A Demonstration of the Nationally Applicable

Recommended Rehabilitation Provisions

U.S. Department of Housing 

and Urban Development

Office of Policy Development

and Research

Innovative Innovative

Rehabilitation

Provisions
Innovative

Rehabilitation

Provisions

A Demonstration of the

Nationally Applicable Recommended

Rehabilitation Provisions

Prepared for

NAHB Research Center, Inc.

Upper Marlboro, MD

March, 1999

Prepared by

U.S. Department of Housing and

Urban Development

Office of Policy Development

and Research
Innovative Rehabilitation Provisions 1

Frequently, local building codes governing the rehabilitation of existing structuresare vague and subject to interpretation of local building officials. The result is unpredictability

and sometimes the imposition of unrealistic requirements on rehabilitation projects. Given the

nations growing supply of vacant and deteriorating structures, it is important that we create

and adopt code provisions that do not render these structures uneconomical to rehabilitate.

For these reasons, state and local jurisdictions have seen fit to amend extensively or even

delete the rehabilitation provisions of the model building codes and subsequently adopt their

own requirements.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) recognized the need for a

new and predictable approach to rehabilitation regulation. In 1995, HUD contracted with the

NAHB Research Center, Inc., to develop the Nationally Applicable Recommended

Rehabilitation Provisions (NARRP). Many parts of the New Jersey Uniform Construction

CodeRehabilitation Subcode were used in the development of the broader NARRP, which

is intended as a model for national application.

As follow-up to publication of the NARRP, HUD requested that the NAHB Research Center

work with a remodeler, Asdal Builders, LLC, to apply the NARRP to a 200-year-old home

in Chester, New Jersey. Professional Remodeler Magazine also selected the home as the first

of a group of national Model ReModel demonstration projects focusing on the remodeling

industry.

Although the home was remodeled in accordance with the New Jersey code, the similarities

in the New Jersey code and the NARRP offered an excellent opportunity to:

• provide a real-life application of the NARRP in a residential rehabilitation project;

• document the differences between the NARRP and the earlier rehabilitation provisions;

and

• test the cost-effectiveness of the NARRP with respect to the specific differences between

the codes.

Introduction
2 Innovative Rehabilitation Provisions

United States was nearly 30 years. Almost 30 percent of housing units were constructed

before 1950. Figure 1 provides a breakdown of the U.S. housing stock by date of

construction. The durability of our homes testifies to the craftsmanship of the men and

women who built them, but over time many factors have increased our need to rehabilitate

our homes. Factors include changing homeowner preferences, deterioration due to lack

of maintenance or abandonment, and changing demographics that dictate the amount of

space and amenities demanded in homes. For example, in 1975, the median square

footage of a new home was 1,525 square feet; by 1997, the median square footage of a

new home had risen to 1,975 square feet. In the past, people typically preferred to move

when a house no longer served their needs. Today, people are more likely than ever to

improve or renovate their homes. For this reason, remodeling expenditures have steadily

increased and are projected to grow into the next century (see Figure 2).

Current State of Rehabilitation

Provisions

The housing stock in the United States is an enormous asset to this country and

illustrates the success we have achieved as a nation in making homeownership a

reality for nearly two-thirds of our population. However, as our country has aged so has

the housing stock. In 1995, the median age of the over 109 million housing units in the

Source: American Housing Survey for the United States,U.S. Department of

Commerce / U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1997.

Figure 1:

Age of U. S. Housing Stock: 1995

(in millions)

After 1980

1950 - 1980

Before 1950

25.2

51.5

29.7
Innovative Rehabilitation Provisions 3

It is only logical that residential communities improve their ability to address the regulatory

aspects of rehabilitation. Given the difficulties in interpreting current provisions, inconsistent and

unrealistic requirements discourage renovation and contribute to the growing supply of

deteriorating structures rendered uneconomical to rehabilitate.

Rehabilitation provisions contained in the model building codes are difficult not only for builders

to interpret, but also for code officials. Figure 3 presents the results of a survey of code officials

and builders on rehabilitation provisions.

Many states and local jurisdictions still use cost-based rehabilitation provisions such as the 25/

50 rule, which were removed from the model building codes in the late 1970s (see Figure 4).

The cost-based triggers were developed over 75 years ago to discourage rather than promote

the rehabilitation of existing structures. Page 10 contains a complete discussion of cost-based

triggers.

The triggers require the owners of existing structures to bring their structures into some degree

of compliance with the requirements for newly built structures based on the cost of the

rehabilitation. As a result, many older buildings remained in their original state because of the

unknowns in the regulatory system.

Difficult

to Use

Source: A National Survey of Rehabilitation Enforcement Provisions, U.S Department of Housing

and Urban Development, 1998.

BOCA 17.1% 11.4% 42.9% 14.3% 14.3% 8.6% 5.7% 28.6% 22.9% 34.3%

SBCCI 26.3% 21.1% 39.5% 5.3% 7.9% 13.5% 8.1% 37.8% 21.6% 18.9%

ICBO 11.1% 44.4% 35.2% 5.6% 3.7% 16.7% 35.2% 40.7% 5.6% 1.9%

Figure 3: Survey Results:

Ease of Use of

Rehabilitation Provisions

Code Administrators View Builders View

Code Easy to

Use ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ Difficult

to Use

Easy to

Use ⇒ ⇒ ⇒

Source: National Association of Home Builders, 1998.

Figure 2:

Residential Remodeling Expenditures: 19802000

(billions of dollars)

150

125

100

75

50

25

0

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
4 Innovative Rehabilitation Provisions

What Is the NARRP?

While existing structures may have been built in accordance with an earlier building

code or even in the absence of a code, most of these structures are safe and sound and

continue to function properly. In recognizing the continuing serviceability of existing

structures, the NARRP provides a model for addressing the regulatory needs for the

rehabilitation of existing structures. The NARRP is a set of provisions designed to provide

reasonable, cost-sensitive requirements for regulating work in all types of existing

buildings. The provisions were developed in a format that permits state and local

jurisdictions or the model code groups to adopt them with little additional language.

What Is the Philosophy?

The NARRP reflects a commonsense philosophy toward rehabilitation. The philosophy

is simple.

• Encourage the improvement of buildings through a realistic and predictable set of

requirements.

• Clarify the applicable requirements for work performed within existing buildings.

• Minimize and clearly state any additional requirements that go beyond the voluntary

work proposed.

In contrast to current rehabilitation provisions, the NARRP does not discourage

improvement. That is, it does not require existing buildings undergoing rehabilitation to

meet the full requirements for new structures. It recognizes the commonsense fact that a

little improvement is better than no improvement.

Source: A National Survey of Rehabilitation Enforcement

Provisions, U.S Department of Housing and Urban

Development, 1998. Percent of Respondents

No Rule-of-Thumb Yes

50

40

30

20

10

0

Figure 4:

Use of Cost-Based Triggers
Innovative Rehabilitation Provisions 5

Benefits of the NARRP

The adoption of realistic, cost-sensitive rehabilitation provisions such as those contained in the

NARRP offers many potential benefits. The NARRP is intended to promote the beneficial

reuse of existing buildings while correcting potentially hazardous conditions that might otherwise

continue unabated due to the high cost of rehabilitation. Rather than requiring existing structures

to be brought into some degree of compliance with requirements for new structures (often

impractical and costly to apply to existing structures), the NARRP specifically addresses the

unique situations that often characterize rehabilitation work.

In addition to providing realistic, cost-sensitive provisions, NARRPs requirements are more

predictable than those embodied in most existing codes. Provisions in existing codes often

require a building officials interpretation, which can result in variability in requirements between

jurisdictions and even among similar projects within the same jurisdiction. Indeed, two building

officials can arrive at different interpretations of the same provision even after exercising

professional discretion. The result is that investors and homeowners experience great difficulty

in determining what will be required for the rehabilitation of a building unless they commission

a substantial investigation. If investors cannot determine the necessary level of rehabilitation,

they cannot accurately estimate a buildings value. Typically, both homeowners and investors

assume the worst-case (high-cost) scenario, which results in a much lower building value, and

often renders revitalization uneconomical. The NARRP offers a means of avoiding such

scenarios by specifying rehabilitation provisions that are not subject to a high degree of

interpretation. Appendix A provides a summary of the provisions contained in the NARRP.

How Does the NARRP Relate to the New Jersey

Rehabilitation Subcode?

New Jersey, one of the oldest states in the country, has one of the oldest housing stocks.

Over one-half of the states 3.1 million houses were built before 1959. In 1997,

rehabilitation expenditures accounted for 47 percent of New Jerseys total construction

expenditures, based on building permits. In the older cities such as Newark, three out of

every four construction dollars spent on residential dwellings went to rehabilitation.

New Jersey realized, however, that an aging housing stock did not necessarily mean a

dilapidated housing inventory.

In 1996, the state of New Jersey began to develop its own rehabilitation provisions, and in

January, 1998, adopted the New Jersey Uniform Construction CodeRehabilitation

Subcode. At about the same time, HUD funded development of the NARRP. The New Jersey

code served as the model for the NARRP. For this reason, the New Jersey site was ideal for

a case study to document implementation of the Nationally Applicable Recommended

Rehabilitation Provisions.
6 Innovative Rehabilitation Provisions

A carriage house and porch were added to the structure in the 1800s (see Figure 6). In 1985,

the structures electrical and plumbing systems underwent extensive repair. At the same time,

the windows were replaced and the rear porch was enclosed. In 1990, a master bedroom and

den were added to the east side of the structure (see Figure 7). The Stone Lodge and its long

history of alterations is a perfect example of how rehabilitation is necessary to allow a structure

to maintain its functionality over time.

Figure 5. The Stone Lodge circa 1747.

The Project

The site selected for the study is located in northwestern New Jersey in the township

of Chester. Professional Remodeler Magazine designated the same site for its first featured

Model ReModel project. Information on the latter effort can be found on the magazines web

site at www.proremodeler.com.

The NARRP project called for rehabilitation of a structure known as the Stone Lodge

(see Figure 5). The original stone structure was built in 1747, and has a long history of

additions and alterations.
Innovative Rehabilitation Provisions 7

The Remodeler

The remodeling contractor for the project was Asdal Builders, LLC. Asdal Builders

was the winner of the NAHB Remodeling Quality Award1994 Remodeler of the Year

for New Jersey.

Asdal Builders is a relatively small, owner-operated remodeling company with usually

only five to six employees in the field. The employees perform most of the companys

work, little work is subcontracted. In addition to contract remodeling, Asdal Builders is

a speculative remodeler. That is, the firm purchases buildings in need of rehabilitation,

and then remodels and sells them. The New Jersey Rehabilitation Subcode has enhanced

Asdals ability to estimate with greater accuracy the rehabilitation costs for potential

investments and thus eliminate a large portion of the risk associated with speculative

remodeling ventures.

Figure 6. Carriage House and Porch.

Figure 7. Master Bedroom and Den Addition.
8 Innovative Rehabilitation Provisions

Code Officials’ Perspective

Officials with the New Jersey State Department of Community Affairs reported that the

response to the rehabilitation subcode has been largely positive, especially among builders

and designers. The only resistance has come from building officials who have not fully

grasped the code. Recognizing the likelihood of resistance among some officials, the

New Jersey State Department of Community Affairs (NJDCA) informed and trained

over 1,200 New Jersey code officials on use of the rehabilitation subcode. Since

completion of the training, the majority of building officials are pleased with the

provisions. Representatives of the NJDCA encourage code officials to contact the agency

for advice when they encounter new situations in the field. The NJDCA has found that

training and technical support are necessary to ensure the consistent application of

regulations in the field. The code official for the township of Chester, who has undergone

the NJDCA training, was cooperative and receptive to the New Jersey Rehabilitation

Subcode. Training on application of the rehabilitation subcode continues on a regular

basis.

Scope of the Current Project

The current project included a 28- x 28-foot two-story addition and reconstruction of

the existing kitchen. The addition accounted for approximately 1,250 square feet of

living area and included two bedrooms, a bathroom, dining room, home office, and

work/utility room. Figure 8 is a view of the front elevation of the Stone Lodge with the

completed addition; Figure 9 is a view of the rear elevation.

Figure 8. Front Elevation of Completed Project.

Figure 9. Rear Elevation of Completed Project.
Innovative Rehabilitation Provisions 9

The shaded portions of Figures 10, 11, and 12 illustrate the areas affected by the

rehabilitation and addition. The addition is incorporated in such a way as to provide a

smooth and open transition between the existing and new spaces (see Figures 10, 11,

and 12). The addition also blends well into the exterior facade of the existing structure

(see Figures 8 and 9).

Figure 10. Foundation Plan.

Figure 12. Second-Story Plan.

Roof Sitting

Bath Closet

Storage

Workroom

Basement

Toilet

Basement

Conference

Entry

Reception

General

Office

Figure 11. First-Story Plan.

Office

Deck

Bath

Bedroom

Kitchen

Parlor Porch

Living

Room

Dining

Room

Bedroom

Bedroom

Bath
10 Innovative Rehabilitation Provisions

Project Budget and Schedule

The project budget totaled $133,691. The construction was scheduled for completion

over a 16-week period. Appendix B presents a rough breakdown of the budget and

schedule.

The Old Code

Before adoption of the New Jersey rehabilitation subcode, the state of New Jersey used

the 25/50 percent rule for rehabilitation requirements. The rule was a cost-based trigger:

as the cost of work increased, the requirements for renovation increased. It divided

rehabilitation work into three cost-based categories: under 25 percent of the physical

value of the existing structure, 25 to 50 percent, and over 50 percent. When rehabilitation

costs fell below 25 percent of the physical value of the existing structure, the code

official was to determine the degree to which the existing structure had to comply with

the requirements for new structures. When renovation costs exceeded 25 percent of the

value of the structure, all areas of the existing structure slated for rehabilitation had to

comply fully with the requirements for new structures. When costs exceeded 50 percent,

the entire structure, even areas unaffected by rehabilitation, had to be brought into full

compliance with the current provisions for new structures.

In addition to the 25/50 rule, New Jersey rehabilitation provisions relating to additions

were governed by a percentage rule. When additions exceeded 5 percent of the floor

area of the existing structure, the existing structure was required to be brought into

compliance with the light, ventilation, egress, and fire safety provisions of the building

code. This provision was applicable regardless of project costs.

Provisions governing the construction of new structures are provided by the New Jersey

Uniform Construction Code (NJUCC). At the time of the project, the NJUCC referenced

the BOCA National Building Code/1993. It should be noted that New Jersey adopted

the 1996 version of the BOCA code with amendments in July of 1998, after construction

on the project began.
Innovative Rehabilitation Provisions 11

Differences between the Old Rehabilitation Provisions

and the NAARP/New Jersey Subcode

Under the old New Jersey rehabilitation provisions, the value of the existing structure

had to be calculated to determine which of the rehabilitation provisions applied. The

original purpose of this calculation was to determine permit fees; in New Jersey, however,

the calculation served a dual purpose. It not only established fee schedules, but also

provided a means of establishing an existing structures value. New Jersey used the

most recent BOCA Valuation Data Report in determining the value of the existing

structure.

Table 1 presents the calculations for the Stone Lodge. The budgeted costs for the planned

additions and renovations far exceeded 50 percent of the physical value of the existing

structure while the additions exceeded 5 percent of the existing floor area (see Table 1).

Under the old rehabilitation provisions, the entire structure would have had to comply

with the 1993 BOCA Code requirements for new structures. Considering that the existing

structure was constructed in the 1700s and thus predates building codes, compliance

with the 1993 provisions would have triggered extensive alterations to the existing

structure. Yet, the structure had been functioning as a home for well over 200 years. The

New Jersey rehabilitation subcode and the NARRP recognized the homes age and

uninterrupted use as a dwelling and required no alterations to the structure beyond the

scope of the project.

Table 1:

BOCA Valuation Data Report:

Valuation Calculations for the Stone Lodge (existing structure)

Type V

Construction

Load-Bearing Masonry Exterior Walls, Unprotected

Interior Walls

Existing Square Footage

First Story

Second Story

Total

R-3 Value per Square Foot

Total Value

N.J. State Cost factor

Adjusted Value

Project Cost

Cost Ratio

Addition Square Footage

Percentage Square Footage Increase

1,775

720

2,495

$37.18

$92,764

1.12

$103,896

$133,691

129%

1,250

50.1%
12 Innovative Rehabilitation Provisions

Cost and Scheduling Impacts of Rehabilitation

Provisions

A detailed analysis revealed the differences in the requirements among the 1993 BOCA

Code, the Nationally Applicable Recommended Rehabilitation Provisions, and the 1998

Uniform Construction Code Rehabilitation Subcode (New Jersey). Officials from the

New Jersey State Department of Community Affairs provided an interpretation of the

previous rehabilitation provisions under the 25/50 rule. The officials identified potential

requirements under the old code and estimated the likelihood that the requirements would

have been enforced under the former rehabilitation provisions. A thorough review of

the project revealed that the old provisions could and probably would have required a

significant amount of additional work to the existing structure. The analysis identified

five areas that would have required significant modification:

• Foundation

• Egress Windows

• Corridor Width

• Stair Geometry

• Ceiling Heights

It is important to note that these areas would require modification under a strict

interpretation of the old code. Building officials often exercise discretion when

interpreting the code. Thus, it is difficult to determine which issues would be relevant to

any given project, clearly illustrating the benefits of predictable provisions that are not

subject to individual interpretation.

The NAHB Research Center, Inc., working with Asdal Builders, developed cost estimates

for each of the areas where additional work would have been required under the old

New Jersey Uniform Construction Code. Tables 2 through 8 present estimated costs that

could have been incurred in complying with the old rehabilitation provisions. Due to the

unique stone construction techniques in the stone lodge, cost estimates for items where

the stone walls had to be altered were extremely high. Therefore, to provide a broader

view of the regulatory impacts of a rehabilitation project, additional estimates were

developed in accordance with the 1998 RS Means Repair and Remodeling Cost Data to

reflect the same alterations to a more typical wood framed structure. Tables 2 through 8

also note the applicable sections of the NARRP, the New Jersey Subcode, and the BOCA

Code, 1993.
Innovative Rehabilitation Provisions 13

Foundation

Officials with the New Jersey State Department of

Community Affairs indicated that a structural analysis

would likely have to be performed to determine the loadbearing capacity of the existing rubble stone foundation

(see Figure 13). Both the NARRP and the New Jersey

Subcode contain provisions that allow the existing

structural systems in single-family residential dwellings to

remain in place if no additional loads are applied and no

visible signs of structural failure are apparent. Table 2

provides an estimate of the costs for such a structural

analysis. It should be noted that the costs include those

for excavation of the exterior of the foundation for a visual

inspection. Such costs would not be incurred in all cases.

Figure 13. Rubble Stone Foundation.

Excavation*

Inspection of Foundation

Landscaping*

Structural Report

Subtotal

Referenced Sections Overhead and Profit

NARRP: 602 Total

*Not all engineers would require a visual inspection of the exterior foundation

unless visible signs of failure were apparent.

Table 2:

Cost of Compliance with Old New Jersey Rehabilitation Provisions:

Foundation Structural AnalysisCost Estimate

Item Total Cost

NJ Subcode: 5:23-6.27

1993 BOCA: 1812.3.4

$600

$250

$200

$200

$1,250

$325

$1,575
14 Innovative Rehabilitation Provisions

Egress Windows

The homes existing second story is currently used as a bedroom area. None of the five

existing windows in the bedroom area meets the requirements for egress windows in

new structures. Three of the windows are 19- x 30-inch casements (see Figure 14); the

other two are 14- x 36-inch sliders (see Figure 15). Compliance with the old rehabilitation

provisions would have likely required widening one of the windows in this area to comply

with the egress requirements for new structures. (Widening is not required under the

NARRP or the New Jersey Subcode.)

Widening even one window opening would be extremely difficult because of the 14-inch-thick

stone exterior walls. Sufficient temporary support would have to be provided with needle

beams. Further, given that the existing openings do not have structural headers, a header or

lintel would have to be designed and installed to support the wider opening.

Table 3 provides an estimate of the cost of widening a window to meet current egress

requirements. The estimate assumes that only one of the casement windows would be

widened because any modification to the sliders in the front of the house would have

been aesthetically unacceptable. Table 4 provides a similar estimate for a structure with

wood-framed exterior walls and wood siding.

Figure 15. Existing 14- x 36- Inch Sliding Windows.

Figure 14. Existing 19- x 30- Inch

Casement Window.
Innovative Rehabilitation Provisions 15

Structural Analysis

Temporary Support

Demolition of Stone

Frame New Opening

Installation of New

36- x 48- Inch Window

Reset Stone

Install Trim and Paint

Subtotal

Referenced Sections Overhead and Profit

NARRP: 602 Total

Table 3:

Cost of Compliance with Old New Jersey Rehabilitation Provisions:

Enlarge Egress WindowCost Estimate

Item

Labor

hours

(x$35/hr)

Material Cost/

Equipment

Rental

Total Cost

NJ Subcode: 5:23-6.27

1993 BOCA: 1010.4

$230

$960

$760

$265

$780

$800

$405

$4,200

$1,092

$5,292

---

16

16

4

8

20

8

80

----

$400

$200

$125

$500

$100

$125

$1,500

Temporary Support

Demolition

Frame New Opening

Installation of New

36- x 48- Inch Window

Install 1/2- Inch Gypsum Board

Install Trim / Siding and Paint

Subtotal

Table 4:

Cost of Compliance with Old New Jersey Rehabilitation Provisions:

Enlarge Egress WindowCost Estimate

for a Typical Wood-Framed Structure

Item Material Labor Total Cost

$17

----

$46

$145

$12

$89

$309

$30

$42

$42

$27

$33

$152

$326

$47

$ 42

$88

$172

$45

$241

$635

1.117

$710

$188

$894

Cost Factor

Subtotal

Overhead and Profit

Total
16 Innovative Rehabilitation Provisions

Ceiling Height

The bathroom located in the existing lower level has

ceiling heights of approximately 68 (see Figure 16).

The minimum ceiling height required for new buildings

is 7-feet in living areas. Accordingly, the concrete slab

would have to be demolished and excavated to

accommodate the required ceiling height, thereby

requiring alteration of the existing plumbing in the

bathroom to accommodate the lower floor level. Table

5 presents estimated costs for performing this work.

The remainder of the lower level is used as storage

and would not require alteration.

Although most code officials would not require the

ceiling height to be modified, officials with the New

Jersey State Department of Community Affairs

indicated that they would require the minimum height

under a strict interpretation of the code and would be

well within their rights to do so. Figure 16. Low Ceiling Height.

NJ Subcode: 5:23-6.27

1993 BOCA: 1204.1

Table 5:

Cost of Compliance with Old New Jersey Rehabilitation Provisions:

Raise Ceiling Height in Lower BathroomCost Estimate

Item

Labor

hours

(x$35/hr)

Material Cost Total Cost

Remove Plumbing Fixtures

Demolish Existing Slab

Excavate to Accommodate

Adequate Ceiling Height

Reroute Plumbing to

Accommodate Lower

Floor Level*

Pour New Concrete Floor

Reinstall Plumbing Fixtures*

Install New Floor Coverings

Subtotal

Referenced Sections Overhead and Profit

NARRP: 502.1 Total

*$55/hour plumber labor.

$100

$200

$350

$250

$350

$1,250

$1,220

$530

$630

$580

$630

$3,590

$933

$4,523

32

6

8

6

8

60
Innovative Rehabilitation Provisions 17

Corridor Width

The doorway connecting the existing kitchen area to

the living area of the existing structure is 24-inches wide

(see Figure 17). During the revitalization, the door was

removed, leaving the opening to remain as a corridor.

Building officials with the New Jersey State Department

of Codes indicated that the old rehabilitation provisions

would likely have required the widening of one of the

two corridors leading from the family room to the new

additions. The procedure would have been extremely

difficult because the corridor openings are located in

load bearing stone walls that are approximately 14-

inches thick. The current openings do not have a header

or lintel to carry the load. In addition, a structural analysis

would be required to determine the appropriate size

for a concrete beam or steel lintel to reinforce the larger

opening. Table 6 provides an estimate of the cost to

widen a corridor to meet current requirements; Table 7

provides a similar estimate for a structure with wood

framed exterior walls and wood siding.

Figure 17. Existing Corridor.

Structural Analysis

Install Temporary Support

Demolish Existing Frame

and Widen Opening

Install Concrete Lintel

Install New Frame

Reset Stone

Install Trim and Paint

Subtotal

Referenced Code Sections Overhead and Profit

NARRP: 602 Total

Item

Labor

hours

(x$35/hr)

Material Cost Total Cost

Table 6:

Cost of Compliance with Old New Jersey Rehabilitation Provisions:

Widen CorridorCost Estimate

NJ Subcode: 5:23-6.27

1993 BOCA: 1011.3

$230

$960

$760

$335

$380

$800

$300

$3,765

$979

$4,744

---

16

16

6

8

20

5

71

 ----

$200

$200

$125

$100

$100

$125

$850
18 Innovative Rehabilitation Provisions

Stair Geometry

The existing structure has two original pocket or closet-type stairways located in the

central part of the original structure (see Figure 18). While structurally sound, the

stairways fall significantly short of the requirements for new structures. They are only

32 inches wide with treads only 8 inches wide. The winders in the L portion of the

stairways are 10 inches at the widest point. The stairway leading to the basement is

equipped with the original rope handrail, which is functional but does not meet code

requirements.

The 1993 BOCA code contains a provision that allows existing stairways to remain; the

25/50 rule, however, required structures to comply fully with the requirements for new

structures. Building officials with the New Jersey State Department of Codes stated that

under the old code, stairways would have to be brought into compliance with requirements

for new structures. Under the 1993 BOCA code, stairways must be 36 inches wide with

a minimum tread width of 10 3⁄4 inches. Winders in an L stairway must be a minimum

of 6 inches wide at the narrowest point. They must also be a minimum of 9 inches wide

at a distance of 12 inches from the narrowest point.

Install Temporary Support

Demolish Existing Door and Framing

Install New Framing

Install New Door3 x 68- Inch

6-Panel Pine Prehung

Gypsum Board

Install Trim and Paint

Table 7:

Cost of Compliance with Old New Jersey Rehabilitation Provisions:

Widen CorridorCost Estimate

for a Typical Wood-Framed Structure

Item Material Total Cost

Cost

Labor Cost

Cost Factor

Subtotal

Overhead and Profit

Total

Subtotal

$23

----

$25

$244

$87

$19

$398

$33

$42

$30

$23

$132

$107

$367

$56

$42

$55

$267

$219

$126

$765

1.117

$855

$222

$1,077
Innovative Rehabilitation Provisions 19

It would be impossible to alter the existing stairways to bring them into compliance

with the requirements for new structures. Instead, the stairways would have to be

demolished and replaced with new stairways, thus necessitating extensive design work

and the alteration of existing space. Mr. Asdal indicated that demolition and reconstruction

of the stairways would have rendered the project infeasible not only because of the associated

high costs (see Table 8), but also because of the negative impact on the architectural appeal

of the existing structure. Neither NARRP nor the New Jersey Subcode requires work in

areas outside the work area.

Figure 18. Existing Pocket Stairway.

Design Costs

Demolish Existing Stairways

Reframe to Accommodate

New Stairways

Install New Stairways

Install / Finish Drywall

Install Trim

Paint

Carpet

Subtotal

Referenced Sections Overhead and Profit

NARRP: None Total

Item Labor

hours

(x$35/hr)

Material Cost Total Cost

Table 8:

Cost of Compliance with Old New Jersey Rehabilitation Provisions:

Stairway ReconfigurationCost Estimate for Both Sets of Stairs

NJ Subcode: None

1993 BOCA: 1014.0

---

10

20

40

20

20

16

16

142

----

$100

$350

$500

$300

$200

$150

$2,000

$3,600

$500

$450

$1,050

$1,900

$1,000

$900

$710

$2,560

$9,070

$2,358

$11,428
20 Innovative Rehabilitation Provisions

Summary of Cost and Scheduling Impacts

Table 9 summarizes the estimated costs for the additional work beyond the desired scope.

It also presents the impact of these costs on the total cost of the additions and renovations.

Given that all of the modifications would have been required, the total cost of the project

under the old code could have come in as much as 20 percent over the total project cost.

Even when the cost of the stone exterior walls is ignored, the cost of addressing the

modifications still would have added over 14 percent to the project cost.

In view of the planned scope of work, the 16-week schedule for the project was ambitious.

Under the old rehabilitation provisions, the schedule would have been impossible. Mr.

Asdal estimated that the additional work would have added a minimum of two weeks to

the construction time. Moreover, the extra design work would have added substantial

time to the project planning phases. Any requests for variances from the local building

code for any of the modifications for the purpose of reducing construction costs would

have further extended the planning phases.

It is important to recognize, however, that there is no certainty as to which of these

modifications code officials would have required the remodeler to address. Any given

building official could have required any or all of the modifications to be addressed.

This uncertainty highlights perhaps the most important benefit of the NARRP and the

New Jersey Subcode: improved predictability.

* Percentage in parentheses is for the wood structure

Foundation

Egress Windows

Corridor Width

Ceiling Heights

Stairways

Table 9:

Cost Estimates for Work

in Excess of Desired Scope

Issue Required

Work under

the Old

25/50 Rule

NARRP /

New Jersey

Rehabilitation

Subcode

Labor

Hours

Cost

Stone

Lodge

WoodFramed

Structure

Percent of

Budgeted

Cost

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

Structural

Analysis

Enlarge

Widen

Raise

Reconfigure

Total

1 week

80

71

77

142

370+

$1,575

$5,292

$4,744

$4,523

$11,428

$27,562

----

$894

$1,077

----

----

$19,497

1.2%

4%/(.7%)*

3.5%/(.8%)*

3.4%

8.5%

20.6%/(14.6%)*
Innovative Rehabilitation Provisions 21

The demonstration has proved useful and instructive. From our research, we were able to

draw several conclusions:

• Rehabilitation provisions contained in the New Jersey Rehabilitation Subcode and the

NARRP allow more cost-effective residential rehabilitation than the older existing codes.

The Stone Lodge is a relatively high-end home located in a relatively wealthy area of the

country. Impacts on cost-effectiveness may be even more beneficial in lower-income areas

where budgets are particularly crucial to project feasibility. The New Jersey Rehabilitation

Subcode and NARRP provisions could provide an effective tool in providing quality

affordable housing.

• New Jersey has illustrated that, with proper training of code officials, codes based on the

NARRP philosophy can be administered with consistency. Predictable regulations will

enable both investors and homeowners to make more fully informed decisions on whether

or not to rehabilitate.

• The reduced need for variances from unrealistic regulations translates into substantial time

savings as well as predictability in the planning phases of rehabilitation.

• The New Jersey Rehabilitation Subcode and the NARRP provisions promote the continued

use not only of single-family dwellings, but also of all types of buildings, helping to preserve

the character of the past.

Conclusions

Results of our study suggest the following actions to further the adoption of codes that mirror

the philosophy underpinning the NARRP:

• Expand similar demonstrations into other areas of the country.

• Conduct demonstrations on multi-family residential structures to test the feasibility of the

NARRP for other than single-family detached homes.

• Promote the NARRP and similar rehabilitation provisions to industry professionals and

code officials through educational programs, symposiums, and similar events. The NAHB

Research Center, Inc., is currently planning a national symposium in concert with the 1999

Remodelers Show in Philadelphia.

• Develop a simplified NARRP code containing only the provisions applicable to singlefamily homes (no change of use).

• Promote the NARRP to the International Code Council and state and local

jurisdictions. Encourage the adoption of rehabilitation provisions with a similar

philosophy.

Recommendations
22 Innovative Rehabilitation Provisions

Useful References

Note all of the resources detailed below were used in the development of this document and

are recommended for those seeking follow-up information.

• Nationally Applicable Recommended Rehabilitation Provisions, prepared by the

NAHB Research Center for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Development, May, 1997.

• Uniform Construction Code Rehabilitation Subcode, New Jersey Department of

Community Affairs, 1997.

• The BOCA National Building Code/1993, Building Officials and Code

Administrators International, Inc., 1993.

• A National Survey of Rehabilitation Enforcement Practices, U.S. Department of

Housing and Urban Development, June, 1998.

Contacts

• NAHB Research Center

400 Prince Georges Boulevard

Upper Marlboro, MD 20774-8731

www.nahbrc.org

• U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

451 7th Street, SW

Washington, DC 20410

www.hud.gov / www.huduser.org

• New Jersey Department of Community Affairs

Division of Codes and Standards

P.O. Box 816

Trenton, NJ 08625

www.state.nj.us/dca/dcahome.htm

• Professional Remodeler

1350 East Touhy Avenue

P.O. Box 5080

Des Plains, IL 60017-5080

www.proremodeler.com
What is the difference between the NARRP and the model building codes?

The model building codes typically divide work on existing buildings into four categories:

The level of requirements increases as the scope of work increases. The problem lies with the Alteration category, which

is extremely broad and covers most rehabilitation work. Figure A-1 provides a breakdown of 1997 residential remodeling

expenditures. Improvements (similar to alterations) accounted for over 60 percent of remodeling expenditures.

APPENDIX A

In most cases, the alteration section of the model codes rehabilitation provisions that is particularly unclear and requires the

discretion and interpretation of the local building official. Figure A-2 illustrates the categories of work under both the

NARRP and the model building codes. Notice how the alteration category of the model building codes covers a large

segment of the work spectrum and level of requirements. The NARRP separates Alteration, as defined by the model

building codes, into three categories: Renovation, Alteration, and Reconstruction, for a total of six categories of work. In

Figure A-2, notice the more lineal relationship between the Nature of the Renovation Work and the Level of Requirements.

Work Triggered By the NARRP as Applied to Single-Family Homes

Although the NARRP and the New Jersey code address all types of residential and commercial structures, this case

study concentrates on the provisions applicable to single-family detached homes. Provisions for single-family

homes are less stringent than those for multi-family residential and commercial structures. Considerable effort was

made during development of the NARRP not to include provisions that would require work to areas of the existing

structure not undergoing rehabilitation. The following table presents a summary of the requirements pertaining to

single-family homes. It is important to recognize that the requirements presented under each category are cumulative,

i.e., requirements for repairs also apply to alterations.

A-1

1. Repair

2. Alteration

3. Change of Occupancy

4. Addition

Overview of the

Nationally Applicable Recommended Rehabilitation Provisions

Figure A-1: 1997 Residential Rehabilitation Expenditures

Improvements

67%

Source: National Association of Home Builders, 1998.

Repairs and

Maintenance

33%

Figure A-2: Differences in Regulations (Model Building Codes vs. NARRP)

Change of

Occupancy

Alteration

Repair

Nature of Work

Level and Scope Requirements

Level and Scope Requirements

Repair

Renovation

Alteration

Reconstruction

Change of

Occupancy

Nature of Work

?

Source: Nationally Applicable Recommended Rehabilitation Provisions, U.S. Department of

Housing and Urban Development, 1997.
A-2

Chapter 7Additions

Table A-1: Overview of NARRP for Repair, Renovation, Alteration, and Reconstructio

Note: The requirements contained in this table are summary information. For specific requirements, please refer to the NARRP.

Section of NARRP Scope of Work Requirements

Chapter 3Repair

Replace with like materials with the excemiscellaneous plumbing materials, electrWork cannot reduce structural strength owith the building, plumbing, mechanica

The patching, restoration, and/or minor replacement of materials,elements, components, equipment, and/or fixtures for the purposes ofmaintaining such materials, elements, components, equipment, and/orfixtures in good or sound condition.

Chapter 4Renovation

Unreinforced masonry buildings in sei

have parapet bracing and wall anchors 

The change, strengthening, or addition of load-bearing elements andthe refinishing, replacement, bracing, strengthening, upgrading, orextensive repair of existing materials, elements, components,equipment, and/or fixtures. Renovation involves no reconfigurationof spaces. Interior and exterior painting are not considered refinishingfor purposes of the definition and are not renovation.

Minimum of 100 ampere three-wire elexcept if an existing 60 ampere three-wserved. Clearance from electrical serequirements of the electrical code. Rorequired to have a certain number of recepalterations affect more than 20 percent load increases, plumbing fixtures shall by the plumbing code. All reconfigureshall have either natural or mechanical 

The reconfiguration of any space, the addition or elimination of anydoor or window, the reconfiguration or extension of any system, or theinstallation of any additional equipment.

Chapter 5Alteration

Battery-powered smoke detectors shall beach sleeping area.

The reconfiguration of a space, which affects an exit, or element of theegress access shared by more than a single tenant; or renovation and/oralteration when the work area is not permitted to be occupied becauseexisting means of egress and fire protection systems, or their equivalent,are not in place or continuously maintained; and/or extensive alterations.

Chapter 6Reconstruction

All additions must comply with the cmechanical, and electrical codes for nincrease the size of the building beyond Additions cannot impose on the existithat exceed those allowed in the buildwith the accessibility requirements of thdetectors must be installed in the adddetectors in the existing structure.

An increase in building area, aggregate floor area, height, or numberof stories of a structure.
APPENDIX B

Detailed Project Budget and Schedule

The following table presents a detailed final budget for the rehabilitation and addition to the Stone Lodge.

Figures were obtained from the remodeler, Asdal Builders, LLC.

B-1

Activity Cost Estimated Duration

 (days)

Permits / Fees

Architectural / Engineering

Site Work / Walkway

Demolition

Utility Connection

Footings / Foundation

Framing

Plumbing

Electrical

HVAC

Roofing

Windows / Doors

Insulation

Siding

Drywall / Trim

Flooring / Ceramic Tile

Cabinets

Appliances

Miscellaneous Punch Out

Supervision

Hard Costs

Profit and Over Head

Budget

Table B-1:

Budget / Schedule for the Stone Lodge

$350

$1,000

$2,560

$2,680

$500

$5,170

$11,942

$4,230

$2,575

$2,625

$1,770

$16,015

$1,569

$10,733

$9,527

$6,732

$19,125

$2,050

$1,450

$3,500

$106,104

$27,587

$133,691

45

10

6

6

2

10

16

10

8

5

10

6

3

30

21

10

22

1

5

-

226 days of activity

16 Weeks
Acknowledgments

iii

Notice

The U.S. government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturer names appear herein solely

because they are considered essential to the objective of this report.

The contents of this report are the views of the contractor and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Department

of Housing and Urban Development or the U.S. government.

This report was prepared by the NAHB Research Center, Inc., Upper Marlboro, Maryland, for the U. S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The principal investigator for the project was

Chad Garner. Mark Nowak, NAHB Research Center, and William Freeborne and David Engel, HUD,

provided technical review. Mary Ellen Howard created the design and layout of the report. Special thanks

go to Bill Asdal of Asdal Builders, LLC, Rod Sutton of Professional Remodeler Magazine, William

Connolly, Amy Frank, and John Terry of the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs, and John

Heyrich, of Heyrich Architects.

The NAHB Research Center, Inc., was established in 1964 as a separately incorporated, wholly owned,

not-for-profit subsidiary of the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), whose 197,000 members

are involved in the construction of over 80 percent of U.S. homes. The Research Center studies all aspects

of remodeling and home building, tests and certifies building products in a fully equipped laboratory, and

conducts a wide range of dissemination and training activities for builders, remodelers, and other members

of the housing industry. NAHB, public agencies, and private sector clients sponsor research conducted by

the Research Center.
Foreword

v

State and local codes to regulate building construction became commonplace in the early 20th century.

Generally, communities adopted the codes with the goal of regulating new construction. When the codes

addressed existing buildings, their purpose was usually to discourage rehabilitation of substandard woodframed buildings within cities. The early provisions served their purpose 75 years ago when most existing

structures were not built to any building code at all and many posed a significant risk of fire.

Today, most existing buildings in the United States represent an important national asset that must be

preserved. As these buildings age, a large share require rehabilitation to maintain their functionality. Many

localities however still rely on rehabilitation provisions enacted into law decades ago. Consensus points to

the need for new, clear, cost-sensitive rehabilitation provisions that specifically address the unique condition

of existing structures while promoting the continued use of such structures.

In an attempt to bring order and clarity to the process of regulating the rehabilitation of existing buildings,

HUD sponsored the development and publication of a new regulatory framework that would address all

types of work in all types of buildings. Released in 1997, the Nationally Applicable Recommended

Rehabilitation Provisions (NARRP) represent an effort to develop regulatory tools that ensure life

safety and encourage cost-effective rehabilitation.

This report provides one example of the application of the provisions. It is a case study that documents the

rehabilitation of a 200-year-old single-family home in rural New Jersey. It provides a side-by-side

comparison of traditional rehabilitation provisions with the Nationally Applicable Recommended

Rehabilitation Provisions and the code from which the provisions were developed, the New Jersey

Uniform Construction CodeRehabilitation Subcode.

By documenting the use and cost-effectiveness of the new rehabilitation provisions, the U.S. Department

of Housing and Urban Development hopes to encourage more widespread adoption of similar provisions

throughout the country. This publication was developed under HUD sponsorship and prepared by the

NAHB Research Center, Inc.
Contents

vii

Introduction...............................................................................................................................................1

Current State of Rehabilitation Provisions....................................................................................................2

What Is the NARRP?................................................................................................................4

What Is the Philosophy?................................................................................................................4

Benefits of the NARRP..................................................................................................................5

How does the NARRP Relate to the New Jersey Rehabilitation Subcode?...............................5

The Project...........................................................................................................................................6

The Remodeler..............................................................................................................................7

Code Officials Perspective...........................................................................................................8

Scope of the Current Project..........................................................................................................8

Project Budget and Schedule.......................................................................................................10

The Old Code.............................................................................................................................10

Differences between the Old Rehabilitation Provisions and the NAARP/New Jersey Subcode.......11

Cost and Scheduling Impacts of Rehabilitation Provisions..........................................................12

Foundation...............................................................................................................13

Egress Windows............................................................................................................14

Ceiling Height................................................................................................................16

Corridor Width...............................................................................................................17

Stair Geometry..........................................................................................................18

Summary of Cost and Scheduling Impacts....................................................................................20

Conclusions......................................................................................................................................21

Recommendations.............................................................................................................................21

Useful References..............................................................................................................................22

Contacts...........................................................................................................................................22

Appendix A: Overview of the Nationally Applicable Recommended Rehabilitation Provisions..........A-1

Appendix B: Detailed Project Budget and Schedule........................................................................B-1
Figures/Tables

ix

Figure 1: Age of U. S. Housing Stock: 1995 (in millions)...................................................................2

Figure 2: Residential Remodeling Expenditures: 19802000 (billions of dollars).................................3

Figure 3: Survey Results: Ease of Use of Rehabilitation Provisions....................................................3

Figure 4: Use of Cost-Based Triggers...............................................................................................4

Figure 5: The Stone Lodge circa 1747..............................................................................................6

Figure 6: Carriage House and Porch.................................................................................................7

Figure 7: Master Bedroom and Den Addition....................................................................................7

Figure 8: Front Elevation of Completed Project.................................................................................8

Figure 9: Rear Elevation of Completed Project..................................................................................8

Figure 10: Foundation Plan...............................................................................................................9

Figure 11: First-Story Plan................................................................................................................9

Figure 12: Second-Story Plan...........................................................................................................9

Figure 13: Rubble Stone Foundation...............................................................................................13

Figure 14: Existing 19- x 30- Inch Casement Window.....................................................................14

Figure 15: Existing 14- x 36- Inch Sliding Windows........................................................................14

Figure 16: Low Ceiling Height........................................................................................................16

Figure 17: Existing Corridor............................................................................................................17

Figure 18: Existing Pocket Stairway................................................................................................19

Figure A-1: 1997 Residential Rehabilitation Expenditures..............................................................A-1

Figure A-2: Differences in Regulations (Model Building Codes vs. NARRP)..................................A-1

Table 1: BOCA Valuation Data Report: Valuation Calculations for the Stone Lodge (existing

structure)..........................................................................................................................................11

Table 2: Cost of Compliance with Old New Jersey Rehabilitation Provisions: Foundation Structural

AnalysisCost Estimate...................................................................................................................13

Table 3: Cost of Compliance with Old New Jersey Rehabilitation Provisions: Enlarge Egress Window

Cost Estimate...................................................................................................................................15

Table 4: Cost of Compliance with Old New Jersey Rehabilitation Provisions: Enlarge Egress Window

Cost Estimate for a Typical Wood-Framed Structure.........................................................................15

Table 5: Cost of Compliance with Old New Jersey Rehabilitation Provisions: Raise Ceiling Height in

Lower BathroomCost Estimate.....................................................................................................16

Table 6: Cost of Compliance with Old New Jersey Rehabilitation Provisions: Widen CorridorCost

Estimate............................................................................................................................................17

Table 7: Cost of Compliance with Old New Jersey Rehabilitation Provisions: Widen CorridorCost

Estimate for a Typical Wood-Framed Structure................................................................................18

Table 8: Cost of Compliance with Old New Jersey Rehabilitation Provisions: Stairway Reconfiguration

Cost Estimate for Both Sets of Stairs.................................................................................................19

Table 9: Cost Estimates for Work in Excess of Desired Scope.........................................................20

Table A-1: Overview of NARRP for Repair, Renovation, Alteration, and

Reconstruction...............................................................................................................................A-2

Table B-1: Budget/Schedule for the Stone Lodge..........................................................................B-1
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Office of Policy Development and Research

Washington, DC 20410–6000

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Return Service Requested

FIRST-CLASS MAIL

U.S. POSTAGE PAID

HUD

PERMIT NO. G–795

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING

AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT