Thread: true problem or just shotty work?

Is this poor alignment of the wall over the foundation a problem or just cosmetically ugly? This is a brand new house.

DSCN4521.jpg

Is the post hanging off or is it just framed and drywall that is hanging off? If it is the post that is hanging off and that is a load bearing wall then I would note it as a potential problem because the post is not bearing fully on the supporting footing. Yes, it is a screw up..

My answer is...both

Is it a single story home?

Possibly both, possibly only shoddy work.

Looks like they laid out the forms wrong and the curb for the wall ended up being in the wrong place, or, the curb is in the right place and someone wanted a little more space before the wall ...

Is that a load bearing wall, if not, then it is likely just shoddy work ... shoddy work because when a mistake like that is made, good workmanship and good work ends up where that is no visible - the excess curb is cut/chipped off and then the curb is extended on the other side. If it is a load bearing wall there may, or may not, be a footing of sufficient width below the wall to allow relocating the wall, but ... with that wall only being relocated a few inches, the footing beneath that wall is likely not a problem (and, no, my x-ray vision glasses have not come back from the repair shop yet - I am *presuming* that there is a proper footing below and that the footing I am presuming to be below was not offset from the location of the curb).

From the photo it looks like there is very little overhang of the framing at the side and end. Unless there is more overhang at the end than it looks (1"), and unless there is a point light right at the end (e.g. a beam bearing right at the end) I would not be concerned.

I'm with Mark, I don't think it's likely a problem, but I'd like to know how much of the sill plate is not bearing on the foundation. It looks like very little of it is overhanging, so the vast majority is on the foundation.

One more possibility, it looks like the curb is not only off a bit, but it looks like it's too wide making it look even more off center than it is. Think about it, even if that wall was centered there would be a wide exposed ledge on either side of the drywall.

Cory, had to ask if this is a two-story home, as here they usually wouldn't be installing drywall on exterior walls that aren't opposite the living area(s), OR below second level living/sleeping rooms. Isn't Oregon on the 2012 IRC/IBC?
If the garage IS under the 2nd level sleeping rooms, those excessive gaps/voids along the gas curbs and any 'exposed combustible materials' (overhanging wood framing, plastic sheeting, shear wall sheeting, etc.) would not meet the ‘Fire Resistant Construction’ Section R302.5 and ‘Table 302.6’ for the ‘Dwelling/Garage Separation’ requirements.
Steve L.

Could possibly cause issues with the sill bolts however even if ok.. sill bolts need to be in inner 1/3 of plate. No?

MIght be for a brick or stone ledge.

Originally Posted by Steve Lottatore

Cory, had to ask if this is a two-story home, as here they usually wouldn't be installing drywall on exterior walls that aren't opposite the living area(s), OR below second level living/sleeping rooms. Isn't Oregon on the 2012 IRC/IBC?
If the garage IS under the 2nd level sleeping rooms, those excessive gaps/voids along the gas curbs and any 'exposed combustible materials' (overhanging wood framing, plastic sheeting, shear wall sheeting, etc.) would not meet the ‘Fire Resistant Construction’ Section R302.5 and ‘Table 302.6’ for the ‘Dwelling/Garage Separation’ requirements.
Steve L.

Hello Steve

This is a two story home, with a fully finished garage and the garage is located under two bedrooms.

This is a garage wall, the wall is always set on the side of the block to accommodate the framing above. If you look at the wall near the garage door, that wall is offset also to the exterior part of the wall.

What you have there is normal, unless the top framing is not aligned with that wall.

Originally Posted by Gregory Levitt

This is a garage wall, the wall is always set on the side of the block to accommodate the framing above. If you look at the wall near the garage door, that wall is offset also to the exterior part of the wall.

What you have there is normal, unless the top framing is not aligned with that wall.

I would have to disagree with Gregory's spin and comparison that assumes from the photo. The left one is an exterior wall that most likely would have sheathing on the exterior plane of the framing, and/or the framing incorporated with the Simpson Strong-Wall panels around the overhead door opening. There should be no wall framing 'overhang' to the exterior foundation plane, as that is where the 'metal weep screed' is set to, and would create an excessive gap along the bottom exterior stucco siding. Not the 'best building practice'.

While this may be 'typical' of what you see/experience in NJ construction, or have been taught to consider acceptable, I would not view it as normal. I'm inspecting new construction every week and do occasionally see it, and it does happen per bad layouts as Jerry mentioned. Here on the left coast that would not be acceptable for code when it comes into play with any seismic/anchor bolt placement for the framing sole plates. Of more note and focus, as I first inquired of Cory for the 'interior' garage fire resistant walls with sleeping rooms above, those excessive gaps/voids created by this type of 'overhang' and shoddy construction would pose a safety hazard, and would need to be addressed/corrected to stop the penetration of heat and fire gases that threaten to spread into the house and endanger the occupants.

Steve L.

Steve,

Keep in mind that small wall extension is on the interior part of the garage. The rest of that wall is an exterior wall which is anchored to the foundation and connected to the adjacent wall on the right and the garage wall at the far corner.
Also keep in mind that this being a garage the sheetrock is 5/8" vs. 1/2" sheeting so there will be bigger overhang over the plate not to mention there is a corner bead and 1 or more coats of Spackle.
In addition being this an interior garage wall extension which is extending approximately 12" in length and being part of the exterior braced wall which is connected to the adjoining exterior walls also braced and anchored to the foundation, in that case you don't need to have an anchor bolt for that small portion of the wall... I believe that is the international code (look up Foundation anchorage, I believe its R403 which has an exception to the rule for such cases)

So what you see is normal in any seismic code requirement, at least by what I can tell from that picture. The OP also said this is a new house so I'm sure it had all required inspections, including framing. If anything, all the voids along perimeter of the garage wall should be fire blocked with approved fire caulk or fire rated foam to protect the sill plate.

Good luck

Apparently the AHJ approved it.

Originally Posted by David Bertrams

Apparently the AHJ approved it.

Or just didn't see it.

Just because inspections are signed off, and just because a CO is issued, does not mean that everything is to code.

All that may mean is: the inspector didn't see a violation; the inspector saw the violation and thought - 'Umm, that's not too bad'; the inspector saw the condition and it just didn't click (everyone has bad days now and then); the inspector saw the condition and told the contractor to extend the curb under the wall out, and thought 'Umm, that's not too bad, if the contractor doesn't fix it no big deal', then tells the contractor 'I'll sign it off because I know you will correct it, right', and the contractor responds with 'Absolutely, I'll have it corrected by tomorrow'; (and other options/reasons).

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Or just didn't see it.

Just because inspections are signed off, and just because a CO is issued, does not mean that everything is to code.

All that may mean is: the inspector didn't see a violation; the inspector saw the violation and thought - 'Umm, that's not too bad'; the inspector saw the condition and it just didn't click (everyone has bad days now and then); the inspector saw the condition and told the contractor to extend the curb under the wall out, and thought 'Umm, that's not too bad, if the contractor doesn't fix it no big deal', then tells the contractor 'I'll sign it off because I know you will correct it, right', and the contractor responds with 'Absolutely, I'll have it corrected by tomorrow'; (and other options/reasons).

Or everything is fine and everything is within code compliance...

Originally Posted by Gregory Levitt

Or everything is fine and everything is within code compliance...

A sign off never ever means that ...

Way too many things which are part of construction are not inspected, and the things that are inspected are frequently randomly inspected or inspected based on past history of what the inspector finds - which, in large part, is due to way too many things which are part of construction are not inspected.