Accessibility Reviews of Existing Buildings: Scope and Retrofit Priorities

Two views of Vancouver Community College campus buildings and their street frontages

An accessibility review gives owners and facility managers a documented picture of barriers in an existing building. It can support a renovation, a planned capital program or a broader effort to improve access. The most useful report connects each observed barrier to its location, the review benchmark and a practical next step.

Define the purpose before booking a site visit

Decide what the review needs to answer. A proposed tenant improvement may need a code assessment of the altered area and its connections. A facility-wide audit may examine how visitors and staff use entrances, circulation, washrooms and shared services. A portfolio review may need consistent reporting across several properties so an owner can plan investment.

Set the building areas, documents, site access and expected deliverables in advance. Clarify whether the work includes measured observations, interviews, concept options, construction estimates or a later design review. An inaccessible service counter and a major entrance alteration require different follow-up work.

Separate existing conditions from renovation requirements

The age of a building alone does not determine the scope of an upgrade. The BC Building Code’s guidance on existing buildings explains that applying code requirements requires consideration of the building and proposed work. Alterations, additions and changes of use can affect the assessment. Confirm the applicable edition and subsequent revisions through the Province’s current code resources.

For a City of Vancouver property, establish the requirements under the Vancouver Building By-law. Do not assume that a voluntary audit requires every existing element to meet all current new-building provisions, or that a previous occupancy approval answers every question about a proposed renovation.

Inspect a complete journey through the facility

Follow the intended route from arrival to the spaces people need to use. Depending on the agreed scope, observations can cover parking connections, exterior paths, entrances, doors, interior circulation, vertical access, washrooms, counters, signage and controls. Record the conditions actually observed rather than relying only on old drawings.

Include facilities staff in the visit. They can explain which doors are normally locked, how furniture moves during events and where visitors regularly need assistance. Consultation with people who use the facility can reveal barriers that a drawing review would not identify. Agree on any broader engagement as part of the assignment.

Make the findings usable

Location and evidence: identify the floor, room or route, with photographs and relevant measured observations.
Review basis: state the code provision, agreed standard or owner objective used to assess the item.
Effect on access: describe how the condition affects use of the facility.
Recommended action: distinguish maintenance, further investigation, design work and construction.
Dependencies: identify related work, responsible parties and decisions needed before implementation.

Keep unverified conditions visible. A locked room, missing drawing or concealed assembly should produce an identified limitation and follow-up action. It should not quietly become a satisfactory finding.

Prioritize improvements as connected work

Consider the effect of each barrier, frequency of use, feasibility and relationship to planned renovations. Improving an entrance may provide limited benefit if the route to the required facilities remains interrupted. Group related work so the owner can see the outcome each phase is intended to deliver.

Some findings may be addressed through maintenance or operating changes. Other findings need architectural, structural, mechanical or electrical input. A priority list supports budgeting; it does not replace the design, permits or professional review required for construction. Review completed work against the agreed scope and retain the closeout evidence.

Choose an appropriate assessment benchmark

CSA/ASC B651:23 can provide an agreed benchmark for a broader review. Accessibility Standards Canada describes its coverage of physical, sensory and cognitive disabilities. The report should distinguish benchmark gaps from requirements established for the proposed work. Naming a standard in an audit does not itself establish a building’s certification.

Noven’s Accessibility Consulting and Building Code Consulting can support a coordinated assessment. Request a proposal with the facility address, available plans, proposed changes and review objectives.

Related insights

Technical references

References reviewed October 26, 2026. The assessment basis and upgrade requirements depend on the jurisdiction, building and scope of work.