[aynyc]

Because it would destroy poor-middle class home owners and renters. This year, it's electrical, next year is gas line, the year after is sewer, soon enough, poor-middle class won't be able to afford any homes and rents will go up. This is particular true in larger cities.

[yellowapple]

Defer code compliance to time of sale/purchase. Basically: if you want to sell it as a house, it has to be up to code, but until then, go hog-wild. Seems like that would solve the issue - and in practice I'm pretty sure that's already the case.

[briHass]

A good amount of modern building code is related to energy efficiency. These standards applying to new construction make sense: it's only a marginal increase in cost to add insulation, use upgraded products, or ensure air-tightness during construction. However, for existing homes, this would be extremely costly. The house would, in many cases, need to be ripped down to the studs on exterior walls and completely reinsulated/sealed, older windows would need to be replaced, HVAC ducts exposed and sealed/insulated, etc.

For an existing structure, the result of all these improvements, even considering rising energy costs, would never pay back over the expected life of the house. Code tries to strike a balance here by enforcing that when it's reasonable to do so (e.g. you tore down to the studs for a remodel anyway), you need to bring the areas modified up to modern-ish standards.

[toast0]

That's fine where the benefits of code compliance outweigh the costs of compliance.

But old homes are expensive to rewire. And often, the safety benefits are very small. Current code requires a lot more outlets than older code, in part because many people overuse extension cords and tiny/cheap power taps when there aren't sufficient outlets, which is a safety issue, but is it worth spending thousands of dollars to pull new wire through existing walls, and then repairing the walls afterwards?

Some issues, are worth retrofitting for, and hopefully a pre-sales inspection by the buyer or insurance inspection will catch those. It would be reasonable to have a transfer inspection for those too.

[aynyc]

To bring something up to code, it takes weeks if not months. Getting permit, construction and inspection. You can't tie up a sale until that's done. Where do you get the money to pay for that? Buyer isn't gonna wait for X months, especially if buyers want to do their own renovations. You know what people will do? Pass the buck to the buyer (Sold As Is). The cycle repeats again and again.

[toomuchtodo]

You require something akin to an FHA 203k loan, where the improvements can be financed with bank oversight. You make these specific improvements a requirement where, if not performed using the funds provided, the loan is in default. Cash transaction can still require the work be done; have the county recorder notify the permit office of the AHJ.

Lots of paths to success here.

[willcipriano]

Some codes would require you do things like tear down a addition that was perfectly legal and safe last year or moving a house back further from a road that the government expanded. Not everything in local building codes is for safety, there is a lot of aesthetic stuff in there. Imagine being forced to rip out a 100 year old oak tree because it isn't legal to have a tree in your front yard anymore. Pools are no longer allowed, fill it in. No thanks. I'd never buy in a locality like that, might as well live in a HOA.

[mindslight]

It's amazing how so many people here have no clue how building codes work. There's a new version of the NEC released every 3 years. These are physical systems, not continuously deployed software being pushed to centrally-controlled surveillance company servers. They're building codes, not occupancy codes. Building codes are focused on making sure big jobs with a lot of money/effort have sane defaults, and weren't skimped on to save a few percent. A house built X years ago is still an X year old house, and everybody knows it.

The egregious safety problems (eg knob and tube, fuses, Federal Pacific breakers) are taken care of by insurance companies. Or state laws that address the specific problem (eg septic, smoke detectors, etc). One can certainly have an opinion that something specific should be added to the regulations that apply when selling, but the out of touch comments here are far from informed.

Also some of the recent changes in the NEC are actually not beneficial to many people - eg the plastic gates in TR receptacles that tend to bind up and bend plug prongs, and shoddy overaggressive AFCIs running proprietary software. That you're generally left alone in the privacy of your own home without an inspector coming around every year and making you remodel is a feature, not a bug.

[aynyc]

How can a retiree or poor middle class person get a loan? They probably have below 650 credit. The house hasn’t seen an updated in 20 years. Any delay in construction will put them under water for years. For the poor, there is no path for success, as the house is probably the only assets they have.

My old neighborhood has a bunch of 80 year olds with houses worth a million easy without any mortgages. You would think the banks would give them loans to fix things up. Nope, not a chance. The banks are waiting for them to die and make money off the next mortgage.

[yellowapple]

> You can't tie up a sale until that's done.

Sure you can - and you damn well should, especially for outright safety issues. What's the point of a building code if it ain't gonna be enforced?

> You know what people will do? Pass the buck to the buyer (Sold As Is).

Then give the buyer a grace period to bring the building up to code.

[aynyc]

Then you can expect even more housing crunch. It’s simply not realistic to updates homes 50-100 years old without significant cost which old retirees can’t really afford. Some of the new codes would force pre-war homes to be completely tear down. For example, asbestos sidings which would require the homeowners to move out of the house. Bubble wrap the house and do mitigation work. After that, massive amount of interior work to ensure safety. Toss in electrical, plumbing, and lead paint, you might as well do a new construction.

Reality simply doesn’t work this way. Just like we allow people to drive old ass cars that aren’t safe for the passengers but will pass emission inspections.

[sidewndr46]

My house is 40 years old. To "bring it up to code" would have one simple step: demolish the whole house. There is no way you will ever economically bring a structure this old up to code.