Opinion ID: 1917391
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Building Code Provision

Text: With respect to the first element of the express prohibition on municipal regulations of residential structures, the City asserts that the provisions of the Rental Licensing Ordinance are not building code provisions. Based on Mark Z. Jones, the City argues that the term building code provisions means that the regulation must affect the design and construction of the building, and the inspection standards at issue here do not relate to the design or the construction of Sax's building. See Mark Z. Jones, 306 Minn. at 220, 236 N.W.2d at 165. According to the City, the ordinance merely regulates the business of rental housing, and the inspection standards relate to the use of the residence as rental property and its habitabilitynot its design and construction. The district court and court of appeals appear to have accepted this argument. The court of appeals concluded that the Rental Licensing Ordinance is not prohibited by the State Building Code because the ordinance regulates the business of rental housing by enacting standards of habitability. Sax Invs., 730 N.W.2d at 556. We agree that the Rental Licensing Ordinance regulates the business of rental housing, but that conclusion does not resolve the issue presented in this case. Although we implicitly construed the term building code in Mark Z. Jones to include a regulation that affects the construction and design of buildings, 306 Minn. at 219, 236 N.W.2d at 165, we did not purport to exclude from that definition subjects that are plainly covered by the State Building Code. Indeed, we said that our decision in that case was influenced, if not governed, by the fact that the subject matter of the local ordinance was regulated by the State Building Code. See id. at 222, 236 N.W.2d at 167. In other words, if the subject of the regulation is included within the State Building Code, it is a building code regulation. We adopt the same reasoning in this case and conclude that the term building code provision means at least those subjects specifically regulated by the State Building Code. [1] The City also argues that the term building code provisions is limited to regulations on the new construction of buildings and does not include regulations on the subsequent use of buildings. But the plain text of the State Building Code refutes this interpretation. The statutory statement of policy and purpose provides that [t]he State Building Code governs the construction, reconstruction, alteration, and repair of buildings and other structures. Minn.Stat. § 16B.59 (emphasis added); see also Minn. Rule 1300.0040 (2005) (explaining that [t]he code applies to the construction, alteration, moving, demolition, repair and use of any building    in a municipality). [2] Moreover, the State Building Code directly regulates the post-construction use of buildings through its use of occupancy classifications. The Code utilizes a system of occupancy classifications to tailor construction standards to different building types, and prohibits the use of a new building and changes in the occupancy classifications of an existing building unless the building complies with the code requirements that apply based on the intended use of the building. See Minn. R. 1300.0220 (2005). With respect to residential structures, the primary factors that distinguish between occupancy classes are (1) the transient or permanent nature of the typical occupants, and (2) the number of dwelling units in the structure. [3] Minn. R. 1305.0310 (2005). Significant to our analysis in this case is the fact that in defining the building standards applicable to residential buildings, the State Building Code does not distinguish between buildings that are owner-occupied and those that are used as rental property. Finally, the State Building Code regulates the post-construction use of buildings by specifically allowing the occupancy of an existing building to continue without complying with current code requirements (nonconforming use) unless a code provision is specifically applicable to existing buildings. 2000 Guidelines for the Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings § 104 (incorporated by reference into the State Building Code by Minn. R. 1311.0010 (2007)); see also Minn. R. 1300.0220, subp. 2 (stating that [t]he legal occupancy of any structure existing on the date of adoption of the code shall be permitted to continue without change except as specifically required in chapter 1311). In addition, the code does not permit existing conditions to continue if they are unsafe or dangerous to human life. See Minn. R. 1300.0180 (2007); Minn. R. 1311.0206 (2007). We therefore conclude that the term building code provisions is not limited to regulation of the new construction of buildings but may also include regulation on the subsequent use of a building.