Is your campus or complex ADA-compliant? How do you know? To create a comprehensive ADA Barrier Removal Plan, experienced ISES personnel will visit your facilities and campus, note ADA barriers and noncompliant areas, and develop a customized plan to remove barriers to access. While each office park or campus is unique, the standards that must be applied at each setting are uniform. A successful ADA compliance plan must identify all barriers, recommend corrective action, estimate associated costs, and then prioritize recommendations based on criticality of the barrier and importance of access to a given building.

The project begins with a visual survey of each building and identification of barriers to access. The various components in and around each building, outdoor area or recreational area will be examined for compliance. The ISES inspectors will evaluate client-supplied data and interview key client personnel to develop an accurate portrayal of existing conditions.

Emphasis will be placed on determining accessible approaches and entrances, as well as access to goods, programs, services and activities.

Items Addressed Include:

  • Sidewalks, parking, curb ramps
  • Exterior ramps, rails, stair-climber (if present)
  • Presence and location of accessible entrances
  • Accessibility through the building
  • Wall projections, minimum headroom
  • Stair risers, nosings, and handrails
  • Door hardware, door widths, window safety ratings
  • Cabinetry, sink accessibility in kitchens, kitchenettes
  • Alarms and strobes
  • Restrooms/locker rooms
  • Drinking fountains
  • Signage
  • Telephones (in rare instances these days)
  • Platform lifts, ramps
  • Elevators and their communication devices
  • Rooms and spaces
  • Auditorium seating, assisted listening devices
  • Bathtubs and showers

Although all ADA issues are “immediately critical,” the realities of funding necessitate prioritizing deficiencies. Therefore, priority codes are assigned to identified needs by severity of impact on the public in relation to the ADA Guidelines. The following criteria are examples of what could be applied as the basis for prioritizing the removal of architectural barriers. ISES will work with you to specifically define these prioritizations, because each client’s priorities differ.

  • Impact upon Numbers of Users
  • Uniqueness of Facility
  • Current Degree of Accessibility
  • Long-Term Planning Status

Priority codes, typically 1 through 4, are then assigned.

Next, ISES makes recommendations for corrective action for each deficiency, along with estimated costs. The final bound report will include photographs and deficiency location marked on CAD drawings and includes a matrix assigning remediation project priority, based on both severity of barrier and importance of access for a given asset. We are prepared to assist as you determine which facility assets have higher access needs for all users, visitors and staff.

Addressing Myths about ADA

  • The ADA is an ever-changing civil rights law, not a building code
  • ADAAG applies to all publicly accessible buildings regardless of the year they were built. There is no “grandfathered in” concept under the ADA. Older or historic buildings are not exempt from the requirements, although the law does hold facilities built or renovated after 1990 or 2010 to a more stringent standard. The mandate includes the obligation to remove barriers from existing buildings whenever it is “readily achievable” to do so.
  • One ADA lawsuit settlement does not prevent future litigation.
  • ADA accessibility has never been just about wheelchairs, and the concept of who is “disabled” was greatly expanded by the 2009 amendments to the ADA. It includes someone with a “physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activity, including walking, talking, seeing, hearing, breathing, reasoning, or taking care of oneself.”
  • Both the landlord and the tenant share the legal responsibility for complying with ADA accessibility


Read the full article, “5 ADA Accessibility Myths” by Hunter Kitchens and Andrew S. Naylor, Buildings Magazine, March 2015, p. 30.