Affordability in the International Residential Code: What Lawyers Need to Know

When litigating a residential construction dispute, building codes are often the fulcrum of liability. In Texas, the International Residential Code (IRC) is the controlling standard for one- and two-family dwellings in nearly every jurisdiction. Courts and arbitrators rely on it not only to determine whether a home meets the minimum safety standards, but also to measure the builder’s duty of care.

Buried in the “Intent” clause of Chapter 1 is a single word that has become a source of debate: affordability. Since 2015, the IRC has declared that its purpose is to safeguard the public’s safety, health, and general welfare “through affordability” — placing affordability first, even before structural strength, fire safety, or sanitation.

For attorneys handling defect litigation, it is important to understand why that word is there, what it means, and what it does not mean.

The Text of IRC R101.3

The “Intent” provision of the 2021 IRC (as adopted in Texas municipalities) reads:

“The purpose of this code is to establish minimum requirements to safeguard the public safety, health and general welfare through affordability, structural strength, means of egress facilities, stability, sanitation, light and ventilation, energy conservation, and safety to life and property from fire and other hazards attributed to the built environment, and to provide safety to fire fighters and emergency responders during emergency operations.”

Affordability appears as the first listed mechanism for safeguarding the public welfare.

How Affordability Entered the Code

From the 2000 through 2012 editions, the IRC did not mention affordability at all. The intent clause began with “structural strength” and proceeded through the traditional life-safety concerns.

During the 2012–2015 ICC code development cycle, the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) submitted a proposal (RB51-13) to amend R101.3 by inserting the word “affordability”. The NAHB argued that building codes were imposing excessive costs and that the purpose clause should reflect a balance between safety and the economic reality of housing markets.

The proposal passed. As of the 2015 IRC, affordability has been permanently embedded in R101.3 — and importantly, placed first. The order was intentional: NAHB wanted affordability symbolically elevated, not tacked onto the end.

Why Placement Matters

The positioning of “affordability” ahead of “structural strength” and “safety” suggests to the casual reader that affordability is the foremost priority of the IRC. In truth, however, the order carries no legal weight.

• Life safety remains paramount. Courts and code officials have never allowed cost concerns to override fire safety, sanitation, structural stability, or egress requirements.

• Affordability is not defined. The IRC contains no standard, metric, or test for affordability. It is not enforceable in the way fire resistance or egress widths are.

• Symbolic politics. The placement was a political concession to industry lobbying, not a restructuring of code priorities.

In other words: affordability is rhetoric, not a regulatory shield.

The Reality: Housing Has Not Become Affordable

Despite its presence in the code, today’s homes are less affordable than ever.

• In the Dallas–Fort Worth market, median prices have nearly doubled in a decade, far outpacing wage growth.

• Nationally, affordability is driven by land costs, developer margins, financing, and speculation — not building codes.

• HUD and ICC studies show that most new code requirements raise construction costs by only 1–2%, while market factors drive increases of 20–40%.

Thus, builders cannot credibly argue that code enforcement is what makes homes unaffordable.

Legal Implications for Texas Attorneys

When affordability is raised in a defect case, lawyers should:

1. Acknowledge the text. Affordability is indeed written into R101.3 of the IRC, beginning with the 2015 edition.

2. Undermine its application. Point out that the IRC provides no enforcement mechanism for affordability, and courts treat safety as controlling.

3. Reframe the duty. Texas case law establishes that builders owe an implied warranty of habitability and good workmanship regardless of cost.

   • Humber v. Morton, 426 S.W.2d 554 (Tex. 1968) — implied warranty of habitability.

   • Melody Home Mfg. Co. v. Barnes, 741 S.W.2d 349 (Tex. 1987) — implied warranty of good workmanship.

     
     

     Neither warranty can be diluted by a claim that it would be “too expensive” to meet the code.

4. Highlight industry motive. Lawyers should emphasize to the court or jury that affordability’s insertion was the product of NAHB lobbying, not an engineering necessity.

A Useful Litigation Analogy

When a builder raises affordability as a defense, it is the legal equivalent of arguing:

• A surgeon could skip sterilizing instruments because sterilization equipment is expensive; or

• An airline could disable smoke detectors because ticket prices might rise.

The public understands instinctively that safety cannot be bargained away for cost savings. The same principle applies in residential construction.

Conclusion

Affordability sits at the front of IRC R101.3, but it is not a trump card. It is a political artifact inserted in 2015 by industry lobbying, meant to remind lawmakers to consider costs. In practice, it does not override or diminish the builder’s duty to provide safe, habitable, code-compliant housing.

For Texas lawyers, the key point is simple: a home that fails the code cannot be excused on the basis of affordability. The IRC still defines the floor of minimum safety, and Texas law still enforces the warranties of habitability and good workmanship — affordability notwithstanding.