Who Decides if an Accessibility Fix Is “Technically Infeasible”?

Main takeaway: Property owners, architects, and CASp inspectors can propose that something is “technically infeasible,” but only the Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) – usually your city or county building department / building official – can formally accept that claim for permit and code‑compliance purposes. Courts and the U.S. Department of Justice can still review those decisions under the ADA.

1. What “Technically Infeasible” Actually Means

Both the ADA Standards for Accessible Design and the California Building Code (CBC) use almost the same definition of technically infeasible.

In plain English, an accessibility upgrade is “technically infeasible” when:

• The only way to fully comply would be to:

  • Remove or alter a load‑bearing structural member that is an essential part of the building’s frame, or

  • Run into real physical or site constraints that simply do not allow a fully compliant element, space, or feature.

Under both ADA and CBC, the definition focuses on structural and physical constraints, not inconvenience or preference.

Two important points:

• It applies only in the context of alterations, not new construction.

• Even when something is technically infeasible, the law still requires you to comply to the maximum extent feasible – you do as much as the site and structure reasonably allow.

2. “Technically Infeasible” vs. “Too Expensive”

Many owners mix up three different concepts:

• Technically infeasible and structural/site impossibility (e.g., you would have to remove essential structural beams, or the property line and steep terrain make a compliant ramp physically impossible).

  
  

• Unreasonable hardship / disproportionate cost (CBC & ADA path‑of‑travel rules) and cost vs. project value, often using percentage thresholds (e.g., the path‑of‑travel work would exceed 20% of the primary alteration cost). This is financial, not structural.

• Readily achievable barrier removal (ADA existing facilities) and “easily accomplishable without much difficulty or expense” for ongoing barrier removal in existing facilities, even when you are not pulling permits.

  
  

“Technically infeasible” is not a shortcut for “too expensive” or “inconvenient.” Those are handled under different standards and forms (e.g., “unreasonable hardship”) and are also reviewed by the building official.

3. Who Is the “Authority Having Jurisdiction” (AHJ)?

In California, the Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) is the government agency that administers and enforces the building code for your project – usually:

• Your city building & safety department, or

• Your county building department (for unincorporated areas).

The CBC uses the AHJ concept throughout the code to identify who has the legal authority to:

• Enforce accessibility requirements,

• Approve or deny permit applications,

• Accept technical infeasibility and unreasonable hardship claims, and

• Approve alternative methods or designs that still meet the code’s intent.

So when the question is, “Who can determine technically infeasible?” for building and accessibility work:

For local code and permit purposes, the answer is: Your AHJ – typically the city or county building official – is the only one who can formally accept a technical infeasibility claim.

Everyone else can advise and document, but they do not have independent enforcement authority.

4. The Roles: Who Does What in a Technical Infeasibility Claim?

Property Owner / Tenant

• Identifies the project and the accessibility issues.

• Retains design professionals (and often a CASp) to evaluate whether full compliance is possible.

• Ultimately submits any claim of technical infeasibility or unreasonable hardship as part of the permit package.

Architect and Engineers

• Analyze existing conditions, structure, site constraints, and design options.

• Determine if full compliance would require:

  • Removing/altering essential load‑bearing members, or

  • Violating physical/site constraints (e.g., property lines, slopes, utilities).

• Prepare:

  • Plans showing attempted compliant solutions,

  • Structural calculations, and

  • Written justification referencing ADA/CBC definitions of “technically infeasible.”

Their opinion carries significant weight, but it is still a professional recommendation, not a legal ruling.

CASp (Certified Access Specialist)

• Performs a detailed accessibility inspection and code analysis.

• Identifies what is required under ADA, CBC Chapter 11B, and related laws.

• Provides a report that may:

  • Support a technical infeasibility claim,

  • Propose alternate compliant or “maximum extent feasible” solutions,

  • Differentiate between technical infeasibility, unreasonable hardship, and readily achievable obligations.

Again, a CASp does not “grant” technical infeasibility, but their documentation helps convince the building department and, if needed, a court.

Contractor

• Supplies construction feasibility input and real‑world feedback:

  • Can this beam actually be altered?

  • Will excavation hit utilities or neighboring properties?

• Provides cost data that may be relevant to unreasonable hardship / disproportionate cost, though not to the narrow “technically infeasible” definition.

City / County Building Official (AHJ)

This is the decision‑maker for code and permits:

• Reviews your plans, CASp reports, and structural documentation.

• Determines whether the situation meets the CBC/ADA definition of technical infeasibility.

• May approve:

  • Partial compliance “to the maximum extent feasible,”

  • An alternate design that still meets the code’s intent,

  • Or deny the claim and require a different solution.

Without AHJ acceptance, your technical infeasibility argument has no official standing for permitting.

Courts and the U.S. Department of Justice

• Under the ADA (a federal civil rights law), a judge or the DOJ can ultimately decide whether:

  • A claimed technical infeasibility was valid, and

  • The entity met its obligations to provide access to the maximum extent feasible.

City approval is important, but it does not guarantee protection from ADA lawsuits or enforcement. It is evidence that you acted in good faith, not a shield against all liability.

5. How the Process Usually Works in California

Here is how a typical technical infeasibility issue plays out on a project:

1. Trigger event

   • An alteration project, tenant improvement, or repair triggers current ADA/CBC accessibility requirements (e.g., restroom remodel, entry rebuild, path‑of‑travel work).

   
   

2. Attempt full compliance first

   • The design team and/or CASp first tries to achieve full, strict compliance with current ADA and CBC 11B.

   • Multiple options are studied (e.g., different ramp locations, reconfiguring restrooms, adjusting grades).

     
     

3. Identify genuine structural or site roadblocks

   • Only if every realistic option runs into:

     • Essential load‑bearing members, or

     • Irremovable site constraints (property lines, steep terrain, utilities, easements),

     • Does “technical infeasibility” become a legitimate discussion.

       
       

4. Document “maximum extent feasible” compliance

   • The team designs the best possible solution within those constraints.

   • They clearly show:

     • What full compliance would look like,

     • Why that is structurally or physically impossible,

     • How the proposed design still moves accessibility as close as possible to current standards.

       
       

5. Submit to the AHJ (Building Department)

   • Plans, calculations, CASp reports, and any technical infeasibility / unreasonable hardship forms are submitted with the permit.

   • The building official reviews and either:

     • Approves the technical infeasibility claim and the alternate design, or

     • Rejects it and requires redesign.

       
       

6. Maintain a clear paper trail

   • Keep all reports, calculations, and correspondence. If there is later an ADA claim, this record shows you acted reasonably and in good faith within the law and local approvals.

     
     

6. Examples of Legitimate Technical Infeasibility (Conceptual)

These scenarios illustrate the narrow kind of cases where a claim might be appropriate:

• Steep hillside site & property lines - A small commercial building on a steep lot abutting public right‑of‑way and neighboring structures cannot fit a fully compliant ramp (slope, landings, handrails) without:

  
  

  • Extending into the street, or

  • Encroaching onto neighboring parcels.The team documents all options and shows that a fully compliant ramp is physically impossible within the property lines. A shorter ramp with a slightly steeper slope plus signage and additional accommodations may be accepted as maximum extent feasible.

    
    

• Historic building with essential load‑bearing walls - Widening a corridor or doorway to full modern clear‑width requirements would require cutting through thick, load‑bearing masonry walls central to the building’s structural system, or would destroy key historic fabric. Structural analysis shows there is little likelihood it can be done without major structural failure. Partial widening plus alternative accessible route may be accepted as technically infeasible for full compliance.

  
  

• Existing multi‑story building with no feasible shaft location - In a small existing structure, every potential elevator shaft location conflicts with core load‑bearing columns and beams in a way that can’t be reasonably re‑framed without effectively rebuilding the building. Alternate program accessibility strategies (services provided on accessible floor, relocation of key functions) may be required under ADA, but full vertical accessibility might be accepted as technically infeasible for that specific structure.

In each case, it is not enough to say, “It would be hard” or “It would be expensive.” The analysis must show true structural or physical impossibility, and the AHJ must agree.

7. What Property Owners and Managers Should Do

For California owners, tenants, and their counsel, good practice is:

• Engage professionals early - Involve an architect, structural engineer, and, ideally, a CASp before finalizing your design. Early discovery of real constraints is far cheaper than redesign during plan check or construction.

  
  

• Treat full compliance as the starting point, not the ceiling - Always begin by designing for full compliance with ADA and CBC 11B, then prove why you cannot achieve it if that is truly the case.

  
  

• Use “technical infeasibility” sparingly and accurately - It should be reserved for genuine structural/site barriers, not budget or convenience.

  
  

• Remember both codes and civil rights - Getting a sign‑off from the building department addresses your code obligations. Your federal ADA obligations – including program access and readily achievable barrier removal – still apply and can be enforced by courts and the DOJ.

  
  

• Keep detailed records - If your project ever becomes part of a dispute, detailed CASp reports, structural analyses, and written approvals from the AHJ will be critical evidence of reasonable, good‑faith compliance efforts.

8. So, Who Can Decide “Technically Infeasible”?

To answer the original question directly:

• Can your architect or CASp “decide” technical infeasibility? They can analyze and recommend, and their opinions are very important, but they cannot grant legal approval.

  
  

• Can you decide as the owner? You can choose what to propose, but it is not legally recognized until the AHJ accepts it (and even then, still subject to ADA review by courts/DOJ).

  
  

• Is it your city building department? Yes. For building code and permitting purposes in California, it is your city or county building department – specifically, the building official as the Authority Having Jurisdiction – who has the authority to accept or reject a claim that full accessibility compliance is technically infeasible.

  
  

And even after that approval, the expectation under ADA and CBC remains the same:

Provide accessibility to the maximum extent feasible, and do not treat “technical infeasibility” as a shortcut around your accessibility obligations.

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.