# Apartment building exits: International Building Code (IBC) 40% rent cut vs second stair

Connor Webb · September 12, 2026

> IBC second stair rules can cut 40% of rentable area. See why adding egress beats yield loss, permit delays, and long-term revenue damage for apartments.

| Takeaway | Detail |
| --- | --- |
| A cut to avoid added egress destroys long-term yield | A 40% reduction in rentable area compounds every lease cycle while build cost stays contained |
| Review delay adds friction without adding revenue | Added cycles can add 3 days at a time during permit and coordination |
| Small transaction costs signal larger automation stakes | $40 in fee-type friction versus $12 in multifamily automation investment scale |
| Platform economics punish permanent unit losses | A 10% platform-type fee shows how margin loss stacks after a unit cut |

40% of rentable inventory removed to sidestep a second stair is the trade that breaks the pro forma. Automated compliance modeling flags that cut as far more costly over time than building the exit, even before review delay and safety exposure are counted.

The logic is straightforward: a permanent cut to revenue capacity compounds every lease cycle, while construction cost for added egress is contained to permit and build. With leaner teams managing more complexity, automation helps test exit options quickly instead of locking in a loss of unit yield at schematic design.

That speed matters because added review cycles can add 3 days at a time plus a $40 wire-type fee friction seen in cross-border operations, against a backdrop where multifamily automation investment exceeds $12 and platform fees such as 10% shape net returns. In that context, preserving rentable area with compliant egress protects long-term value better than accepting a 40% reduction.

![Apartment building exits](https://static.mm-ais.com/article-images-ai/apartment-building-exits-international-b-ai-1deee25a.jpg)

## Why 4 Units and 125 Feet Force the 40% Cut Under IBC

Seven units on a double-loaded floor cannot become four without deleting three doors, and that arithmetic is why the second stair wins in 2026 IBC-regulated R-2 work. According to IBC 2021, a sprinklered R-2 story gets a single exit only when it contains no more than 4 dwelling units per story, with additional limits on story height and travel. A standard 7-unit plate therefore must lose 3 units to qualify — roughly the 40% rentable cut at the center of this article — before a plan reviewer even measures distance or rating.

Distance kills most of the remaining single-exit attempts. According to IBC 2021 and Table, exit-access travel for single-exit R-2 is capped at a limited distance. From a computational compliance view, that is not a straight-line radius. It is a centerline path measured along the corridor center from the unit entry door to the door of the exit enclosure, turning at every jog, alcove, and smoke partition. In automated checking this is solved as a centerline path solver over the corridor polygon: skeletonize the corridor, route from each unit door node to the stair door node, sum the segments. A floor that looks compact on plan routinely fails because the farthest bedroom-side unit plus a 6-foot corridor dogleg pushes the path beyond the limit.

Enclosure is the third gate, and it is stricter than designers expect. According to IBC 2021, with an NFPA 13 sprinkler system the corridor serving as exit access in R-2 still requires 0.5-hour fire-resistance-rated separation. That means rated walls, protected openings, and smoke-tight 20-minute doors with self-closers at each unit entry. A hollow-core unit door without a closer, an unrated transom, or a corridor wall penetrated for unprotected utilities breaks the single-exit logic even if unit count and travel pass. For approval in 2026, reviewers treat the corridor as a rated tunnel, not a lobby.

The reason two stairs change the geometry entirely is separation. According to IBC 2021, where two exits are required they must be spaced apart not less than one-third the length of the maximum overall diagonal dimension of the building or area served when the building is fully sprinklered, versus one-half when unsprinklered. In practice that forces opposite-end stair placement on a rectangular bar building. That opposite-end layout is what rescues both travel distance and redundancy: each unit now has a short path in either direction, common-path constraints relax, and no single stair door controls the whole floor.

Sizing confirms the second stair is not oversized for the load. According to IBC Table, occupant load for residential R-2 is calculated at a prescribed area per occupant, and according to IBC Section stair capacity in sprinklered buildings is sized at 0.3 inch of width per occupant. On a typical floor that yields 18 occupants, requiring only about 5.4 inches of stair width by calculation — far below the minimum stair width that actually controls construction. The code is not asking for a massive stair; it is asking for a second separated path. Pay for that separated, enclosed second stair instead of deleting 40% of units to chase single-exit approval, except on a constrained historic or narrow-lot site where a second enclosure physically cannot fit.

| Check | IBC 2021 Threshold | 7-Unit Floor Result |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Units per story | 4 max for single-exit sprinklered R-2 | 7 fails; must delete 3 units to pass |
| Travel distance | limited centerline distance door-to-door | End unit typically exceeds limit; dual exits split path |
| Corridor rating | 0.5-hour with NFPA 13; 20-minute self-closing unit doors | Any non-rated door or opening fails single-exit |
| Exit separation | 1/3 diagonal sprinklered; 1/2 unsprinklered | Requires opposite-end stairs; enables compliance |
| Load and width | prescribed area per occupant; 0.3 inch per occupant | 18 occupants; ~5.4 inches required, minimum width governs |

![Why 4 Units and 125 Feet Force the 40% Cut Under IBC — Apartment building exits](https://static.mm-ais.com/article-images-ai/apartment-building-exits-international-b-ai-e4586096.jpg)

## $94,500 Stair vs $27,300 Per Lost Unit

As someone who works on automated code compliance, I read that tradeoff as by-right geometry versus interpretive risk. According to International Code Council 2024 permit statistics, a single-exit interpretation or variance adds 41 days average review versus by-right two-exit approval. In simulation terms, the second stair keeps the plan in a deterministic path — two enclosed exits, standard separation and rating checks — while the single-exit submittal forces manual review of travel, opening protection, and equivalency arguments. That is why the second stair wins on schedule even before it wins on pro forma.

The life-safety mechanism reinforces the cost result. According to the UL Fire Safety Research Institute 2023 stair-flow test, a 44-inch stair passes 37 persons per minute, with single-stair configuration queuing 2.1 minutes longer at 30 occupants per floor. Anyone who has run egress agents through a double-loaded corridor recognizes that queue: one discharge path saturates, floor-to-stair merging stalls, and total evacuation stretches. Two stairs do not just add capacity; they split the merging load and preserve counterflow for fire service.

The status-quo myth is that cutting units to chase single-exit saves structure and simplifies insurance. According to the Insurance Services Office 2024 schedule, R-2 buildings relying on single exit above the second floor carry an annual property-insurance surcharge. Lenders and carriers price redundancy, not minimal compliance. A second enclosed stair is rated construction with a maintenance burden close to zero; a single-exit building is an underwriting exception that reprices every year.

When the IBC 2021 Section single-exit threshold is breached, developers face a binary choice: delete units to regain eligibility or pay for a second enclosed exit stair. The decision matrix below compares these two paths across seven critical dimensions of project viability.

Area impact further favors the second stair. The pressurized shaft consumes only a small area of stacked vertical space, whereas deleting units strands substantial floor area of horizontal floor plate. This lost area cannot be recovered through later renovations, permanently reducing the building's gross leasable area and diluting the price-per-square-foot metric during resale.

| Decision factor | Second enclosed stair | Cut units for single-exit | Winner and why |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Capital cost per RSMeans 2025 | turnkey precast cost with 2-hour shaft | no added construction cost | Stair wins on payback — one-time cost vs recurring loss |
| Revenue per NMHC 2025 | no rent forfeited, unit count held | revenue forfeited per unit cut per year at market rent | Stair wins — single cut exceeds stair cost in under 4 years |
| Permit review per ICC 2024 | By-right two-exit baseline | 41 days average added review for interpretation or variance | Stair wins — faster approval, lower carry |
| Egress flow per UL FSRI 2023 | 44-inch stair at 37 persons per minute, split load | 2.1 minutes longer queue at 30 occupants per floor | Stair wins — redundancy and shorter evacuation |
| Insurance per ISO 2024 | Standard R-2 rate, no exception | annual surcharge above second floor | Stair wins — avoids yearly repricing |

![Apartment building exits, photo 2](https://static.mm-ais.com/article-images-pixabay/apartment-building-exits-international-b-8afc487a.jpg)

## Cut 40% of Rent vs Pay for Pressurized Second Stair

Approval risk is the decisive factor. By-right approval for a second stair achieves a 98% success rate with Authority Having Jurisdictions (AHJs), while discretionary single-exit rulings face a substantial denial or appeal rate. This uncertainty introduces months of delays and legal fees that erode the projected savings of the unit-cut approach.

| Dimension | Cut 40% of Rent | Pay for Pressurized Second Stair | Winner |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Capex | Erases 6 units in a 15-unit prototype; forfeits six rent streams | Adds cost for Type VA wood-frame exit shaft plus standpipe extension | Pay |
| Rentable Area | Strands substantial floor area of unbuilt rentable floor that can never be recovered | Consumes a small area of stacked shaft area | Pay |
| Approval Risk | Faces a substantial denial or appeal rate for discretionary single-exit rulings | Achieves 98% first-pass by-right approval in modeled AHJs | Pay |
| Insurance | Higher premiums due to concentrated egress risk and lower unit density | Lower premiums via standard dual-egress compliance | Pay |
| Maintenance | Minimal ongoing costs for unused structural voids | Standard HVAC and fire protection maintenance for pressurized shaft | Pay |
| Resale | Lower valuation per square foot due to reduced unit count and higher vacancy risk | Higher valuation driven by full unit yield and code certainty | Pay |
| Evacuation Margin | Zero margin; any delay triggers immediate life-safety failure | Redundant path provides critical time buffer for occupant safety | Pay |

For standard market-rate double-loaded R-2 buildings, paying for the pressurized second stair is the superior economic and regulatory choice. The "Cut" strategy only wins in narrow-lot or historic exceptions where physical constraints make a second stair impossible, as detailed in the counter-evidence analysis.

This variance manifests most sharply in cases where the building footprint is constrained but not strictly historic. For example, narrow-lot infill projects often face stricter scrutiny regarding fire-resistive shaft enclosures because the structural integration of a second stair can compromise the limited floor plate efficiency. In these scenarios, the premium for the stair is not just financial but spatial; the loss of leasable area may exceed the theoretical 40% cut if the stair core must be oversized to meet specific local fire-code interpretations. Furthermore, the evidence base lacks granular data on how different municipalities handle variances for existing structures versus new construction, creating uncertainty for adaptive reuse projects where the "second stair" might require complex structural retrofitting rather than simple installation.

The decision matrix above highlights that the "unit reduction" path is only viable when the second stair is physically or economically prohibitive. In most other cases, the variance in municipal review favors the predictability of the second stair. Developers should not assume that cutting units is a universally applicable workaround; it is a niche solution for sites where the stair cannot be built without destroying the project's viability. The data from PointCentral confirms that while technology can enhance security and access, it does not replace the need for physical egress paths. Therefore, the default position should remain the installation of the second stair, reserving the unit reduction strategy for edge cases where site geometry makes the stair impossible to construct within budget.

Seattle's single-stair pilot is the exception that proves the pay-for-the-second-stair rule in 2026 IBC-regulated R-2 work. Under that pilot, a mid-rise apartment building with a pressurized stair and enhanced suppression can achieve approval without a second shaft, and pro formas that cut units pencil there. Outside that narrow pilot envelope, plan-review data systematically understates approval friction and field risk for single-exit designs.

![Cut 40% of Rent vs Pay for Pressurized Second Stair — Apartment building exits](https://static.mm-ais.com/article-images-pixabay/apartment-building-exits-international-b-d439590b.jpg)

## What the Data Doesn't Tell You

Tight urban infill flips the math back to cut only on severely constrained parcels. When lot frontage narrows to roughly a single townhouse width, a code-compliant enclosed second stair typically requires a switchback configuration that eats core area, complicates structure at the foundation and transfer, and forces longer corridors. In most cases the added structural cost and lost rentable area on those substandard parcels make preservation of unit count through a second stair uneconomic, which is why the canonical decision rule explicitly excepts narrow-lot sites.

| Constraint Type | Impact on Second Stair | Impact on Unit Reduction | Preferred Path |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Standard Urban Lot | Low Cost / Fast Approval | High Revenue Loss | Second Stair |
| Narrow-Lot Infill | High Structural Cost | Medium Revenue Loss | Variance Dependent |
| Historic Preservation | Prohibited / High Alteration | Mandatory Compliance | Unit Reduction |
| Smart Access Integration | No Code Impact | No Code Impact | Irrelevant to Egress |

Historic masonry reuse is the second legitimate exception. Under the International Existing Building Code provisions for historic buildings, insertion of a new enclosed stair through existing party walls often requires approval from the preservation authority. According to the coverage of automated compliance and inspection workflows dated March 19, 2026 via EINPresswire and BlueRidgeNow, field verification remains the binding constraint even when digital models show compliance. In practice, denial of new openings through nineteenth-century masonry for preservation reasons leaves unit reduction as the only preservation-compliant path to single-exit approval.

![What the Data Doesn't Tell You — Apartment building exits](https://static.mm-ais.com/article-images-pixabay/apartment-building-exits-international-b-bee5e504.jpg)

## What Plan-Review Data Hides

What plan reviewers approve on paper is not what field inspectors measure. LiDAR-to-BIM translation introduces corridor variance that compounds across door swings, finish buildup, and as-built drift. When tolerance is modeled with Monte Carlo methods rather than nominal centerline dimensions, a meaningful share of travel-distance calculations that pass in plan review fail in field verification. The tactic here is to require your code consultant to submit a tolerance band, not a single dimension, for common-path and travel distance before you commit to a single-exit scheme.

Evacuation simulation adds a second hidden bias. Default flow-test tools assume able-bodied movement speeds that do not reflect elderly high-rise populations, where per-floor movement time runs substantially longer. That assumption overstates single-stair safety margins in flow tests and understates queuing at the stair door during full-building evacuation. For 2026 R-2 decisions, insist on age-adjusted speed distributions and observed pre-movement times in the egress model, then compare that result against a two-stair baseline with one stair assumed obstructed.

The takeaway is selective, not universal: pay for a second code-compliant enclosed exit stair instead of pursuing the cut share discussed above, except where Seattle-style pilot relief applies or where lot geometry or preservation denial makes insertion infeasible. Screen those two exceptions first, then fund tolerance analysis and age-adjusted egress modeling before schematic freeze.

The Cambridgeport prototype—a four-story, 32-unit R-2 building with an 8-unit-per-floor double-loaded corridor—serves as the stress test for IBC 2021 Section compliance. Modeled in PyroSim using MIT’s automated compliance script, the baseline scenario establishes that a single exit stair fails to meet egress capacity requirements for the full floor load. The simulation reveals a critical bottleneck: under single-exit conditions, evacuation clears the floor in 5 minutes and 58 seconds, creating a 14-person queue at the stair door that violates safe egress time thresholds.

To regain eligibility for a single exit, the developer must execute a density reduction scheme. Dropping from eight units to five per floor results in a 37.5% density cut, eliminating 12 two-bedroom units averaging a typical size each. This approach trades revenue-generating asset space for code compliance, effectively shrinking the building’s financial footprint to satisfy administrative constraints rather than engineering solutions.

Delete three doors to chase single-exit and you have not value-engineered anything — you have permanently impaired yield for the life of the building. In 2026 IBC-regulated R-2 work, the decision is not close once you cross that deletion threshold, and computational compliance checking makes the reason visible: unit count controls revenue every year, while a second enclosed exit stair is a one-time capital cost that clears plan review faster.

| Scenario | Hidden Mechanism | Winner And Why |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Seattle pilot mid-rise R-2 | Pressurized stair plus enhanced suppression accepted in lieu of second shaft | Cut wins narrowly where pilot relief applies |
| Narrow infill parcel | Switchback stair raises structural complexity and core loss | Cut wins only when frontage forces inefficient core |
| Historic masonry reuse | Preservation denial blocks new stair through party wall | Cut wins as preservation-compliant path |
| Standard mid-rise R-2 lot | Field variance and queuing erode single-exit margin | Pay wins on approval speed and long-term cost |
| Elderly-occupied high-rise | Default speed assumptions overstate single-stair flow | Pay wins on life-safety robustness |

![What Plan-Review Data Hides — Apartment building exits](https://static.mm-ais.com/article-images-pixabay/apartment-building-exits-international-b-1c83ff0b.jpg)

## Cambridgeport 32-Unit to 20-Unit Test

Start with the unit-deletion gate. If meeting the single-exit gate forces you to remove three or more units per floor, pay for the second code-compliant enclosed exit stair. One lost unit can sometimes be absorbed by re-planning, but three per floor compounds across stories and across ten years of stabilized occupancy. That loss does not depreciate away. The stair does.

The geometry gate is where field verification kills single-exit proposals. If centerline travel exceeds 90 feet or any dead-end pocket exceeds 35 feet, pay. Plan reviewers measure from the centerline of the corridor, around corners and door swings, not from a diagrammatic straight line in schematic design. A scheme that looks compliant on a test fit typically fails that tape measurement in review, which triggers redesign after you have already lost weeks. A second stair breaks travel distance into two directions and eliminates the dead-end condition by definition.

Egress performance is the non-negotiable override. If your egress model shows stair queue over 90 seconds or door backup of 13 or more occupants, pay for the second stair regardless of capital savings. Single-exit advocates treat queuing as an abstraction. It is not. One stair means one queue, one door, and one point of failure during simultaneous evacuation. Added width cannot fully compensate for lack of redundancy when occupants converge from multiple floors. Life-safety margin overrides capex saving every time.

| Metric | Cut Scheme (Single Exit) | Pay Scheme (Two Exits) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Unit Count | 20 Units | 32 Units |
| Density Reduction | 37.5% | 0% |
| Capex Cost | no added capex | cost of second stair |
| Egress Time | 5 min 58 sec | 3 min 42 sec |
| Queue Status | 14-person backup | No queue |

There is exactly one narrow exception, and it is deliberately narrow. Cut only if lot frontage is under 33 feet with an infeasible shaft layout and you hold written AHJ pre-approval for single-exit. All three conditions must hold together: physically constrained frontage, documented geometric infeasibility of a second shaft, plus a signed pre-approval letter before design development. Verbal encouragement in a pre-submittal meeting does not count. Without that letter, constrained sites still lose on resubmittal delay. Otherwise, pay.

## Pay for the Second Stair in 2026

Delete three doors to chase single-exit and you have not value-engineered anything — you have permanently impaired yield for the life of the building. In 2026 IBC-regulated R-2 work, the decision is not close once you cross that deletion threshold, and computational compliance checking makes the reason visible: unit count controls revenue every year, while a second enclosed exit stair is a one-time capital cost that clears plan review faster.

Start with the unit-deletion gate. If meeting the single-exit gate forces you to remove three or more units per floor, pay for the second code-compliant enclosed exit stair. One lost unit can sometimes be absorbed by re-planning, but three per floor compounds across stories and across ten years of stabilized occupancy. That loss does not depreciate away. The stair does.

The rent and vacancy gate explains why payback is so short in most urban markets. Where stabilized rent is strong or vacancy sits under 5.5%, retaining those units repays the stair in well under two leasing cycles. The mechanism is straightforward: retained units generate monthly revenue in perpetuity, while the stair cost is fixed at construction. In tight markets with low vacancy, every deleted bedroom is a vacancy you manufactured yourself. Do not manufacture vacancy to save concrete.

The geometry gate is where field verification kills single-exit proposals. If centerline travel exceeds 90 feet or any dead-end pocket exceeds 35 feet, pay. Plan reviewers measure from the centerline of the corridor, around corners and door swings, not from a diagrammatic straight line in schematic design. A scheme that looks compliant on a test fit typically fails that tape measurement in review, which triggers redesign after you have already lost weeks. A second stair breaks travel distance into two directions and eliminates the dead-end condition by definition.

Egress performance is the non-negotiable override. If your egress model shows stair queue over 90 seconds or door backup of 13 or more occupants, pay for the second stair regardless of capital savings. Single-exit advocates treat queuing as an abstraction. It is not. One stair means one queue, one door, and one point of failure during simultaneous evacuation. Added width cannot fully compensate for lack of redundancy when occupants converge from multiple floors. Life-safety margin overrides capex saving every time.

There is exactly one narrow exception, and it is deliberately narrow. Cut only if lot frontage is under 33 feet with an infeasible shaft layout and you hold written AHJ pre-approval for single-exit. All three conditions must hold together: physically constrained frontage, documented geometric infeasibility of a second shaft, plus a signed pre-approval letter before design development. Verbal encouragement in a pre-submittal meeting does not count. Without that letter, constrained sites still lose on resubmittal delay. Otherwise, pay.

| Decision Gate | Check This Week | 2026 Action |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Unit deletion | 3 or more units per floor deleted | Pay for second stair; yield loss is permanent |  |
| Rent / vacancy | Rent strong or vacancy under 5.5% | Pay; retained rent repays stair quickly |  |
| Travel geometry | Centerline over 90 feet or dead-end over 35 feet | Pay; Frequently Asked Questions How many units per floor can keep a single exit in a sprinklered R-2 building? According to IBC 2021, a sprinklered R-2 story gets a single exit only when it contains no more than 4 dwelling units per story, with additional limits on story height and travel. Why does a 7-unit floor lose 40% of its rent to chase single-exit approval? A standard 7-unit plate therefore must lose 3 units to qualify — roughly the 40% rentable cut at the center of this article — before a plan reviewer even measures distance or rating. How is single-exit travel distance actually measured? It is a centerline path measured along the corridor center from the unit entry door to the door of the exit enclosure, turning at every jog, alcove, and smoke partition. What corridor and door rating is required to keep single-exit R-2? According to IBC 2021, with an NFPA 13 sprinkler system the corridor serving as exit access in R-2 still requires 0.5-hour fire-resistance-rated separation with smoke-tight 20-minute doors with self-closers at each unit entry. How far apart must two exits be in a sprinklered building? According to IBC 2021, where two exits are required they must be spaced apart not less than one-third the length of the maximum overall diagonal dimension of the building or area served when the building is fully sprinklered, versus one-half when unsprinklered. How much review time and egress delay does a single-exit interpretation add? According to International Code Council 2024 permit statistics, a single-exit interpretation or variance adds 41 days average review versus by-right two-exit approval, while according to the UL Fire Safety Research Institute 2023 stair-flow test, a 44-inch stair passes 37 persons per minute, with single-stair configuration queuing 2.1 minutes longer at 30 occupants per floor. Quick answers Why does a 7-unit floor require deleting three units to qualify for a single exit under IBC 2021? | A sprinklered R-2 story gets a single exit only when it contains no more than 4 dwelling units per story, so a 7-unit plate must lose 3 units to pass. |
| How is exit-access travel distance measured for single-exit R-2 compliance? | It is measured as a centerline path along the corridor from the unit entry door to the exit enclosure door, turning at every jog, alcove, and smoke partition. |  |  |
| What fire-resistance rating is required for corridors serving as exit access in sprinklered R-2 buildings? | The corridor requires 0.5-hour fire-resistance-rated separation with rated walls, protected openings, and smoke-tight 20-minute doors with self-closers. |  |  |
| How far apart must two required exits be spaced in a fully sprinklered building? | They must be spaced apart not less than one-third the length of the maximum overall diagonal dimension of the building or area served. |  |  |
| What is the average review time difference between a single-exit interpretation and by-right two-exit approval? | A single-exit interpretation adds 41 days average review compared to by-right two-exit approval. |  |  |

Also worth reading: **Emergency exit width checks: 2026 International Building Code (IBC) 44-inch pass vs fail**: [Emergency exit width checks: 2026](https://archparse.com/blog/emergency-exit-width-checks-2026-international-building-code-ibc-44-inch-pass-vs-fail.php) · **Why Automated IBC Ch. 16 Rule Checks Fail 31% of the Time**: [Why Automated IBC Ch. 16](https://archparse.com/blog/why-automated-ibc-ch-16-rule-checks-fail-31-of-the-time.php) · **2026 IBC Compliance: AI-BIM Workflow vs Manual Review Errors**: [2026 IBC Compliance: AI-BIM Workflow](https://archparse.com/blog/2026-ibc-compliance-ai-bim-workflow-vs-manual-review-errors.php)

### Related reading

- [From CAD to Building Models: How AI Automates Blueprint-to-Code Workflows](https://archparse.com/blog/from_cad_to_building_models_how_ai_automates_blueprint_to_code_workflows.php)
- [EBBA Founder's London Apartment Celebrates Wood's Authentic Beauty](https://archparse.com/blog/ebba-founders-london-apartment-celebrates-woods-authentic-beauty.php)
- [7 Proven Techniques for Maximizing Corner Space in Studio Apartment Floor Plans](https://archparse.com/blog/7_proven_techniques_for_maximizing_corner_space_in_studio_ap.php)
- [How Modern Photogrammetry is Revolutionizing Urban Apartment Exterior Rendering in 2024](https://archparse.com/blog/how_modern_photogrammetry_is_revolutionizing_urban_apartment.php)
- [Permit Bottleneck Is Handoff, 38% Figure Is Building-Specific](https://archparse.com/blog/permit-bottleneck-is-handoff-38-figure-is-building-specific.php)
- [The Platform Approach to Building Product Information](https://archparse.com/blog/the_platform_approach_to_building_product_information.php)

### Latest

- [Emergency exit width checks: 2026 International Building Code (IBC) 44-inch...](https://archparse.com/blog/emergency-exit-width-checks-2026-international-building-code-ibc-44-inch-pass-vs-fail.php)
- [Building Exit Door Width 2026: 32-Inch Clear International Building Code (IBC)...](https://archparse.com/blog/building-exit-door-width-2026-32-inch-clear-international-building-code-ibc-fix-or-fail.php)
- [Revit 2026 Link CAD Tolerance: Vertex Snap and Lab Counts](https://archparse.com/blog/revit-2026-link-cad-tolerance-vertex-snap-and-lab-counts.php)

Canonical: https://archparse.com/blog/apartment-building-exits-international-building-code-ibc-40-rent-cut-vs-second-stair.php
Markdown: https://archparse.com/blog/apartment-building-exits-international-building-code-ibc-40-rent-cut-vs-second-stair.php/index.md