unpermitted building inspections

huangyhg

unpermitted building inspections
i am in a high wind county (110-130 mph) which requires all structures over 400sq ft be designed for the appropriate wind speed.  during tax assesment the county will find unpermitted structures, barns, tractor sheds, etc. and then code enforcement will require the homeowner get a letter from a local engineer saying the structure meets code.  most often they dont meet code and repairs are impractical, so over the years i have learned to just not get involved.
a most recent example i chose to go look at more for curiosity than anything was a fishing cabin / deerstand. it is about a half mile in the woods away from anything else.
the structure started out as a sixty year old barn (on cmu piers w/ no foundation anchorage) and is now a 16x16 shack w/ a fridge and half bath.  the roof was replaced and the roof pitch completely changed and a couple of lean-to porches added.  the structure is well built but certainly would not meet code (and due to foundation issues could not be repaired to meet code).  this should probably be considered a change of use which would require code compliance.
is`there any provision for approving a structure of this type or perhaps an open storage pole barn etc without it completely meeting code? the county will accept most anything an engineer provides but is it acceptable to make repairs and approve a structure to some lesser standard if code is not met?  
check out our whitepaper library.
i do not against code, which is essential to have design professional to meet a set of uniform, well-meant standards. however, let us don't forget our roles as an educated engineer - to solve problems using judgement in conjuction with our knoweledges. there are reasons for buildings/structures stood for long period of time without meeting modern codes, if you can uncover the methodologies, feel confident with consideration of odds for losses (including human lifes, seriousness of destruction..), i would give a try, and include the findings and reasons for your decision in the report/letter to the county. for this particular case, you have a (one) vote for "yes", if time and energy could be compensated fairly.  
correction: myth, not methodologies (bad choice of word).
if it's 16x16 it's under 400 sf.
as pslem noted, it is under 400 sf so perhaps does not fall under the regulation.  but, for the sake of argument, let's say it is just over 400 sf so that it falls under the regulation.
you have to be careful in a situation such as this.  you must explain in a note to the county that the structure does not meet building code.  as kslee1000 has said, you must be very sure that safety is never going to be an issue.
it may be appropriate for you to recommend to the county that the structure be noted as non-compliant and a caveat be put on the property in case it is sold to another party at some time in the future.  if the property is sold, your report should be included with the sale documents.  if it is resold, the same procedure should again be followed. this protects both you and the county from future lawsuits because there has been full disclosure.  
i just wish i had followed my own advice fifteen years ago when i wrote a report about a questionable foundation which had been built without a building permit.  a claim of frost heaving has recently been made by the third owner of the property who seeks damages of $300,000 plus costs to build a new foundation, move the existing house onto it and demolish the old foundation.  my report indicated probable frost heaving but deemed the residence safe for occupancy.  
the smartest move for an engineer in these circumstances is to avoid it.  it is simply not worth the hassle.
  
best regards,
ba
if on a working farm it may not need to comply with code since it is an agricultural structure, or something to that effect.  i once looked at an unpermitted pole barn that fell in that category and was therefore ok.