The primary reason that the Americans with Disabilities Act Centers exist is because the ADA is such a complicated law. It’s not exactly straightforward for those who do not work with the guidance and regulations on a daily basis. The ADA Center staff are often posed with very difficult questions. When needed, we reach out to a network of experts to do our best to achieve greater understanding of the law and its interpretation. After years of doing this, we still can’t say we know all there is to know about the ADA. However, we will do what we can to assist anyone to reach the understanding of the law that is suitable to their needs.
I often communicate with architects, interior designers, and engineers. A persistent point of confusion I'm aware of are the physical access requirements in residential housing. The 2010 ADA Standards have residential housing requirements, but the applicability of the ADA to most housing is not common. The circumstances where the ADA standards apply to housing are when housing is provided as part of a state or local government program. This can be a shelter or addiction recovery treatment, or where a private university offers student dormitories. Private and multi-family residential housing is generally not covered by the ADA.
As stated earlier, we are experts on the ADA, and while familiar with other access laws we cannot claim to be experts in anything beyond the ADA. That means the ADA Center isn’t qualified to speak to the Fair Housing Act (FHA) or the International Building Code (IBC). As a standard practice, we will refer you to contact Fair Housing Accessibility First (FHAF) for information for residential physical access requirements, HUD’s Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) Offices for general housing accessibility, and the International Code Council (ICC) for assistance on understanding the IBC. I want to highlight Fair Housing Accessibility First as a resource for designers of residential housing.
Recently, I’ve been learning more about FHA requirements for my own professional development. My goal is not to speak to FHA requirements. I do want to understand the perspective of designers whom I work with seeking help. I’d ultimately like to redirect those looking for housing guidance as efficiently as possible. FHAF has recently been hosting a series of webinars to educate attendees on specific topics on housing accessibility. I have learned that the term “Safe Harbor” means something completely different under FHA than it does under the ADA.
Under the ADA “Safe Harbor” is a concept created to protect a covered entity from being out of compliance when a new access standard is adopted. If a facility was compliant with the older standard, it won't be out of compliance because the standard changed. An example is how in the old 1991 ADA Standards, the upper limit for an accessible reach range was 54”. When the 2010 Standards were adopted, that upper limit changed to 48”. Facilities that had operable parts located at 54” are protected under Safe Harbor. However, “Safe Harbor” under FHA is a completely different concept.
The ADA currently has 1 adopted Standard for minimum physical access. FHA has 15 recognized standards to draw from for required physical access design. These 15 design standards are referred to as “Safe Harbor.” I have a greater empathy for designers who must juggle the different meanings of the same terms. If you seek clarity on FHA’s facility access requirements, I’d highly recommend the FAQ page found on Fair Housing Accessibility First's website.
Every so often the ADA Center is asked to interpret the International Building Code as it applies to a residential development. Some editions of IBC that count as FHA Safe Harbors, so they are adequate design requirements for housing. The issue is that there is not much overlap between residential building code and the ADA Standards. Terms found in building code like “Type A,” “Type-B,” and “R-” are not found in the ADA Standards. The ADA Center is simply not qualified to speak to these requirements.
Fair Housing Accessibility First is a valuable resource to understand these residential-specific requirements. FHAF should be more well-known within the design community. I’ve been extremely impressed with the depth of the knowledge on the physical access requirements FHAF has provided. My hope is that designers understand which organizations are best suited to their needs. We're here to help clear that up as well!