Navigating the Gray Areas: When Barrier Removal is NOT "Readily Achievable"

Navigating the Gray Areas: When Barrier Removal is NOT "Readily Achievable"

When you are served with an ADA lawsuit, the immediate reaction is often to start tearing up concrete and widening doors. But as a Certified Access Specialist (CASp) and expert witness, I frequently evaluate conditions where strict compliance simply isn't feasible.

Federal law requires "readily achievable barrier removal"—modifications that are easily accomplishable without much difficulty or expense. But what happens when the property line, city easements, or structural realities get in the way?

Let’s dive into three common, highly ambiguous scenarios you might face in the field, analyzing them precisely through the lens of the 2025 California Building Code (CBC) and the 2010 ADA Standards.

Scenario 1: The Property Line Constraint

You have a step or a sloped maneuvering clearance at your primary entrance, but it directly abuts the city sidewalk. You don't own the property to build a permanent ramp or flat route. What do you do?

Direct Answer Statement

Modifying a sloped maneuvering clearance or stepped entrance that abuts a public right-of-way often exceeds what is readily achievable because extending a permanent structure beyond the property line requires municipal approval and is outside the private entity's legal control. When permanent barrier removal is legally constrained, deploying a temporary ramp accompanied by an operable call button and informational signage serves as a legally permissible alternative method under ADA Title III.

CBC 2025 Citation

Citation: California Building Code, Title 24, Part 2, 2025 Edition, Section 11B-404.2.4.4 "Floor or ground surface within required maneuvering clearances shall comply with Section 11B-302. Changes in level are not permitted. ... The slope of the floor or ground surface within required maneuvering clearances shall not be steeper than 1:48."

2010 ADA Standards Citation

Citation: Title III Regulations, 28 CFR 36.305(a) "Where a public accommodation can demonstrate that barrier removal is not readily achievable, the public accommodation shall not fail to make its goods, services, facilities, or privileges available through alternative methods, if those methods are readily achievable."

Exception Section

Exception: 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design, Section 404.2.4.4 Exception 1 "At doors serving buildings or facilities that are not required to be accessible, changes in level up to 5/8 inch (16 mm) shall be permitted."

Application Note

A maneuvering clearance slope exceeding 1:48 (2.08%) is a strict violation, as CBC Section 11B-104.1.1 defines minimums and maximums as absolute with no construction tolerance. However, rebuilding the landing is not readily achievable due to right-of-way constraints.

Under 28 CFR 36.305, an alternative method is required. The business must install an informational sign and a call button (mounted between 15 inches and 48 inches above the finish floor per CBC 11B-308) to notify staff to deploy a temporary ramp. The temporary ramp itself must not exceed a 1:12 (8.33%) slope when deployed.

Flagging a conflict: While the CBC strictly regulates permanent conditions and doesn't explicitly sanction "temporary" ramps for permanent facilities, ADA civil rights exposure is mitigated by executing this alternative method when structural compliance is legally impossible.

Scenario 2: The City-Owned Alleyway Path of Travel

Your facility provides accessible parking in a private property lot in the back, but the only way for a customer to reach the front entrance is by traveling down a city-owned vehicular alley and then along a city sidewalk. Is repaving or re-routing the city alley readily achievable for the business owner?

Direct Answer Statement

No. Modifying a city-owned alley and public sidewalk to create a compliant accessible route from a private rear parking lot to a front entrance is not readily achievable for a private business. A private entity lacks the legal control and authority to perform barrier removal construction on a public right-of-way owned by a Title II municipality.

CBC 2025 Citation

Citation: California Building Code, Title 24, Part 2, 2025 Edition, Section 11B-206.2.1"At least one accessible route shall be provided within the site from accessible parking spaces and accessible passenger drop-off and loading zones; public streets and sidewalks; and public transportation stops to the accessible building or facility entrance they serve."

2010 ADA Standards Citation

Scoping Citation: Title III Regulations, 28 CFR 36.304(a)"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."

Exception Section

Exception: California Building Code, Title 24, Part 2, 2025 Edition, Section 11B-106.5 (Definition of Site)"SITE. A parcel of land bounded by a property line or a designated portion of a public right-of-way."

Application Note

The route from the private rear parking lot requires traversing a city-owned alley. Alleys frequently violate CBC 11B-403.3 walking surface running slopes (maximum 1:20 or 5.0%) and cross slopes (maximum 1:48 or 2.08%). Because the private entity does not own or control the city alley or sidewalk, re-grading these public right-of-ways involves off-site engineering and municipal permits on property owned by a Title II entity.

This strictly fails the Title III "readily achievable" test for the private business. The private owner remains responsible for ensuring the accessible parking stall within their private lot complies (minimum 108 inches wide with a 60-inch access aisle). To mitigate civil rights exposure, if the public route is entirely impassable or hazardous, the business should evaluate if relocating the accessible parking to the front of the private property is readily achievable, or provide alternative methods of service.

Scenario 3: Load-Bearing Restroom Walls

You have a single-accommodation restroom, but it's only 50 inches wide. Expanding it to the required 60 inches means tearing down a structural load-bearing wall or relocating the building's main plumbing stack.

Direct Answer Statement

Enlarging an existing non-compliant toilet compartment is not readily achievable when the necessary expansion requires demolishing load-bearing walls or relocating main plumbing chases. In these instances, the condition qualifies as technically infeasible under the code, restricting the extent to which barrier removal must be performed.

CBC 2025 Citation

Citation: California Building Code, Title 24, Part 2, 2025 Edition, Section 11B-604.3.1"Clearance around a water closet shall be 60 inches (1524 mm) minimum measured perpendicular from the side wall and 56 inches (1422 mm) minimum measured perpendicular from the rear wall."

2010 ADA Standards Citation

Citation: 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design, Section 106.5"Technically Infeasible. 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..."

Exception Section

Exception: California Building Code, Title 24, Part 2, 2025 Edition, Section 11B-202.3 Exception 2"In alterations, where the enforcing agency determines compliance with applicable requirements is technically infeasible, the alteration shall provide equivalent facilitation or comply with the requirements to the maximum extent feasible."

Application Note

A toilet compartment providing 50 inches of width violates the absolute 60-inch minimum clearance requirement. However, removing a shear wall or structural beam introduces massive expense and engineering difficulty, cleanly meeting the ADA definition of "not readily achievable" and the CBC definition of "technically infeasible."

You must identify this explicitly in CASp reporting. You are still obligated to provide compliance to the "maximum extent feasible"—such as installing correct grab bars (33 to 36 inches above the finish floor), insulating pipes under the sink, and adjusting door opening force to a maximum of 5.0 pounds (CBC 11B-404.2.9)—even if the room size cannot change.

Summary and Direct Citations

When dealing with ambiguous conditions where compliance seems impossible, here is the straightforward breakdown of how to defend your site:

1. Property Line Constraints: If you cannot modify a landing because of city property, barrier removal is not readily achievable. Use alternative methods like call buttons and temporary ramps (ADA 28 CFR 36.305).

2. City-Owned Alleyways: If your private rear parking connects to the entrance exclusively via a city-owned alley and city sidewalk, you are not legally authorized to perform barrier removal on public property. Ensure your private parking stall complies, and consider alternative service methods or relocating the stall if the public route is impassable (28 CFR 36.304(a); CBC 11B-106.5).

3. Structural Restrooms: If expanding a restroom requires destroying a load-bearing wall, it is "technically infeasible." You are only required to make it as accessible as structurally possible without removing that wall (ADA Section 106.5; CBC 11B-202.3 Exc. 2).

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.