Table A item number 9

Heck of a question. Never gave it any thought. Have always showed the stripes and other markings. The question is similar to zoning and encroachment questions. It's not really our call.

Joe the Surveyor, post: 334837, member: 118 wrote: Question, what is our duty as surveyors to verify that the parking stall, say, a handicapped stall meets the requirements to be said handicapped stall?

An ADA compliance survey is a very different animal from an ALTA survey. For an ALTA I indicate the spaces by striping, and put handicap symbol in the handicap spots. I don't certify to ADA compliance.

Jim Frame, post: 334843, member: 10 wrote: An ADA compliance survey is a very different animal from an ALTA survey. For an ALTA I indicate the spaces by striping, and put handicap symbol in the handicap spots. I don't certify to ADA compliance.

Sometimes it is so obviously not compliant I feel obligated to mention it somewhere.

I labeled the stalls as they were marked on the ground.[/quote wrote:

I would have the same response.
I have a note that Parking count is based upon onsite stripping at the time of survey. If something is not stripped I don't count it even if cars are parked their. I may make a note.

I will typically only show the striping as it exists at the time of the survey. Even if my survey is showing elevations, I still don't certify that a space is (or isn't) ADA compliant. As said previously, and ALTA is very different than an ADA compliance survey.

I wouldn't have a problem putting a note on the survey that says that based upon the observed evidence, the stalls marked as HC accessible may not meet ADA requirements. But I would put a big "MAY" in that statement and probably add that a survey to determine compliance needs to be done to determine the actual status of the spaces.

Also, on some surveys that are at a scale such that showing striping is not feasible or have something going on such that I don't want to show striping, I have simply put a note on the map indicating what the counts were and leave it at that.

No where in the ALTA standards does it specify we have to note any ADA compliance. I have never noted anything of that nature nor have I ever been asked. I would have a problem putting that note on my survey. Opening up a can of worms.

On an ALTA, we can show what we have found on our drawings.

The number of regular parking and handicap spaces fall under a category of a certain percentage of them per the number of building SF.

Many decisions are not for us to make the call. It is beyond the scope of our license and would require being certified for specific tasks. (For example performing a perk test and recommending a rural sewer design)

ADA compliance is something that most anyone can decide after comparing the measurements to the required code expectations, even a lawyer with questions from left field.

IMVHO, That call would be the site inspector's call.

0.02

It does not say size on table A. That's extra work outside of the table A requirement. They should have included a number 22 and put that in there. If you shot the spaces you may be able to get the answer, but I'm not sure I'd volunteer that info without pointing out that it's not required in Item 9 and should be considered extra.

vern, post: 334893, member: 3436 wrote: Sometimes it is so obviously not compliant I feel obligated to mention it somewhere.

If you mention an obvious noncompliance, does that put you on the hook for not mentioning one that wasn't quite so obvious?

And don't forget that ADA also defines a maximum slope.
I want to echo Bill93's point too.

partychief3, post: 335283, member: 9053 wrote: And don't forget that ADA also defines a maximum slope.
I want to echo Bill93's point too.

That is the situation I was referring to. A lot of the older shopping centers will restripe the H/C spots in a different place than they were originally designed to be. A lot of times they end up on those steep end spots that are steep because of the flat spot for the H/C spots elsewhere.

skwyd, post: 334986, member: 6874 wrote: ...But I would put a big "MAY" in that statement and probably add that a survey to determine compliance needs to be done to determine the actual status of the spaces..

Careful. I believe the word "might" is a better choice if you were going to put any statement in there at all.

Once I casually used the word "may" in the same context as you in a Surveyor's Report prepared for a court case. Several of the attorneys involved let me know in their world, "The use of 'may' is limited to the grant of discretion or authority."

It's been years and I apparently still remember it..

I just finished another survey for an ADA compliance review. I will say with certainty that item 9 has no relationship with this service.
Determining whether a site complies with ADA or not is as much about permit research as it is measurements. Anyone certifying 'meets' or 'fails to meet' ADA as a blanket statement based on a standard topo better have good insurance and a lot of free time.
There are organizations these days who exist with the sole purpose of finding violations of ADA. We are talking true gnat camel specialists. I appreciate advocates but some of what I see is insane. Point being, stick to what the item says and do not get pushed into certifying something you probably cannot know from your survey.