Regarding Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance, there is a difference between what is a building alteration and what is periodic maintenance. A building alteration is defined in the 2010 ADA Standards [see the graphic on the right] as “A change to a building or facility that affects or could affect the usability of the building or facility or portion thereof. Alterations include, but are not limited to, remodeling, renovation, rehabilitation, reconstruction, historic restoration, resurfacing of circulation paths or vehicular ways, changes or rearrangement of the structural parts or elements, and changes or rearrangement in the plan configuration of walls and full-height partitions.”

Modifications of a building such as normal maintenance, reroofing, painting or wallpapering, or changes to mechanical and electrical systems are not alterations unless they affect the usability of the building or facility. These modifications could also be referred to as periodic maintenance.

So usability is the key word in the definition of an alteration. If the work done on an existing building does not change the usability of the space, then it is probably periodic maintenance.

Scope also affects the limits of an alteration versus periodic maintenance. 2010 ADA Standard 202.3, Alterations, states, “Where existing elements or spaces are altered, each altered element or space shall comply with the applicable requirements of Chapter 2 [Scoping].”

In other words, when an alteration is defined (limited) by the scope of the project, the need for ADA compliance is also limited to those elements within the scope. If an element or space is not altered, they do not have to comply with the ADA Standards. The graphic below is representative of scope where the bubbled areas of this facility are being altered, not the entire facility. The bubbled areas are within the scope and must comply with the ADA Standards. Those elements not bubbled, like the entry/exit doors, are not within the scope and do not have to comply.

There are some exceptions for Standard 203 for technical infeasibility, circulation paths to primary function areas, and certain residential dwelling units. Some of these exceptions will be discussed further toward the end of this article.

Some may ask then, if full accessibility is not guaranteed during an alteration, what’s the point of having ADA laws? The response is that partial compliance is better than none. Also, encompassing all this is the ongoing obligation for barrier removal at all facilities, program accessibility requirements at state and local government facilities, fuller compliance on the path of travel required to primary function areas, and the opportunity to improve accessibility when an alteration or repair is made.

Another way to look at alterations versus periodic maintenance is if the element being altered or repaired is covered by the ADA Standards. If the element being altered or repaired is covered by the ADA Standards, then it is highly likely the alteration or repair will need to comply with the ADA Standards at least to some extent.

An example of this logic is when HVAC equipment is replaced or repaired. HVAC compressors are not covered by the ADA Standards; however, thermostats, as an operable part, are covered by the ADA Standards, at least for location and usability. So if you replace an HVAC compressor it is not covered under the ADA Standards as an alteration. But if you replace a thermostat it is covered under the ADA Standards as an alteration for an operable part. The graphic on the right is representative of an HVAC compressor.

Another comparison is the repair (periodic maintenance) of a pothole in a parking lot versus the re-striping or re-surfacing of the entire parking lot. A pothole that needs repair is shown on the left. The pothole repair is not considered an alteration, although the repaired surface may still need to adhere to the ADA Standards for abrupt vertical change of elevation, slope, and surface conditions in an accessible route.

Re-surfacing or re-striping the parking lot would be considered an alteration because it can affect the usability of the parking lot and because it presents an opportunity to improve the accessibility of the parking lot. Only if the re-surfacing or re-striping affects a very small portion of the parking lot, such as a pothole, can this be considered periodic maintenance and not an alteration.

Changes in floor carpeting is another example of periodic maintenance versus an alteration. The ADA Standards does cover carpet installations. If the carpet is replaced, the new carpet would be covered under the ADA. The graphic on the left is the tool used to install carpet.

However, if only a small area of carpet needs to be replaced, this would not be considered an alteration but periodic maintenance. The graphic on the right is where a small section of carpet is being replaced. Again, even though this is a repair or periodic maintenance, the repaired carpet must still comply with the ADA Standards.

Another example of an alteration versus periodic maintenance is when a door handle is replaced versus repaired. The graphic below is representative. Clearly if the door handle is replaced, the new door handle should comply with the ADA Standards. If the door handle is repaired, it does not have to comply with the ADA Standards.

Another example of application of alterations is shown in the graphic below where only the toilet (shown in yellow) in a toilet room is being replaced. In this situation the scope of the project limits the ADA compliance modifications to the new toilet.

As was mentioned earlier in this article, the requirements of Standard 202.3 [Existing Buildings and Facilities, Alterations] can be impacted by the scope of the project, obligations for barrier removal, technical infeasibility, and circulation paths to primary function areas.

Regarding the limits of scope, Advisory 202.3, Alterations, states, “Although covered entities are permitted to limit the scope of an alteration to individual elements, the alteration of multiple elements within a room or space may provide a cost-effective opportunity to make the entire room or space accessible. Any elements or spaces of the building or facility that are required to comply with these requirements must be made accessible within the scope of the alteration, to the maximum extent feasible. If providing accessibility in compliance with these requirements for people with one type of disability (e.g., people who use wheelchairs) is not feasible, accessibility must still be provided in compliance with the requirements for people with other types of disabilities (e.g., people who have hearing impairments or who have vision impairments) to the extent that such accessibility is feasible.”

The obligation for Title III barrier removal is not covered in the ADA Standards but can be found in Implementation Regulation 28 CFR Part 36.304, which states: “(a) General. A public accommodation shall remove architectural barriers in existing facilities, including communication barriers that are structural in nature, where such removal is readily achievable, i.e., easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense.” Examples of barrier removal that are readily achievable and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense are provided in this regulation.

Technical infeasibility is defined as “With respect to an alteration of a building or a facility, something that has little likelihood of being accomplished because existing structural conditions would require removing or altering a load-bearing member that is an essential part of the structural frame; or because other existing physical or site constraints prohibit modification or addition of elements, spaces, or features that are in full and strict compliance with the minimum requirements.”

An example of technical infeasibility is shown in the graphic below where a toilet room that is too small for a turn around space is constrained in size by the adjacent corridor, a stair tower, and passenger elevator and freight elevator shafts. Making the toilet room larger in this location is technically infeasible.

It is important to note that technical infeasibility can be inversely related to the size of the alteration and that technical infeasibility is decided based on a case by case evaluation. For small alterations the potential for technical infeasibility is relatively large. For large alterations the potential for technical infeasibility is small. The photo below is a building that is undergoing a large alteration. Because the building is being changed so significantly anyway, the potential for technical infeasibility is small.

Regarding the fuller compliance with respect to primary function areas, 2010 ADA Standard 202.4, Alterations Affecting Primary Function Areas, states, “In addition to the requirements of [Standard] 202.3, an alteration that affects or could affect the usability of or access to an area containing a primary function shall be made so as to ensure that, to the maximum extent feasible, the path of travel to the altered area, including the rest rooms, telephones, and drinking fountains serving the altered area, are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, unless such alterations are disproportionate to the overall alterations in terms of cost and scope as determined under criteria established by the Attorney General.” A primary function is a major activity for which the facility was intended. The graphic below is representative of a path of travel to a primary function area.

Examples of primary function areas include: dining areas of a restaurant, retail space in a store, exam rooms in a doctor’s office, guest rooms in a hotel, classrooms in a school, offices & other work areas where activities of a covered entity are carried out. Examples of areas that do not contain a primary function include: mechanical rooms, boiler rooms, supply storage rooms, employee lounges or locker rooms, janitorial closets, entrances, corridors, or restrooms.

Specific provisions for alterations are located throughout ADA Standards and they may not be easy to find. An example is elevators, where 2010 ADA Standard 206.6.1, Existing Elevators, states, “Where elements of existing elevators are altered, the same element shall also be altered in all elevators that are programmed to respond to the same hall call control as the altered elevator and shall comply with the requirements of [Standard] 407 for the altered element.” In other words, if you fix one elevator to comply with the ADA Standards, you have to fix all in the same group. The photo below is representative.

In summary, the ADA laws for alterations of a building are complex and not always easy to find in the ADA Standards. Understanding the difference between an alteration and periodic maintenance is important. Usability is the key word in the definition of an alteration. If the work done on an existing building does not change the usability of the space, then it is probably periodic maintenance.

If you observe a building that is not ADA compliant and you would like to know how to proceed, please see the link at What To Do When A Building Is Not ADA Compliant or Accessible.

ADA Inspections Nationwide, LLC, offers ADA/ABA/FHA accessibility compliance inspections for buildings and facilities, as applicable to the different laws, and expert witness services with respect to ADA/ABA/FHA laws for building owners, tenants and managers. Also, ADAIN offers consulting for home modifications as a CAPS consultant for people wishing to age in place in their homes. For a complete list of services please see ADAIN Services.

Thank you.