ICC 75 common mistakes
ICC 75 · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Answering code-application questions from a remembered table, footnote, or threshold without first pinning the question to the edition and scope stated in the stem (new vs. existing building, occupancy group, sprinklered vs. non-sprinklered, construction type).
Candidates memorize numbers from study guides that were written against a different code cycle, and the numbers differ between editions and between the general section and its exceptions.
What to do instead
Before evaluating any answer option, write down the four givens in the stem (edition, work type, occupancy/construction classification, protection features). Eliminate options that only work under a different given, then confirm the surviving option against the scope paragraph and exception list of the section you are relying on.
Classifying the work incorrectly at the start of the question - treating a repair or alteration as new construction, or treating a change of occupancy as a simple tenant improvement - and then applying the wrong chapter's requirements.
Most candidates jump straight to the technical requirement they recognize and skip the classification step, which is what actually selects the applicable chapter.
What to do instead
For every scenario question, state the work class explicitly in one sentence (repair / alteration / addition / change of occupancy / new structure) before touching the technical rule. If the stem gives a change of use, the change-of-occupancy requirements control; if the stem gives work within existing elements, the existing-building provisions control.
Treating code commentary, appendices, and explanatory figures as enforceable requirements, or treating a 'should' recommendation as a 'shall' mandate.
Commentary is written in the same voice as the code and appears side by side with it, so it reads as authoritative; appendices are frequently adopted but only when specifically referenced.
What to do instead
Adopt a two-tier reading rule: enforceable text lives in the numbered code sections and in standards referenced by those sections; commentary, informative notes, and non-adopted appendices do not create requirements. When an option is built from a comment rather than a section, discard it.
Beginning the technical plan review before confirming the submittal is administratively complete - missing engineering documents, energy documentation, truss or pre-engineered design packages, or the required design professional seal.
Time pressure pushes reviewers to start marking up drawings immediately, and the missing document is discovered after the review cycle, forcing a second full cycle.
What to do instead
Run a written completeness checklist first and issue a single 'incomplete submittal' response listing every missing item. Technical comments are issued only against a complete set, so the resubmittal returns to a defined baseline.
Issuing review comments that identify a problem but do not cite the specific code section, and failing to keep a comment log that tracks each item through resubmittal to closure.
Comments are written in a hurry and in narrative form, so neither the applicant nor the reviewer can verify what was resolved, and previously corrected items drift back out of compliance.
What to do instead
Format every comment as: sheet or detail reference, the observed condition, the code section violated, and the corrective action required. Carry all open comments forward on each resubmittal and close them individually with a date and reviewer initials.
Performing only a final inspection and skipping the required milestone inspections, or allowing work to be covered without the notification and inspection the permit conditions require.
Scheduling is driven by the contractor's call, and the final is the inspection that always gets requested; concealed work is invisible once covered, so the omission never surfaces until a failure appears.
What to do instead
Build the inspection sequence from the approved plans and permit conditions at issuance, and record each required milestone as a pass, fail, or not-observed. If a milestone was concealed without inspection, document the required verification or exposure before approving the next stage.
Writing field corrections as general observations ('correct installation', 'verify per manufacturer') rather than a specific defect tied to a code section and a measurable acceptance criterion.
Corrections are often dictated on site from memory, and broad language feels safer than committing to a specific requirement.
What to do instead
Each correction record states: location, the nonconforming condition, the code section or approved plan detail it violates, and the observable condition that will constitute compliance. If manufacturer's instructions govern, cite the specific installation instruction, not the phrase 'per manufacturer'.
Not verifying that the field condition matches the approved plans and the approved product listings - accepting a substitution, a different assembly, or a different anchorage from what was reviewed.
The inspector focuses on workmanship and loses sight of the approved set, and substitutions are often presented as equivalent on site.
What to do instead
Carry the approved plan set and any approved alternates into the field and check the installed assembly against them on each visit. A field substitution is a plan-review issue, not an inspector's judgement call - document it and route it back through the modification process.
Issuing verbal-only notices of violation or stop-work orders with no written record of the deficiency, the code basis, the abatement timeframe, or the date and method of service.
Field communication is fast and informal, and the written follow-up is deferred until 'after the next visit', by which time the facts have changed.
What to do instead
Use a standard notice form that captures the violation, the code section, the required corrective action, the deadline, and the service date and method. File it the same day, and treat the written record as the trigger for the compliance timeline and any escalation.
Handling appeals, modifications, and alternative-materials requests as informal negotiations rather than through the administrative procedure the code establishes, including the required timeframes and the board's authority.
Applicants call the inspector directly, and granting a verbal accommodation feels like good customer service, so the formal path is bypassed.
What to do instead
Route every request for a modification, alternate material, or appeal to the written process, and state the decision in writing with the basis. Know which decisions rest with the code official and which only the board of appeals can make, and do not exceed that boundary in the field.