In response to Mark I. Baum's comments:
While I do not disagree that architects have a duty to safeguard public health, safety, and welfare--there is a limit to our duty and liability with regard to existing structures and therefore, a limit to the work we are required to perform. I see those limits as follows:
First, I believe our standard of care requires us to advise our clients of the risk that, in the course of seeking authorization to undertake a new project, the Authority Having Jurisdiction or HOA may require changes to existing structures on property, if those structures were built or modified without permit. That requirement could be based on the building codes, energy code, zoning code, historic building code, a local design guideline, or a CC&R. I have experienced many such situations. I believe it would be negligent not to advise clients of this potential. That does not make us responsible for the non-permitted structures.
Second, our standard of care requires us to advise our clients of any potential risks to health, safety, and welfare that we observe in the normal course of performing the work we are contracted to perform. However, our standard of care does not require us to perform any additional reviews, inspections, tests, or calculations with regard to the existing conditions to determine if they pose risks to health, safety, and welfare unless we have been contracted to do so. (And I would suggest that few of us welcome the potential exposure brought on by performing such inspections--that is probably best left to a building inspector or a home inspector.) Again, that does not make us responsible to correct the non-conforming conditions, to design corrections, nor to stop work if the conditions are not corrected--it's simply an observe-and-report "see something, say something" responsibility.
Third, where the new structure touches the existing structure (even if the connection is only electrical), we are responsible to make sure that the new construction is compatible with existing conditions in a way that preserves health, safety, and welfare and is in compliance with all applicable codes and regulations. This may require some selective exploratory demolition prior to completing the construction documents or, at least, modifications to the documents once all pertinent existing conditions are sufficiently exposed, to assure compatibility and compliance with structural, weather-resistance, electrical, mechanical, and other systems and requirements. As with all design issues, where the compatibility of existing conditions are less than ideal for being compatible with the new construction, we have a responsibility to lay the options out before our clients, show the costs and benefits of the various options, advise them on the best option, collaborate with them in making a design decision, and moving forward with the agreed-upon design solution. This may result in a need to design modifications to existing conditions. (I mention the electrical-only connection for a reason: in my state, many house fires have resulted from electrolysis due to additions built using incompatible metals in the addition's wiring and/or breakers.)
Beyond those three responsibilities, I don't think we have any ethical or legal duties in regard to the existing conditions, permitted or not--unless we have been contracted to inspect or design modifications to them.
------------------------------
Sean Catherall AIA
Murray UT
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 01-04-2024 03:00 PM
From: Mark I. Baum AIA
Subject: Existing conditions without a permit
Arlen:
I must respectfully disagree which much of Mr. Carlson's post, although he is correct that the non-permitted addition has nothing to do with your project as you stated. He is also correct that, as architects, we are not the police.
That said, when performing due diligence, it is best practice to call to one's clients' attention other elements that you observe that may need to be addressed, particularly if not compliant with code, even if such elements are outside of your scope. With respect to non-grandfathered code deficiencies, I consider it an obligation. If the client then directs you to proceed without addressing such issues, you have done your job unless the condition, in your professional opinion, is dangerous and poses a threat to the public.
With respect to the risks that Mr. Carlson lists, these are extreme. Assuming your client is respectable, I don't believe such risks exist if your communication with your client is in good faith, as you are looking out for their interests. As I mentioned in a previous post, your higher duty is to the welfare of the public as is probably stated in your State's licensing law. Most clients would be appreciative, particularly if your identification of a dangerous condition potentially saves them from future litigation from an injury.
Kindest regards,
Mark
Mark I. Baum, Architect, AIA
Original Message:
Sent: 1/4/2024 10:11:00 AM
From: Robert C. Carlson
Subject: RE: Existing conditions without a permit
Your statement about the addition has nothing to do with your project. It could easily harm your cleint.
Is there a problem with the addition? Something that puts health, safety or welfare at risk? If not, why are you concerned? We are not the police.
We are hired by our clients to perform a professional service with that we have an obligation to look after their best interests. You are not looking after their best interest. You are in fact doing them a great disservice.
If there are issues with the addition, talk to your client. They may not know of the risk. They may not know the addition was not permitted. Depending on the jurisdiction, the addition may have to be torn down.
If you cannot resist the temptation, resign the commision.
If nothing else, look at the potential harm to you.
1. They could sue you for any loss.
2. Who will hire you after they find out what you did.
3. You might harm the profession. There are plenty of groups trying to discredit architects as unneeded or want to replace us. This would be another point they could use.
R Carlson
Retired at 70
Original Message:
Sent: 12/26/2023 9:03:00 AM
From: Arben Sela AIA
Subject: Existing conditions without a permit
Curious to know what the norm is or what others are doing in a situation like below:
- I am working on an interior renovation for a project for a single family dwelling, with no change to the zoning bulk. The dwelling however has an addition that was most likely done without a permit. Is there anything in the architects standard of care that would require me to flag this addition to the AHJ?
- My plan of action was to do the interior alteration drawings and add a note to my drawings that the addition is not part of this certification or is to be filed / legalized separately.
Any feedback would be appreciate it
------------------------------
Arben Sela AIA
BuildPlus Architecture PLLC
West Nyack NY
------------------------------