Egress violations are the most common category of code comments in construction drawing review. They show up in every discipline, on nearly every project, and they're the issues most likely to generate AHJ correction notices. Here are ten that appear with remarkable consistency.

1. Corridor width below minimum

IBC 2024 Section 1020.2 requires a minimum corridor width of 44 inches for most occupancies. This gets violated constantly, usually when mechanical equipment, structural columns, or door swings encroach on the required width. The issue isn't that designers don't know the requirement; it's that the corridor was 44 inches before the mechanical equipment was added, and nobody rechecked after coordination.

2. Dead-end corridor exceeds maximum length

Section 1020.4 limits dead-end corridors to 20 feet in unsprinklered buildings and 50 feet in sprinklered buildings. This violation usually appears in renovations where new walls create a dead-end condition that didn't exist in the original layout.

Sprinkler status matters
Many dead-end limits double when a building is fully sprinklered. But the sprinkler system design isn't always finalized when the architectural set goes out for review, which leads to drawings that assume sprinkler credit without confirming it.

3. Insufficient number of exits

Table 1006.2.1 specifies the minimum number of exits based on occupant load. One exit is permitted for up to 49 occupants (with conditions), two exits for up to 500, three for up to 1,000. The most common miss: occupant load calculations that don't account for assembly-use areas within a larger occupancy, pushing the total over a threshold.

4. Exit sign placement gaps

Section 1013.1 requires exit signs at every exit, exit access doorway, and along the exit access path where the exit or path of egress travel is not immediately visible. The typical violation: a corridor with a turn where no exit sign is visible from the point of decision.

5. Door swing encroaches on required egress width

Section 1010.1.1 requires that doors swing in the direction of egress travel when serving an occupant load of 50 or more. Section 1010.1.1.1 further requires that the door in any position shall not reduce the required width by more than one-half.

6. Egress width not calculated per occupant load

0.2 in
per occupant for stairways (IBC §1005.1)

Section 1005.1 requires 0.2 inches per occupant for stairways and 0.15 inches per occupant for other egress components. This calculation is frequently missing from the drawings entirely, or it's shown on the code analysis sheet but doesn't match the actual door and corridor widths on the floor plans.

7. Travel distance exceeds maximum

Table 1017.2 sets maximum travel distances by occupancy type and sprinkler status. For a sprinklered Business (Group B) occupancy, the limit is 300 feet. This violation surfaces in large open floor plans where the actual walking distance, measured along the path of travel rather than as a straight line, exceeds the limit.

The straight-line vs. path-of-travel distinction is where most travel distance errors originate.

8. Missing occupant load calculation

Section 1004.1 requires that occupant load be calculated based on the function of the space, using the occupant load factors in Table 1004.5. The violation isn't always a wrong number. More often, the calculation simply isn't shown on the drawings. Without it, the reviewer can't verify exit counts, egress widths, or plumbing fixture counts.

9. Stairway width insufficient for calculated occupant load

Section 1011.2 specifies minimum stair widths, and Section 1005.1 adds the per-occupant calculation on top. The common error: the stair is 44 inches wide (meeting the minimum) but the occupant load requires 56 inches.

10. Common path of egress travel exceeds limit

Section 1006.2.1 limits common path of egress travel, which is the distance from any point to where occupants have a choice of two distinct paths to separate exits. For sprinklered Business occupancy, it's 100 feet. This is different from travel distance and often confused with it.

Common path ≠ travel distance
Common path ends where the occupant has a choice of two paths. Travel distance is the total distance to an exit. A space can pass the travel distance limit and still fail common path, especially in deep floor plates with exits clustered on one side.

Why these keep showing up

None of these are obscure requirements. The issue is coordination: architectural drawings change during design development, occupant loads shift when space functions change, and the egress analysis on Sheet A-001 doesn't always get updated when the floor plan on Sheet A-102 does.

That's why first-pass review has value. Catching these before the architect sits down for a detailed review means the obvious issues are already on the table when the detailed review starts.

All IBC section references in this post are based on the 2024 edition. Verify section numbers against your jurisdiction's adopted edition, as numbering may vary. Callout checks IBC 2024 and 2021. Upload a drawing set and see which of these it finds on your project. See an example report →