A recent Burbank residential remodel raised a deceptively simple question: when does altering an existing wall count as demolishing it? The City’s demolition guidance calculates demolition based on the linear length of existing walls removed and states that a wall can be considered remaining when its framing retains a structural function with a top plate. During plan review, however, Planning took the position that creating or modifying window openings should count toward the demolished wall length. Their reasoning relied on Burbank Municipal Code Section 10-1-1810, Continuation of Structure: because one portion of the existing house encroached into a required setback, the house was considered a nonconforming structure, and Planning applied that section’s discussion of removal of structural framing to window alterations elsewhere in the house—even though those windows were located in otherwise conforming walls.
We questioned that interpretation. Section 10-1-1810 repeatedly addresses nonconforming features and portions of a structure, and even specifically addresses new window and door openings in nonconforming exterior walls. More importantly, the windows in question were not located in the setback-encroaching walls at all. Applying the section’s demolition language to conforming walls simply because another part of the house is nonconforming appeared to blur two separate questions: whether an existing structure is legally nonconforming, and how much of that structure is actually being demolished. This was also difficult to reconcile with the City’s own demolition guidance, which focuses on whether a wall remains structurally functional rather than whether individual studs are modified to accommodate an opening.
After considerable discussion, the City ultimately accepted our demolition calculation and allowed the project to proceed without counting the proposed window alterations as demolished wall. The resolution was project-specific rather than a formal reinterpretation of the code; the City considered, among other factors, that the great majority of the existing house would remain substantially unchanged. While we appreciate the practical resolution, the underlying ambiguity remains. Our takeaway for architects and homeowners working on Burbank remodels is to identify nonconforming conditions early, document exactly which walls are actually being altered, and distinguish carefully between a nonconforming structure, a nonconforming portion of that structure, and a demolished wall. Until the City publishes clearer guidance, that distinction can have a surprisingly significant effect on what might otherwise be a straightforward remodel.
