The ADA has no real "grandfather clause." Buildings constructed before the ADA's 1992 effective date aren't automatically exempt from compliance — they're only excused from making structural changes if removing the barrier isn't "readily achievable." That standard is low for small businesses and gets lower the more profitable the business is. Most older California businesses still owe meaningful access obligations.
One of the most common questions from California businesses sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act is whether they're protected by a "grandfather clause." Generally, such clauses protect existing buildings from complying with rules made after they were built. The ADA has such a clause, but it's neither as broad nor as protective as the ones business owners are used to.
Businesses usually meet grandfather exceptions when working with local city building codes and inspectors. Qualifying for "grandfathering" can save substantial sums on renovations. But the ADA is a federal law, and under the Supremacy Clause, it overrides local California law. City permits and inspectors enforce local code, they may certify or permit features that are acceptable under local law but actually prohibited by the ADA. Passing a city inspection tells you almost nothing about whether your facility is accessible under federal rules and the ADAAG guidelines.
The ADA allows buildings constructed before its updated regulations to be grandfathered in only as long as the deficiency is not "readily achievable" to fix. In other words, regardless of when or how your facility was built, you must do everything that is readily achievable to make it accessible, or eventually face a lawsuit alleging disability discrimination under the ADA and related state laws.
"Readily achievable" is a slippery legal term and you should get advice from a knowledgeable lawyer to determine what you must do versus what you can defer. That said, certain things are almost always readily achievable:
Parking lot striping and signage are the number one most common complaints in ADA lawsuits. The "readily achievable" standard is a multi-factor test that considers the practicality of bringing a location into compliance, your financial situation, the physical realities of the space, and other factors. Sometimes full compliance is genuinely impossible. Judges differ on what's readily achievable in close cases, don't make the call yourself.
If you're concerned about your parking lot or other accessibility features, hire a CASp (Certified Access Specialist) inspector. The cost is modest compared to a lawsuit and the report carries significant weight in court.
Beyond all "readily achievable" changes, you must comply with the ADA when you make "alterations" to your property. "Alterations", like "readily achievable", is a slippery term. In broad strokes, alterations means structural repairs or additions that go beyond routine maintenance and upkeep. While the ADA doesn't require full compliance for unaltered features, there are important exceptions. For example, you generally have to provide an accessible path of travel to the altered area, even if the path of travel itself wasn't part of the alterations.
Businesses can't count on a "grandfather clause" to protect them. There are too many exceptions. A CASp inspection, followed by any minor changes the inspector identifies, is your best defense.
Browse our full library of insights on business law, contracts, ADA defense, and estate planning.
All articles