It looks nicely done. No one's likely to come by ordering a demo. However, an astute home inspector might catch it on a sale. To be sure, check with your local Code authority--building department--to be sure of their requirements.

IRC 2009

The run is too short, hence the treads lack required depth too. You're missing a guardrail or two. Don't even think about screwing that to the stone; you need a Newall post. Then their's the leaking aluminum flashing.

If you call inspection, you're getting a red tag.

Any recourse from the builder?

Cash job, no receipts? What do you think?

A written contract with a licenced trade could be a different story. If you're willing to go to Small Claims Court and he is not judgement proof.

Paid by check. Had a contract but did not specify tread depth. Why can't I screw aluminum rails to the stone? Fixing the flashing is easy enough. Can I sell my house with this stairs?

Here, you could. Houses sell here with non code compliant stairs every day. An inspector would not investigate how old they were, and if they noted the non compliance it would likely be considered an existing condition, noted in the report but not prevent the sale. Philadelphia County.

Found a post online that claims only nine inch treads required in New Jersey. So I think the stairs are code compliant. Has anyone heard this before about NJ?

http://www.askcodeman.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=469

"- xii. In Section 311.5.3.2, Tread depth, in the first sentence, "10 inches (254 mm)" shall be deleted and "9 inches (229 mm)" shall be inserted. In addition, in the fourth sentence, "10 inches (254 mm)" shall be deleted and "9 inches (229 mm)" shall be inserted. "

All of the homes of my husbands family in New Jersey have these awkward narrow treads. I really notice it and have often wondered if the code was different there than where I live. It makes a difference that you can feel. I feel like the stairs are all "child sized", but steep.

You can screw into the stone alright, but if the stone doesn't blow out when you do, wait 'till the freeze/thaw cycle starts.

But doesn't the newel post need to be screwed into the stone on the landing and the bottom stair?

So it will be assumed these stairs are "grandfathered" to NJS modifications of IRC 2006 at time of sale? And no issue can be made? Also, I assume I still need to anchor the newel post to the stone on the top of the stairs?

International Building Code 2015, New Jersey addition states "In Group R-3 occupancies; within dwelling units in Group R-2 occupancies; and in Group U occupancies that are accessory to a Group R-3 occupancy or accessory to individual dwelling units in Group R-2 occupancies; the maximum rise height shall be 8 1/4 inches (210 mm); the minimum tread depth shall be 9 inches (229 mm)" http://www2.iccsafe.org/states/oregon/07_structural/07_PDFs/Chapter%203_Use%20and%20Occupancy%20Classification.pdf

I think the landing must be a minimum of 36"deep too. Not to pile on.

Casey

ewininger90

Thanks for the reference to the latest Code. (Unfortunately, your link goes to Oregon.)

Here is the New Jersey Code.

Within units, a 9" tread is permitted. Exterior, it appears the tread must conform to 1011.5.2--11 inches, measured from the nosing.

Once you confirm that in writing, you have clear grounds to request a rebuild or take legal action. The way I'm reading the Code is that your treads may actually be three inches shorter than minimum.

Of course, if you're selling your home years from now and someone asks, who's to say when those stairs were added?

We are in NJ and had narrow stairs put in like this by a contractor. They were not to code and had to be ripped out and redone.

worthy - doesn't it list an exception requiring only 9 inches tread depth for Group R-3 Occupancies directly underneath your quote:

I'd look into the landing requirement as mentioned by Sombreuil, too. If the door opens out over the landing, that landing looks too short.

Landing is 32 inches. I assume minimum is 36 inches. I left message for the contractor and I am awaiting return call... If he doesn't return my call is next step a complaint with the Division of Consumer Affairs? I assume contractors are legally required to follow the building code? Could he argue that signed contract did not specify 36 inch landing or 10 inch treads? http://www.njconsumeraffairs.gov/Pages/File-a-Complaint.aspx

ewininger90

The exception is for: Group U; Group R-3; and within dwelling units in Group R-2. It looks to me that a home fits within Group R-2. See pp, 3 and 4 here for definition of Occupancy Groups.

If it were me, I'd get the absolute word in writing from your local municipality's building permit office. (You should be able to do that without giving out your address.) With that in hand, the contractor has no excuse should you need to go further. I don't know how effective the state consumer affairs office is. I can only speculate that they are more interested in outright fraud and non-performance rather than a Code violation.

It would be instructive to see how the poster Caroline Hamilton, above, got satisfaction.

The landing and lack of handrail bring attention to the question "what's wrong here?" Max rise is 7" which they could easily overlook at their discretion. The reason you hired a contractor is to hire an expert. He can't say "well you signed off on it.." because , in brief, he wrote it and it should have been compliant. Handrail and landing are icing on the cake. Looks like he should re-do them. IMO.

I guess you didn’t notice this is a 5-year-old post. Surely the dilemma has been solved by now.