Two Field Deviations on a Sprinklered Restaurant's Exit Access
A 2,600-square-foot restaurant (A-2, sprinklered throughout, no occupant-load reduction taken) is under construction from an approved plan set. At rough-in you verify the two required exits shown on the drawings: the front vestibule door and a rear service door reached through the kitchen corridor. Two field conditions differ from the approved drawings. The front door leaf is 36 inches, but with the frame stop, the door thickness, and a surface-mounted closer, the clear opening measures 31 inches. The kitchen corridor that forms part of the rear exit access was furred out for a plumbing chase and now measures 41 inches between finished surfaces; the approved plans show 44 inches. The superintendent says both are "close enough" and asks you to sign the rough-in card today.
1. Compute the required egress width and decide whether the 31-inch front door can be accepted.
Read the worked answer
Occupant load: 2,600 sq ft ÷ 15 sq ft/occupant (Table 1004.5 assembly, unconcentrated tables and chairs) = 173.3, carried as 174. Rounding policy varies by edition; at 173 the required width is 34.6 inches and the conclusion does not change.
Required egress capacity: the building is sprinklered, and the doors are level components, so the capacity factor is 0.2 in. per occupant (§1005.3.2): 174 × 0.2 = 34.8 in., or 35 in. total.
Two exits: each exit must carry at least half the total, so capacity alone would demand only about 17.5 inches per door. Capacity is not the governing check here.
Governing check: the minimum clear width of a door in the means of egress is 32 inches, measured with the leaf open 90 degrees, from the face of the door to the stop (§1010.1.1). The measured 31 inches fails, and it fails before any capacity math matters.
Acceptance: do not sign. Have the contractor remove or relocate the stop, use offset hinges, reposition the closer, or replace the leaf/frame so that a genuine 32-inch clear opening is achieved. Re-measure and photograph with the tape in the frame; a second measurement after adjustment is the only thing that closes the item. Note that a 36-inch leaf is not automatically a 36-inch clear opening - the field measurement governs, not the door schedule.
2. The corridor is 41 inches instead of 44. The contractor argues the corridor serves only kitchen staff, so the 36-inch allowance for corridors serving fewer than 50 occupants applies. Evaluate.
Read the worked answer
The rule: corridors must be at least 44 inches wide (§1020.3). The exception permitting 36 inches applies only where the corridor serves an occupant load of 50 or less.
Applying it here: the corridor is not a kitchen-staff corridor. It is the rear exit access from the dining and bar area - the approved plans make it the path to one of the two required exits. The occupant load on that corridor is therefore the portion of the 174 occupants assigned to the rear exit, roughly half, well over 50. The 36-inch exception is unavailable.
Capacity is not the test: 41 inches far exceeds the ~17.5 inches of capacity the rear exit actually needs, but minimum width is an absolute, not a calculated result. Passing capacity does not cure a width violation.
Design change, not field tolerance: furring added inside the corridor to build a plumbing chase reduces a dimension shown on approved plans. That is a design change, and you have no authority to accept it in the field. The options are (1) reframe or relocate the chase to restore 44 inches, or (2) a revised plan submittal with a code analysis. A variance request goes to the board of appeals, not to the inspector.
Watch for the knock-on effect: verify the chase did not also reduce the required width at the rear door approach or create a projection below the required head height.
3. What belongs on the inspection record for this visit, and what happens next?
Read the worked answer
Record the visit even though it fails. A failed or partial inspection is still an inspection; leaving the record blank invites the same "the inspector said it was fine" argument later.
Contents of the entry:
- Permit number, address, date and time in/out, inspector name and ID.
- Scope inspected: rough-in/framing stage, egress components only.
- The document compared: plan sheet number, revision, and the dimension shown (44 in.).
- Each discrepancy with the actual measured value, the location (room, grid, door mark), and the code section applied (e.g., §1010.1.1, §1020.3).
- Photographs showing the tape in the opening, filed to the permit.
- Parties present and any statement made about proceeding anyway - quoted, not characterized.
- Required corrective action and the fact that a re-inspection is required before concealment or drywall.
Next steps: issue the written correction notice the same day; do not sign the card; calendar the re-inspection and note the re-inspection fee if the jurisdiction charges one. If the contractor proposes an alternate door or a reframed chase, require a revised plan or an RFI response from the design professional before you re-inspect, so the fix is documented as a design decision rather than an inspector's field concession.