How Literal Should You Be With the CBC and ADA Standards?

Do we take the literal or practable approach?

One of the most common questions I get is: "Are you just reading the code like a rulebook, or do you have wiggle room in how you interpret it?"

The honest answer: it depends on what the code is actually saying. Some requirements are absolute — measure, compare, report. Others are written as performance standards or legal thresholds that require trained professional judgment. Knowing which is which is one of the most important skills in this work, and getting it wrong in either direction creates real problems.

What the Code Says About Itself

The 2010 ADA Standards establish the baseline at § 104.1: "Dimensions that are not stated as a maximum or minimum are absolute." But § 104.1.1 introduces construction tolerances — they apply to maximums and minimums, but NOT where the code already gives you a stated range. When the code says 33"–36", that range is the tolerance. Nothing outside it is acceptable.

§ 103 (Equivalent Facilitation) is the code's only flexibility valve: alternatives are permitted if they result in "substantially equivalent or greater accessibility." The burden of proving equivalence falls on the covered entity — no pre-approval process exists.

Four Examples: Literal vs. Interpretive

1. Grab bar heights — no interpretation at allCode: 2010 ADAS § 609.4 / 2025 CBC § 11B-609.4 Grab bars at water closets: 33"–36" AFF. Because this is a stated range with two endpoints, no tolerance outside those bounds applies. A bar at 32-3/4" is a violation — full stop. No construction tolerance, no equivalent facilitation argument saves it.

2. Ramp slope — limited tolerance appliesCode: 2010 ADAS § 405.2 / 2025 CBC § 11B-405.2 Maximum 1:12 running slope (8.33%). A maximum-only requirement can accommodate conventional construction tolerances for field conditions — concrete finishing variation to 8.5% may be defensible. But tolerances cover field variance, not design intent. You cannot design at 1:11 and invoke tolerance to justify it. In litigation, that distinction is exactly what gets probed.

3. Technical infeasibility — fact-specific legal analysisCode: 2010 ADAS § 106.5; 28 CFR § 36.402(c); 2025 CBC § 11B-202.4 Technical infeasibility requires documented proof that existing structural conditions "would require removing or altering a load-bearing member" or that "other existing physical or site constraints prohibit" compliance. Cost alone does not qualify — that's a separate disproportionate cost analysis. Conflating the two is one of the most common vulnerabilities in expert testimony.

4. Lines of sight — genuine performance standardCode: 2010 ADAS §§ 221.2.3, 802.2; 2025 CBC § 11B-221.2.3 Wheelchair spaces must provide viewing angles "substantially equivalent to, or better than" those available to other spectators. The DOJ deliberately declined to set a precise metric here — professional methodology is the compliance determination. Exception: stadium-style movie theaters have a bright-line rule (rear 60% of seats, or 40th–100th percentile of vertical viewing angles), and that is literal.

Existing Facilities: Readily Achievable Barrier Removal

For Title III facilities (retail, restaurants, hotels), an existing facility is not required to be fully retrofitted to the 2010 Standards just because barriers exist. The obligation is to remove barriers when doing so is readily achievable — "without much difficulty or expense" — a separate analysis from whether a barrier technically exists.

A defensible CASp report on an existing facility does three things: (1) documents all barriers against the current technical standards; (2) identifies which are likely readily achievable to remediate; and (3) prioritizes in the DOJ's established order: accessible entrance → accessible route → accessible restrooms → accessible telephones → drinking fountains.

The 1991 safe harbor matters too: elements brought into compliance with the 1991 ADA Standards are not required to be upgraded solely to meet incremental changes in the 2010 Standards — unless that element is being altered. A compliant 1991-era element is protected. A non-compliant one is not.

The key distinction: "Does this meet the dimensional standard?" and "Is the covered entity required to fix it?" are two separate questions with two separate answers. Conflating them produces unreliable expert opinions.

Alterations and ADA Litigation

When a covered entity chooses to alter a facility, the analysis changes completely. Under 28 CFR § 36.402, any alteration must ensure — "to the maximum extent feasible" — that the altered portions are accessible. No readily achievable filter. The full technical standard applies to what was altered.

More importantly, an alteration to a primary function area triggers a path of travel obligation under 28 CFR § 36.403: the path of travel to the altered area — including restrooms, telephones, and drinking fountains serving it — must also be made accessible, unless the cost would be disproportionate (defined as exceeding 20% of the cost of the primary function area alteration).

In litigation, these are the questions a CASp expert needs to answer:

• Was the work an "alteration," or was it normal maintenance? (Painting, reroofing, and mechanical/electrical changes that don't affect usability are not alterations.)

• Did it affect a primary function area? If not, no path of travel obligation attaches.

• What did the alteration cost, and what would a compliant path of travel have cost? Document the 20% math explicitly.

• Were smaller projects aggregated to avoid the obligation? Under § 36.403(h), alterations within a three-year look-back to the same path of travel are combined. Plaintiff attorneys know this rule.

In California, remember: CBC § 11B-202.4 independently imposes path of travel requirements enforceable through the building department and under California Civil Code § 55.56 — even if the federal disproportionate cost defense applies.

Quick Reference for ADA Standard Interpretations

Situation	How Literal	Practical Approach
Stated range with two endpoints (e.g., grab bar 33"–36")	Absolute — no tolerance	Measure and report pass/fail
Stated maximum or minimum (e.g., ramp 1:12 max)	Limited — field tolerance only	Document design intent vs. field deviation
Performance standard (e.g., lines of sight)	Professional judgment required	Document your evaluation methodology
Existing facility, no alteration (Title III)	Readily achievable analysis — not full compliance	Separate the barrier from the remediation obligation
Alteration to primary function area	Maximum extent feasible; 20% path of travel cap	Calculate costs, document the analysis
Technical infeasibility / equivalent facilitation	Fact-specific legal standard	Document physical constraints; burden is on covered entity

The most dangerous mistake in CASp practice is applying professional judgment to reduce an absolute requirement, or applying rigid literalism to a performance standard. Both fail under scrutiny. Know the framework, document your reasoning, and be prepared to defend it — in a report, a deposition, or across a conference table.

DISCLAIMER: The information provided in this post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult a qualified attorney or consultant for advice tailored to your situation.