat and tell me that missing a 15" center is going to change the world. With respect to roof nailing at 6" o.c. - do you measure each nail or make sure they have 9 nails across a 48" sheet. Get real.

Originally Posted by Daniel MacBeth

.
Why does somebody need 30" to take a crap?
.

Because they are paying You to Build ( loosely speaking ) to at Least The Very Minimum.
,

Get real.

.
Bet You Nail Those Pull Down Stairs in Place as well.
* Why do You have to follow The Manufactures Installation Instructions ?
** I Know What I'm Doing and I can get it Nailed a lot faster.
.

Originally Posted by Daniel MacBeth

Why does somebody need 30" to take a crap? Take a look at the size of an airline seat and tell me that missing a 15" center is going to change the world.

Oh Brother!

I generally don't take them I leave them. Its a matter of sanitation.

I don't get your point? Do you make it a regular habit to crap yourself in airline seats? Not smart enough to not sh*t where you eat?

Haven't done a study but seems to me despite the small quarters in an aircraft lavatory, there is usually more space width ("elbow room") at the toilet than an airline seat.

But what if the client likes the idea of multi-tasking...oh what's that saying...Sh*t, shower and shave?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel MacBeth
.
"Why does somebody need 30" to take a crap?"

I was amazed to see this post. Why should someone squeeze into a 30" space when a few more inches on ether side may easily be provided during design/construction? Have you ever taken a crap with bulky clothing? Are you slim and can't understand the issues someone may have in a 30" space when they are overweight or disabled? I am not sure, but I think that a 30" requirement has issues with the requirements for clearance for grab bars adjacent to the toilet. We have "codes" and standards because of some past trasgressions by builders. Needs, requirements, safety, and sanitary issues may have changed due to new information requiring codes or minimum specifications. Personally, I like more elbow room and I think this minimum should be increased. Some subs and contractors will build to the "minimum" on a project, or after they are awarded the project, will think cheap to try to save a few bucks. If you look back on posts on the site you will see examples. As someone previously stated----if you build to minimum 15", you may have issues if the code inspector is worth his salt.

Zealous vs. Tolerance. I recognize that home inspectors find themselves between a rock and a hard place. First there are conflict of interest issues. Realtors recommend them - but only want to recommend the nit-picky deal-killer inspector. In contrast, the inspector, as a survival reflex, wants to demonstrate his knowledge and expertise so the hiring party feels they got there money's worth. But unaware to all, the over zealous inspector exposes the buyer to disclosure challenges when they decide to sell further down the line - in other words - ignorance may be bliss.

I am sure as the industry matures, home inspectors will learn to set their priorities the same as non-conflicted police officers and local building officials have learned to do. In other words, murderers and missing kids take higher priority over stolen paper clips. Building safety and property loss take priority over a framing member's center line that is 17" (instead of 16") away from it's adjecent member. Generally, it is the spirit of the law that experience enforces rather than the letter.

After 40 years of building I have learned how to work with good and bad building officials. Building a house, as with driving, tolerance is a necessary part of the process. We experience this every day where there is an unspoken understanding that good cops expect us to drive safely. If a new or inexperienced driver doubts the safety of a speed then he would be extremely well advised to stick to the speed limit anyway. If an experienced driver knows that a certain speed is safe for the circumstances he would be very unlikely to be affected by misapplied policing. The standards which we should expect from drivers involve safe, sensible and responsible behaviour. Those that show those qualities should have nothing to fear, it's the others who should be worried. We should be promoting safe driving, not blind obedience to speed limits. The same holds true with home inspectors. Driving 31 MPH in a posted 30 MPH zone is not reckless on a sunny day and neither is missing the centerline by a quarter inch in a 30 inch toilet compartment.

Originally Posted by Daniel MacBeth

.
ignorance may be bliss.
.

After 40 years of building

.
You Must be a Very Happy Man.
* or at least for 40 Years
** You been pulling this Scam for 40 Years?
.

If you are willing to stick around you will find that many of the posters on this site are experienced Home Inspectors and often have decades of experience as general contractors or in the trades before hand.

The general consence of of most of the regular posters is that code is the floor to build up from not the ultimate goal to reach. The code is seen as a minimum and should normally be exceeded to build a useful and substainable home.

Reduce the size of the gaudy vanity by a couple of inches and provide the needed space to plop your fanny. The only thing in the vanity is extra TP anyway. All the other junk in the vanity is half empty bottles of stuff they are not using anyway.

Hmmm. Is Daniel trying to down play this failure to comply with the min code, to discourage one of the thousands of inspectors that visit this site, from disclosing this on a few of the multi millionh $ homes he built over the past 40 years?

code is the floor to build up from not the ultimate goal to reach. The code is seen as a minimum and should normally be exceeded to build a useful and substainable home.

This comment is not always true. For instance I had a framing contractor who thought he was doing me a favor to double nail all the plywood (i.e. 3" o.c. instead of 6"). I am sure his intentions were good until the structural engineer rejected the framing because of splitting issues. He said to use 3x material if we want to nail the "F" out of it. One of the most costly fixes I have ever encountered.

I'm not quite sure about what was just said. Let me see, if you cut corners by spacing the studs by 17" instead of 16" you save a stud, materials, and labor every 17'. Is that what was stated? This is an interesting thread.... where else can we "stretch" the standards? My primary field is not building, but I have worked very closely with builders and state code enforcement officers in my job. Officers is correct in their case. So I feel confident in chastising you with your lack of professionism.

You have missed the point---period.

A HI is expected to tell the truth about what they have seen--that is what they are being paid to do. If you have read some of the threads here, some inspectors have documented this in their experiences with a Realtor. And the Realtor has come back because they know the HI is ethical and can be trusted to provide an honest evaluation of the structure. After all, if a false document goes in and the suits start flying around---do you really think the Realtor is blameless in the fray?

If the contractor is not ethical he/she will try to slip things through that are just under spec---just to save a few cents. Why I can't figure out--with my experience it always gets discovered and then there is a costly negotiation to correct the issue (costs to correct back to the contractor)---which could have been avoided it the contractor just followed the rules.

Let's clear away all the smoke----no police stories, paper clips, etc. Just what is your objection to following a code or if you have misunderstood it, following the direction of a code inspector to point out the issue and possibly give you solutions to the problem?

I haven't missed the point. I am talking about tolerances within reason. For instance an 8' wall requires 9 studs at 16" spacing. An experienced inspector is not going to measure each stud. Instead, they count the studs and recognize that some studs are a bit over and others a bit under while recognizing that the 9 studs will do the job intended.

I am being accused of shoddy workmanship on this site. This accusation is silliness that I refuse to dignify. What I am driving at from an experienced builders point of view is the fact that there are tolerances to everything from how we treat our neighbors, to law enforcement, to building code enforcement. Everything in the real world is about reasonableness versus flagrant and shocking. I support the building codes. I support doing things right. I support the idea of more eyes on the problem. However, I also do not expect to get pulled over if I am driving in the 85th percentile speed which is how traffic engineers design roads and signage while recognizing that not not everybody is going to drive exactly 30 MPH in a posted 30 zone. I am confident from conversations and attending classes and my own certifications athat the building codes and structural engineers all take into account field tolerances. The good inspectors catch the reckless and flagrant - and let the smallest infractions go by the wayside. Same with the cops. It is the rookies and inexperienced in most fields that haven't yet learned how work within their new field.

Originally Posted by Daniel MacBeth

The good inspectors catch the reckless and flagrant - and let the smallest infractions go by the wayside. Same with the cops. It is the rookies and inexperienced in most fields that haven't yet learned how work within their new field.

When it comes to proper disclosure, if it's not curernt minuium building requirements, or an inspectors SOP, who determines what is the smallest infraction, oppsed to reckless and flagrant items?
If you do some research, you may find the rookies go by the wayside, due to lawsuits, or no referrals for failing to properly disclose.

If they remain they soon learn to get experienced and disclose everything the most experienced inspectors do, or pay to correct a defect for not disclosing it.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

From the 1994 Standard Plumbing Code, which was from SBCCI, which morphed into the ICC with the other model codes agencies:
- P403.4 SETTING
- - Fixtures shall be set level and in proper alignment with reference to adjacent walls. No water closet or bidet shall be set closer than 15 inches (381 mm) from its center to any side wall or partition nor closer than 30 inches (762 mm) center-to-center with adjacent fixtures. No urinal shall be set closer than 12 inches (305 mm) from its center to any side wall or partition nor closer than 24 inches (610 mm) center-to-center with adjacent urinal fixtures. See P708.

Been in the codes a lot longer than that, that is just the oldest I have readily accessible on my computer.

jp,
i got the 30"requirement in the 1976 upc without a bar denoting new!

Originally Posted by Daniel MacBeth

I haven't missed the point. I am talking about tolerances within reason.

You are not talking about tolerances within reason, you are a firm believer in not at least doing the minimum required by the codes.

Yes ... the MINIMUM ... REQUIRED ... by the codes.

Building codes are all MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS, and here you are telling the entire world that you really don't care what the code requires as a MINIMUM, you will dang well do it your way regardless of what is REQUIRED.

Hopefully your current and future buyers will find you on an internet search and see your screw-them attitude, and, also hopefully, your local AHJ will read your contempt for the MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS of the codes and tighten up on their inspections of your houses.

One can only hope that your flagrant and willful violation of MINIMUM CODES will catch up to you sooner rather than later.

The one good thing I can say about you is that it is builders like you who will keep home inspectors busy for years to come.

Wrong is wrong. I report each toilet that does not have the required 15 inch clearance on each side. I do not want to be the one who has to pay to move it after the inspection.

Chuck

Originally Posted by Chuck Lambert

Wrong is wrong. I report each toilet that does not have the required 15 inch clearance on each side. I do not want to be the one who has to pay to move it after the inspection.

Chuck

Keep an eye out for the baths in those macbeth multi - million $ , southen Cal. custom mansions

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

The one good thing I can say about you is that it is builders like you who will keep home inspectors busy for years to come.

I suppose I should count my blessings that I can contibute to society in a positive way by helping keep the otherwise unemployable employed.

Originally Posted by Dan Harris

Keep an eye out for the baths in those macbeth multi - million $ , southen Cal. custom mansions

No problem. I am going to advise my clients from now on that we will be installing their toilets in the middle of the living room. That way we can be assured they have plenty of room. Moreover, there will be no risk of a nit picky unreasonable inspector worrying that we have a cabinet counter encroaching 1/8 inch into there fat-ass space requirements.

I look forward to additional contributions (?improvements?) that the unreasonable inspectors on this site may contribute to improving the homes we have been building without complaint for three generations.

To the rest of the good inspectors out there - thank you for the service you provide for my clients and for myself. We all appreciate the extra eyes concerning safety and habitability of the homes we build and that are enjoyed by the families raised in them.

Originally Posted by Daniel MacBeth

.
I suppose I should count my blessings that I can contibute to society in a positive way by helping keep the otherwise unemployable employed.

.
You're such a Nice Man.
*All that just so you can skim the Bulk off The Top.
.

Originally Posted by Daniel MacBeth

I suppose I should count my blessings that I can contibute to society in a positive way by helping keep the otherwise unemployable employed.

Unemployable??? Are your employees US born or have green cards?

Originally Posted by Daniel MacBeth

No problem. I am going to advise my clients from now on that we will be installing their toilets in the middle of the living room.

That's what we like about the Golden State. You can do that there and people will still buy it.

Originally Posted by Daniel MacBeth

I look forward to additional contributions (?improvements?) that the unreasonable inspectors on this site may contribute to improving the homes we have been building without complaint for three generations.
.

For every item an "unreasonable" inspector discloses, if the home buyer gets another opinion from a lic contractor, there are at least four contractors in every city that will agree with that unreasonable inspectors opinion.

Or 10 "unreasonable " contractors that will tell the customer, your home inspector should have disclosed that when you bought the home.

Originally Posted by Daniel MacBeth

No problem. I am going to advise my clients from now on that we will be installing their toilets in the middle of the living room. That way we can be assured they have plenty of room. Moreover, there will be no risk of a nit picky unreasonable inspector worrying that we have a cabinet counter encroaching 1/8 inch into there fat-ass space requirements.

I look forward to additional contributions (?improvements?) that the unreasonable inspectors on this site may contribute to improving the homes we have been building without complaint for three generations.

To the rest of the good inspectors out there - thank you for the service you provide for my clients and for myself. We all appreciate the extra eyes concerning safety and habitability of the homes we build and that are enjoyed by the families raised in them.

1. There had better be full walls and doors separating the kitchen & dining room from this throne room (living room with toilet in the middle).
2. There had better be door for the living room, and a wash-up sink between the toilet and the door nearest the kitchen.

I doubt even if both 1 & 2 you'd maintain a health permit/C of O trying to take the containment part of closet out of the water closet/toilet.

Sanitation and privacy.

The toilet is a "fountain" spray of fecal matter & bacteria when flushed. It is a receptacle for a fountain of bodily fluids and solids.

The 30 inches has almost NOTHING to do with "wide posteriors" it has to do with SANITATION.

It has to do with activities involved in preparing to USE the toilet, clean up activities (both of the person who uses and of the area and toilet itself), and activities concluding the use of the toilet cleaning one's self, arising, re-dressing one's self without having one's clothing contact the toilet area, flushing, and exiting the toilet area without having to make clothing and body contact with the toilet; in addition to ASSURING THE USE of the TOILET by OTHERS does not FOUL the areas about the toilet. A wall, surface too close may be contaminated by bodily waste, bacteria, etc. if 1. the user is uncareful, ILL, or restricted/compromised, 2. the spray involved when the toilet is flushed, 3. the toilet clogs and must be cleared.

Public Heath/Plumbing Codes exist for many reasons - most important of which is public health.

Another reason the floor should be one that is non-porous and can be sanitized.

Apparently personal hygene, sanitizing/cleaning a toilet area, and keeping ones clothing clean and free from contact with toilet fixtures and the adjacent areas is not something important to one who craps themselves in public airline coach seats regularly, probably pees in the sink or shower, and trucks down the highway with used bottle or coffee cup and throws it out the window at other vehicles when "re-filled".

Residential real estate bubble notwithstanding, California has taken a big hit market adjustment and its still adjusting, since previously was many times overly priced poorly built crap with spit and polish razzle dazzle on the finish. Builders/contractors like our seat crapping, inspector bashing contributor can't "unload" their poorly built castles of crud so easily anymore. Not only will no one buy them at the price they want/need to get for them, no bank will lend/colateralize them at those numbers - they don't appraise for what they used to - even if built well; and this joker is complaining about his defective construction - can't even meet code.

I am new to home inspections and somewhat confused, but not over the 15" rule. As I understand it, I am a house inspector not a code inspector. I will ensure that it flushes, functions, does not leak, and the floor is not soft around the base, and no faint outline of yellow. The rest of it is actually none of my business. I might tell the home buyer to go sit on it for a while and see if they can live with it.

Originally Posted by Philip

I am new to home inspections and somewhat confused, but not over the 15" rule. As I understand it, I am a house inspector not a code inspector. I will ensure that it flushes, functions, does not leak, and the floor is not soft around the base, and no faint outline of yellow. The rest of it is actually none of my business. I might tell the home buyer to go sit on it for a while and see if they can live with it.

I veiw should I report an item or not, by what others in the profession are doing.
In addition to our SOP , From what I've gathered there are two important factors to consider,
1 safety items,
2. Items that can be costly when disclosed by another inspector, or contractor in the future.
With those two items in mind, I don't see reporting the location of a toilet any different than reporting lack of, or non-functional safety devices.

I REALLY know the item will be costly to correct, and I am correct by disclosing it, when a builder, or contractor claims an inspector is "unresonanable " when reporting an item that does not meet the min code requirement's

North Carolina recently passed a law that if a home inspector claims a defect is a code violation, then the entire code section must be quoted in the report and the home inspector must confirm which version of code was in effect when the house was built.

Then in the state sponsored mandatory training for this year, they stressed how every inspector should learn and study as many technical references as possible and listed the building codes at the top of the list. When showing sample defects in the training, the training referenced building code numerous times.

If a home inspector is not familiar with the codes, how do they know when the home is safe and habitable? The minimum definition for safe and habitable is defined as the building codes.

Calling out incorrect building practices in new construction is much easier to use code as a justification. In older construction, you can use code as a guideline to help you understand what would be a safety item. Just because the house is 70 years old, the steep stairs into the dark basement still need a handrail and properly spaced balusters even if code did not require them 70 years ago. The stairs are still dangerous regardless of when they were erected.

Tell me this. Are home inspectors code inspectors in your state?