Most Common Fire Code Violations: What Five Cities' Records Show
- Primary data
- City fire violation records: NYC OATH (FDNY), Philadelphia L&I, DataSF, Norfolk Fire-Rescue, Baton Rouge Fire Department
- Data period
- 2025 (NYC, Philadelphia, San Francisco); 2021 (Norfolk); 2022 (Baton Rouge)
- Latest release used
- 2026-10-26
- Next release
- City portals update daily; this report is rechecked annually
- Geography
- New York City, NY; Philadelphia, PA; San Francisco, CA; Norfolk, VA; Baton Rouge, LA
- Sources
- 22 (18 Tier 1)
The most common fire code violations in five U.S. city datasets are fire protection equipment not tested or serviced, fire extinguisher defects, and missing permits or records. Extinguishers alone make up 11.8% to 21.7% of violations in four cities, and equipment upkeep is the largest group in all five.
The most common fire code violations: how five cities compare
Five city datasets, five code systems, one taxonomy. Extinguishers, equipment testing and paperwork lead almost everywhere; the split between them depends on how each city writes its codes.
We mapped 105,389 fire code violation records from New York City, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Norfolk and Baton Rouge to 15 common categories (mapping table). New York City, Philadelphia and San Francisco cover 2025. Norfolk covers 2021 and Baton Rouge covers 2022, the latest full years in those files.
Share of each city's records, latest full year
Source: FDNY summonses via NYC OATH (2025), Philadelphia L&I (2025), SFFD via DataSF (2025), Norfolk Fire-Rescue (2021), Baton Rouge Fire Department (2022); Fire Life and Safety analysis
| Category | New York City (% of records) | Philadelphia (% of records) | San Francisco (% of records) | Norfolk (% of records) | Baton Rouge (% of records) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fire extinguishers | 1.9 | 14.4 | 11.8 | 19.8 | 21.7 |
| Exits, egress and obstructions | 3.6 | 6.4 | 6.7 | 4.3 | 8.9 |
| Fire alarms and smoke/CO alarms | 0.0 | 7.4 | 32.8 | 0.4 | 0.7 |
| Unwarranted (nuisance) alarms | 20.5 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Sprinklers, standpipes and FDCs | 0.0 | 8.1 | 13.0 | 1.3 | 0.4 |
| System testing and maintenance, system not named | 33.2 | 16.4 | 0.9 | 7.4 | 22.3 |
| Electrical hazards and extension cords | 2.0 | 9.6 | 1.6 | 15.6 | 3.1 |
| Storage, housekeeping and clearance | 2.1 | 8.5 | 1.7 | 5.2 | 0.2 |
| Kitchen hood and cooking suppression | 0.0 | 3.8 | 0.7 | 4.9 | 1.1 |
| Permits, records and certificates | 24.5 | 7.0 | 16.7 | 8.8 | 2.0 |
| Fire doors and fire-rated construction | 1.5 | 1.6 | 3.1 | 0.6 | 0.3 |
| Emergency lighting and exit signs | 0.0 | 5.3 | 4.9 | 4.9 | 23.0 |
| Signs, labels, addresses and FD access | 8.1 | 6.1 | 3.0 | 2.5 | 3.7 |
| Hazardous materials, gas and ignition sources | 1.1 | 4.2 | 0.3 | 4.3 | 0.2 |
| Other or unspecified | 1.5 | 1.2 | 2.6 | 19.8 | 12.5 |
Shares are within each city. New York City codes name system groups, so its alarm and sprinkler findings sit in the system-not-named category. Years: New York City, Philadelphia and San Francisco 2025; Norfolk 2021; Baton Rouge 2022.
Source: [3][4][1][6][5] NYC Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings via NYC Open Data; City of Philadelphia, Department of Licenses and Inspections via OpenDataPhilly; San Francisco Fire Department via DataSF; Norfolk Fire-Rescue via City of Norfolk Open Data; City of Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge, Open Data BR
Extinguisher findings are between 11.8% and 21.7% of records in Philadelphia, San Francisco, Norfolk and Baton Rouge. New York City is the exception at 1.9%, because FDNY summonses are a different enforcement tool from routine inspection notices (why).
Top 10 fire code violations in each city
The single most frequent code in each city is about testing, servicing or maintaining equipment.
- New York City (2025): inspection and testing (BF20) is 23.4% of 73,542 FDNY summons charges, followed by unwarranted alarms at 20.5% and recordkeeping at 11.2%.
- Philadelphia (2025): periodic testing (F-901.6.4) is 11.0% of 22,128 Fire Code violation lines, fire extinguishers (F-906.2) 6.5%, and suppression system testing and maintenance (F-903.5) 5.0%.
- San Francisco (2025): "alarm system maintained" (ALR12) is 22.8% of 3,488 violation items, extinguisher service required (EXT04) 7.7%, and smoke alarms in sleeping areas (ALR15) 6.3%.
- Norfolk (2021): extinguisher general requirements (section 906.2) are 11.0% of 5,021 violation records; the second code is a generic "Fire Code Violation" entry at 8.2%.
- Baton Rouge (2022): the state annual life safety equipment inspection rule (LRS 40:1646) is 21.9% of 1,210 coded rows, and extinguisher maintenance under NFPA 10 (10:6.3.1) is 19.9%.
Show all 50 rows
| City | Year | Rank | Code | Description (as published) | Records | Share of city records (%) | Category |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| New York City | 2025 | 1 | BF20 | INSPECTION AND TESTING | 17233 | 23.4 | System testing and maintenance, system not named |
| New York City | 2025 | 2 | BF35 | FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS:FAIL TO PREVENT UNNECESSARY UNWARRANTED ALARMS | 15095 | 20.5 | Unwarranted (nuisance) alarms |
| New York City | 2025 | 3 | BF05 | RECORDKEEPING | 8201 | 11.2 | Permits, records and certificates |
| New York City | 2025 | 4 | BF12 | FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS | 7154 | 9.7 | System testing and maintenance, system not named |
| New York City | 2025 | 5 | BF17 | CERTIFICATES OF FITNESS AND CERTIFICATES OF QUALIFICATION | 4894 | 6.7 | Permits, records and certificates |
| New York City | 2025 | 6 | BF19 | AFFIDAVITS, DESIGN INSTALLATION DOCUMENTS, AND OTHER DOCUMENTATION | 3876 | 5.3 | Permits, records and certificates |
| New York City | 2025 | 7 | BF06 | SIGN, POSTINGS, NOTICES AND INSTRUCTIONS | 3660 | 5.0 | Signs, labels, addresses and FD access |
| New York City | 2025 | 8 | BF09 | ROOFTOP ACCESS AND MEANS OF EGRESS | 2601 | 3.5 | Exits, egress and obstructions |
| New York City | 2025 | 9 | BF07 | LABELS MARKINGS | 2327 | 3.2 | Signs, labels, addresses and FD access |
| New York City | 2025 | 10 | BF08 | STORAGE, ACCUMULATION AND REMOVAL OF COMBUSTIBLE MATERIAL AND WASTE | 1460 | 2.0 | Storage, housekeeping and clearance |
| Philadelphia | 2025 | 1 | F-901.6.4 | PERIODIC TESTING | 2430 | 11.0 | System testing and maintenance, system not named |
| Philadelphia | 2025 | 2 | F-906.2 | FIRE EXTINGUISHERS | 1436 | 6.5 | Fire extinguishers |
| Philadelphia | 2025 | 3 | F-903.5 | SUPPRESSION SYSTEM TESTING & MAINTENANCE | 1106 | 5.0 | Sprinklers, standpipes and FDCs |
| Philadelphia | 2025 | 4 | F-901.6 | INSPECTION, TESTING & MAINTENANCE | 932 | 4.2 | System testing and maintenance, system not named |
| Philadelphia | 2025 | 5 | F-604.6 | UNAPPROVED CONDITIONS | 841 | 3.8 | Electrical hazards and extension cords |
| Philadelphia | 2025 | 6 | F-906.7 | FIRE EXTINGUISHER HANGERS & BRACKETS | 713 | 3.2 | Fire extinguishers |
| Philadelphia | 2025 | 7 | F-604.5 | EXTENSION CORDS | 586 | 2.6 | Electrical hazards and extension cords |
| Philadelphia | 2025 | 8 | F-906.1 | FIRE EXTINGUISHERS REQUIRED | 501 | 2.3 | Fire extinguishers |
| Philadelphia | 2025 | 9 | F-1104.3 | EXIT SIGN ILLUMINATION | 390 | 1.8 | Emergency lighting and exit signs |
| Philadelphia | 2025 | 10 | F-105.6.4 | REPAIR GARAGES/MOTOR FUEL | 332 | 1.5 | Permits, records and certificates |
| San Francisco | 2025 | 1 | ALR12 | alarm system maintained | 795 | 22.8 | Fire alarms and smoke/CO alarms |
| San Francisco | 2025 | 2 | EXT04 | extinguisher / service required | 270 | 7.7 | Fire extinguishers |
| San Francisco | 2025 | 3 | ALR15 | sleeping area requirements | 219 | 6.3 | Fire alarms and smoke/CO alarms |
| San Francisco | 2025 | 4 | REC29 | test and maintenance documentation | 208 | 6.0 | Permits, records and certificates |
| San Francisco | 2025 | 5 | SPR08 | sprinkler / 5-year service | 155 | 4.4 | Sprinklers, standpipes and FDCs |
| San Francisco | 2025 | 6 | STD05 | standpipes / missing caps | 112 | 3.2 | Sprinklers, standpipes and FDCs |
| San Francisco | 2025 | 7 | COM01 | fire command center features | 97 | 2.8 | Fire alarms and smoke/CO alarms |
| San Francisco | 2025 | 8 | ILL02 | illumination / repair emergency lighting | 90 | 2.6 | Emergency lighting and exit signs |
| San Francisco | 2025 | 9 | PER01 | permit / general | 77 | 2.2 | Permits, records and certificates |
| San Francisco | 2025 | 10 | EXT30 | fire extinguishers/maintenance | 75 | 2.2 | Fire extinguishers |
| Norfolk | 2021 | 1 | 906.2 | General requirements | 551 | 11.0 | Fire extinguishers |
| Norfolk | 2021 | 2 | 001 | Fire Code Violation | 410 | 8.2 | Other or unspecified |
| Norfolk | 2021 | 3 | 906.7 | Hangers and brackets | 239 | 4.8 | Fire extinguishers |
| Norfolk | 2021 | 4 | 17.1-45 | Fire Inspection and Permit fee and Requirements | 202 | 4.0 | Permits, records and certificates |
| Norfolk | 2021 | 5 | 901.6.1 | Standards | 201 | 4.0 | System testing and maintenance, system not named |
| Norfolk | 2021 | 6 | 605.5 | Extension cords | 193 | 3.8 | Electrical hazards and extension cords |
| Norfolk | 2021 | 7 | 110.1 | General | 181 | 3.6 | Other or unspecified |
| Norfolk | 2021 | 8 | 002 | Fire Code Violation | 154 | 3.1 | Other or unspecified |
| Norfolk | 2021 | 9 | 315.3.1 | Ceiling clearance | 152 | 3.0 | Storage, housekeeping and clearance |
| Norfolk | 2021 | 10 | 605.3 | Working space and clearance | 152 | 3.0 | Electrical hazards and extension cords |
| Baton Rouge | 2022 | 1 | LRS 40:1646 | Annual Inspection of Life Safety Equipment | 265 | 21.9 | System testing and maintenance, system not named |
| Baton Rouge | 2022 | 2 | 10:6.3.1 | Maintenance | 241 | 19.9 | Fire extinguishers |
| Baton Rouge | 2022 | 3 | 7.10.5.2.1 | Every Sign Required | 101 | 8.3 | Emergency lighting and exit signs |
| Baton Rouge | 2022 | 4 | 7.10.1.1 | Where Required. | 96 | 7.9 | Emergency lighting and exit signs |
| Baton Rouge | 2022 | 5 | 7.1.10.1* | General. | 82 | 6.8 | Exits, egress and obstructions |
| Baton Rouge | 2022 | 6 | 7.9.1.1* | Emergency Lighting Facilities | 77 | 6.4 | Emergency lighting and exit signs |
| Baton Rouge | 2022 | 7 | MISC | Miscellaneous Provisions | 65 | 5.4 | Other or unspecified |
| Baton Rouge | 2022 | 8 | 1:10.12.1 | Posting Of Address | 43 | 3.6 | Signs, labels, addresses and FD access |
| Baton Rouge | 2022 | 9 | NOTREADY | Not ready for final | 24 | 2.0 | Other or unspecified |
| Baton Rouge | 2022 | 10 | LOCKEDOUT | Locked Out | 21 | 1.7 | Other or unspecified |
Descriptions are reproduced as each city publishes them. Share is of all records for that city and year.
Source: [3][4][1][6][5] NYC Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings via NYC Open Data; City of Philadelphia, Department of Licenses and Inspections via OpenDataPhilly; San Francisco Fire Department via DataSF; Norfolk Fire-Rescue via City of Norfolk Open Data; City of Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge, Open Data BR
Concentration varies with code granularity. The top 10 codes hold 90.4% of New York City charges, which use 32 summons charge groups, but only 41.9% of Philadelphia lines, which cite individual Fire Code sections.
Which violation categories rank highest across cities
Ranked by median share, unnamed system testing (16.4%), extinguishers (14.4%) and permits or records (8.8%) lead.
Median share of city records
Source: FDNY summonses via NYC OATH (2025), Philadelphia L&I (2025), SFFD via DataSF (2025), Norfolk Fire-Rescue (2021), Baton Rouge Fire Department (2022); Fire Life and Safety analysis
| Code | Category | Median share (%) | Lowest share (%) | Highest share (%) | Cities at 1% or more |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ITM | System testing and maintenance, system not named | 16.4 | 0.9 | 33.2 | 4 |
| EXT | Fire extinguishers | 14.4 | 1.9 | 21.7 | 5 |
| REC | Permits, records and certificates | 8.8 | 2.0 | 24.5 | 5 |
| EGR | Exits, egress and obstructions | 6.4 | 3.6 | 8.9 | 5 |
| LGT | Emergency lighting and exit signs | 4.9 | 0.0 | 23.0 | 4 |
| SIGN | Signs, labels, addresses and FD access | 3.7 | 2.5 | 8.1 | 5 |
| ELE | Electrical hazards and extension cords | 3.1 | 1.6 | 15.6 | 5 |
| OTH | Other or unspecified | 2.6 | 1.2 | 19.8 | 5 |
| STO | Storage, housekeeping and clearance | 2.1 | 0.2 | 8.5 | 4 |
| DOOR | Fire doors and fire-rated construction | 1.5 | 0.3 | 3.1 | 3 |
| SPR | Sprinklers, standpipes and FDCs | 1.3 | 0.0 | 13.0 | 3 |
| HOOD | Kitchen hood and cooking suppression | 1.1 | 0.0 | 4.9 | 3 |
| HAZ | Hazardous materials, gas and ignition sources | 1.1 | 0.2 | 4.3 | 3 |
| ALM | Fire alarms and smoke/CO alarms | 0.7 | 0.0 | 32.8 | 2 |
| NUI | Unwarranted (nuisance) alarms | 0.0 | 0.0 | 20.5 | 1 |
Each city counts equally. The last column counts cities where the category is at least 1% of records.
Source: [3][4][1][6][5] NYC Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings via NYC Open Data; City of Philadelphia, Department of Licenses and Inspections via OpenDataPhilly; San Francisco Fire Department via DataSF; Norfolk Fire-Rescue via City of Norfolk Open Data; City of Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge, Open Data BR
Extinguishers, exits, permits and records, signs and electrical findings each reach at least 1% of records in all five cities. Exits and egress have the narrowest range, from 3.6% to 8.9%. Alarms look rare by median (0.7%) only because three cities file alarm findings under broader codes; in San Francisco they are 32.8% of items. Schedules for alarm and extinguisher upkeep are summarized on our fire alarm inspection and fire extinguisher inspection pages.
Latest full year per city
Source: FDNY summonses via NYC OATH (2025), Philadelphia L&I (2025), SFFD via DataSF (2025), Norfolk Fire-Rescue (2021), Baton Rouge Fire Department (2022); Fire Life and Safety analysis
Equipment upkeep outnumbers physical hazards
Grouping categories removes most code-system noise, and one pattern holds in every city.
Share of city records by group
Source: FDNY summonses via NYC OATH (2025), Philadelphia L&I (2025), SFFD via DataSF (2025), Norfolk Fire-Rescue (2021), Baton Rouge Fire Department (2022); Fire Life and Safety analysis
| Group (share of city records, %) | New York City | Philadelphia | San Francisco | Norfolk | Baton Rouge |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equipment and system upkeep | 35.1 | 55.5 | 64.2 | 38.8 | 69.2 |
| Paperwork, permits and signage | 32.6 | 13.1 | 19.6 | 11.4 | 5.7 |
| Physical conditions (egress, storage, electrical, doors, hazmat) | 10.2 | 30.2 | 13.5 | 30.1 | 12.6 |
| Unwarranted alarms | 20.5 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Other or unspecified | 1.5 | 1.2 | 2.6 | 19.8 | 12.5 |
Groups sum the categories in tables/t2.csv; see the methodology for definitions.
Source: [3][4][1][6][5] NYC Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings via NYC Open Data; City of Philadelphia, Department of Licenses and Inspections via OpenDataPhilly; San Francisco Fire Department via DataSF; Norfolk Fire-Rescue via City of Norfolk Open Data; City of Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge, Open Data BR
Equipment and system upkeep (extinguishers, alarms, sprinklers, unnamed system testing, kitchen suppression, emergency lighting) is the largest group in all five cities, from 35.1% in New York City to 69.2% in Baton Rouge. Physical conditions such as blocked exits, storage, extension cords and propped fire doors are 30.2% of Philadelphia lines and 30.1% of Norfolk records, but 10.2% of New York City charges.
Restaurants show a different mix. In Norfolk's 2021 data, 763 violation records were at restaurants or cafeterias: extinguishers were 17.7%, electrical hazards 15.3% and kitchen hood and cooking suppression 14.9%. Our restaurant fire safety guide and kitchen hood suppression inspection page cover the systems involved.
How often fire code violations get corrected
Most violations in the four cities with a status field are recorded as resolved; New York City summonses have the lowest share.
Resolved per each city's own status field, as of 2026-10-26
Source: NYC OATH, Philadelphia L&I, DataSF, Norfolk Fire-Rescue; Fire Life and Safety analysis
| City | Unit (year) | Count | Outcome measured | Share | Context |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| New York City | Summonses (2025) | 55,479 | All terms met | 56.6% | Defaulted at hearing: 29.9% |
| Philadelphia | Fire Code violation lines (2025) | 22,128 | Complied or closed | 81.1% | Still open: 4,166 lines |
| San Francisco | Violation items (2025) | 3,488 | Abated or closed | 73.5% | Open or order to abate: 698 items |
| Norfolk | Violation records (2021) | 5,021 | Repair date recorded | 83.7% | Inspections with a violation: 47.9% of 3,509 |
| Baton Rouge | Inspection rows (2022) | 28,992 | Rows carrying a violation code | 4.2% | Annual inspections with a violation code: 5.0% |
| San Antonio | Completed fire inspections (2025) | 16,882 | Failed | 10.6% | Failed or partial pass: 23.9% |
Each measure uses a different field and denominator. Status as of 2026-10-26.
Source: [3][4][1][6][5][8] NYC Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings via NYC Open Data; City of Philadelphia, Department of Licenses and Inspections via OpenDataPhilly; San Francisco Fire Department via DataSF; Norfolk Fire-Rescue via City of Norfolk Open Data; City of Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge, Open Data BR; City of San Antonio, Open Data SA
As of 2026-10-26, 81.1% of Philadelphia's 2025 Fire Code violation lines were complied or closed, with a median of 96 days from violation to resolution. San Francisco recorded 73.5% of 2025 items as abated or closed (median 65 days). Norfolk logged a repair date for 83.7% of 2021 records (median 46 days).
New York City's measure is per summons, not per violation: 56.6% of 55,479 FDNY summonses dated 2025 had all terms met, and 29.9% were decided by default because the respondent did not appear. San Antonio publishes outcomes but no codes: 10.6% of 16,882 completed 2025 fire inspections failed and 23.9% failed or passed only in part.
Why the counts are not comparable as rates
Each city counts a different thing, under a different code edition, with a different denominator.
| City | Latest full year | What one record is | Records | Code system | Resolution field used |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| New York City | 2025 | Charges on FDNY summonses filed at OATH (up to 6 charges per summons) | 73,542 | FDNY summons charge groups (BF01 to BF35) under the NYC Fire Code | compliance_status = All Terms Met (per summons) |
| Philadelphia | 2025 | Fire Code (F-) violation lines on L&I notices of violation | 22,128 | Philadelphia Fire Code section numbers (IFC-based, prefixed F-) | violationstatus = COMPLIED or CLOSED |
| San Francisco | 2025 | Violation items on SFFD notices of violation | 3,488 | SFFD violation items (e.g. ALR12, EXT04) under the 2022 San Francisco Fire Code | status = abated or closed |
| Norfolk | 2021 | Violation records in Fire-Rescue inspections (Firehouse) | 5,021 | Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code sections (IFC numbering) plus local codes | repaired_date present |
| Baton Rouge | 2022 | Inspection rows carrying a violation code | 1,210 | NFPA 101, NFPA 1, NFPA 10, NFPA 70 sections and Louisiana statutes | No resolution field published |
Records are counted in each city's own unit. Do not divide one city's count by another's.
Source: [3][4][1][6][5] NYC Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings via NYC Open Data; City of Philadelphia, Department of Licenses and Inspections via OpenDataPhilly; San Francisco Fire Department via DataSF; Norfolk Fire-Rescue via City of Norfolk Open Data; City of Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge, Open Data BR
Violation record: One row in a city's published data that cites a code section or violation item. A single inspection can produce several.
Summons (New York City): A ticket filed at the city's administrative court. FDNY summonses can carry several charges and include penalties for unwarranted alarms, so they are not a sample of routine inspection findings.
- San Francisco ran 29,121 fire inspections in 2025 and recorded 3,488 violation items, about 12.0 items per 100 inspections; many visits are permit, complaint or referral inspections.
- Norfolk found at least one violation in 47.9% of 3,509 inspections in 2021, averaging 2.99 records per inspection with a violation.
- Baton Rouge stores one violation code per inspection row: 5.0% of 19,726 annual inspection rows in 2022 carry a code, which likely understates violations per visit.
- Code editions differ: San Francisco items in 2025 cite the 2022 San Francisco Fire Code, Philadelphia cites its IFC-based Fire Code, Norfolk 2021 records predate Virginia's 2021 Statewide Fire Prevention Code, and Baton Rouge cites NFPA sections and Louisiana law. Requirements apply as adopted by your state and city; the requirement finder lists the editions.
Detroit, Cincinnati, Fresno and San Antonio publish fire inspection records without structured violation codes, so they could not be mapped. Norfolk and Baton Rouge have stopped adding rows: the latest Norfolk inspection is dated 2022-11-15 and Baton Rouge rows thin out after 2022.
The mapping table: reproduce the taxonomy
Every code in the five datasets is listed with its category and the rule that assigned it.
Assignment runs in four steps: explicit overrides for generic titles such as "General" or "Maintenance"; section-prefix rules (for example Philadelphia F-105 permits); keyword rules on the published description; and, for IFC-numbered codes in Philadelphia and Norfolk, a chapter fallback (chapter 9 systems, chapter 10 egress, chapters 50 and up hazardous materials). The Python is in the downloadable scripts.
System testing and maintenance, system not named: Codes that require inspection, testing or service of fire protection systems without naming the system, such as FDNY charge group BF20 or Philadelphia F-901.6.4.
Equipment and system upkeep (group): Extinguishers, alarms, sprinklers and standpipes, unnamed system testing, kitchen suppression, emergency lighting and exit signs.
Physical conditions (group): Exits and egress, storage and clearance, electrical hazards, fire doors and rated construction, hazardous materials.
915 rows with columns: City, Data year, Code, Description (as published), Records, Category code, Category, Mapping rule.
One row per city, code and published description. Rule shows how the category was assigned: an explicit override, a code-prefix rule, a description keyword rule, or the IFC chapter fallback.
Ratios behind the comparison
Cross-city consensus ranking
FormulaMedian of the five city shares for each category (each city weighted equally)
Inputs: fact sheet rows 20 to 94; tables/t2.csv (fact sheet rows)
Result: System testing (system not named) 16.4%, extinguishers 14.4%, permits and records 8.8%, exits and egress 6.4%.
Exits and egress are the most stable category across code systems; extinguishers are high everywhere except New York City; alarm and sprinkler findings depend on whether a city names the system.
Limitations: Five cities, three different years; the median ignores city size.
Upkeep, paperwork and physical-conditions groups
FormulaSum of category counts in each group / all city records x 100
Inputs: fact sheet rows 1 to 5 and 20 to 94 (fact sheet rows)
Result: Upkeep 35.1% to 69.2%; paperwork 5.7% to 32.6%; physical conditions 10.2% to 30.2%.
Upkeep leads in every city, so the result does not depend on one code system.
Limitations: Generic codes (Norfolk 001 to 008, Baton Rouge MISC) sit in Other and lower all group shares in those cities.
Top-10 concentration
FormulaRecords in the 10 most frequent codes / all city records x 100
Inputs: tables/t3.csv; fact sheet rows 1 to 5 (fact sheet rows)
Result: New York City 90.4%, Baton Rouge 83.9%, San Francisco 60.1%, Norfolk 48.5%, Philadelphia 41.9%.
Concentration measures code granularity more than inspection behavior.
Limitations: Not a measure of compliance.
Resolution share and median days
FormulaResolved records / all records x 100; median of (resolution date minus violation date)
Inputs: fact sheet rows 6 to 13 and 110 to 115 (fact sheet rows)
Result: Norfolk 83.7% (46 days), Philadelphia 81.1% (96 days), San Francisco 73.5% (65 days), New York City 56.6% of summonses.
Most inspection violations are logged as fixed within a few months; summons outcomes follow a court process.
Limitations: Recent records have had less time to close; each city defines resolution differently.
Inspection-level context
FormulaInspections with a violation / inspections x 100 (Norfolk); violation items / inspections x 100 (San Francisco); failed / decided x 100 (San Antonio)
Inputs: fact sheet rows 3, 4, 14 to 19 (fact sheet rows)
Result: Norfolk 47.9%; San Francisco 12.0 items per 100 inspections; San Antonio 10.6% failed.
Inspection outcomes vary widely with what each city counts as an inspection.
Limitations: Not comparable across cities.
Where the numbers diverge
- Equipment and system upkeep is the largest violation group in all five cities, from 35.1% (New York City, 2025) to 69.2% (Baton Rouge, 2022).[3][5]
- Fire extinguisher findings are 21.7% of Baton Rouge's 2022 coded rows and 19.8% of Norfolk's 2021 violation records.[5][6]
- Extinguisher findings are 14.4% of Philadelphia's 2025 Fire Code violation lines and 11.8% of San Francisco's 2025 items.[4][1]
- Periodic testing (F-901.6.4) is Philadelphia's most cited Fire Code section in 2025, at 2,430 lines or 11.0%.[4]
- "Alarm system maintained" is 22.8% of San Francisco's 2025 fire violation items, second only to the top New York City charge group among the leading codes of the five cities.[1]
- Unwarranted alarms are 20.5% of FDNY summons charges with 2025 violation dates in New York City.[3]
- Permits, records and certificates are 24.5% of New York City's 2025 FDNY charges and 16.7% of San Francisco's 2025 items.[3][1]
- Electrical hazards and extension cords are 15.6% of Norfolk's 2021 records and 9.6% of Philadelphia's 2025 lines.[6][4]
- Emergency lighting and exit signs are 23.0% of Baton Rouge's 2022 coded rows.[5]
- 81.1% of Philadelphia's 2025 Fire Code violation lines were complied or closed by 2026-10-26, with a median of 96 days to resolution.[4]
- Norfolk found at least one violation in 47.9% of its 3,509 fire inspections in 2021.[6]
- 10.6% of San Antonio's 16,882 completed 2025 fire inspections failed.[8]
- Kitchen hood and cooking suppression findings are 14.9% of Norfolk's 2021 violation records at restaurants.[6]
Summary
- We analyzed 105,389 fire code violation records from five cities with open violation data.
- Equipment upkeep is the largest group everywhere, from 35.1% to 69.2% of records.
- Extinguishers are 11.8% to 21.7% of records in four of five cities.
- Paperwork (permits, records, signage) is heaviest in New York City at 32.6%.
- Physical hazards such as blocked exits and extension cords are about 30.2% in Philadelphia and Norfolk.
- Resolution rates run from 73.5% (San Francisco) to 83.7% (Norfolk); New York City summonses differ.
- Counts are not comparable as rates; only within-city shares are compared.
Questions people ask
What is the most common fire code violation?
In city records, fire extinguisher defects are the most consistent: 14.4% of Philadelphia's 2025 Fire Code lines and 19.8% of Norfolk's 2021 records. The most frequent single codes are about testing and maintenance, such as Philadelphia F-901.6.4 at 11.0%.
What are common fire inspection violations for businesses?
Unserviced or missing extinguishers, overdue system testing, missing records, unlit exit signs and emergency lights, blocked exits and extension cords. Exit and egress findings are 3.6% to 8.9% of records in every city studied.
How many businesses fail fire inspections?
San Antonio reports 10.6% of 16,882 completed 2025 fire inspections as failed. Norfolk found at least one violation in 47.9% of 2021 inspections. Definitions differ by city.
How long do businesses take to fix fire code violations?
Median time from violation to resolution was 96 days in Philadelphia (2025), 65 days in San Francisco (2025) and 46 days in Norfolk (2021), counting resolved records only.
For journalists and researchers
If you cite only a few, cite these
- Equipment upkeep is the largest fire code violation group in all five cities (35.1% to 69.2% of records).[3][5]
- Median extinguisher share across five cities: 14.4%.[4][1][6][5][3]
- 81.1% of Philadelphia's 2025 Fire Code violations were complied or closed by 2026-10-26.[4]
Most quotable statistics
- Fire extinguisher findings make up 11.8% to 21.7% of fire code violation records in four of five U.S. cities studied.[1][5]
- Equipment and system upkeep is the largest group of fire code violations in all five cities, reaching 69.2% in Baton Rouge (2022).[5]
- Periodic testing was Philadelphia's most cited Fire Code section in 2025, at 2,430 violation lines.[4]
- Unwarranted alarms account for 20.5% of FDNY summons charges with 2025 violation dates.[3]
- San Francisco recorded 3,488 fire violation items in 2025; 22.8% were for alarm systems not maintained.[1]
- Norfolk found at least one violation in 47.9% of its 2021 fire inspections.[6]
Press summary
Fire Life and Safety mapped 105,389 fire code violation records published by New York City, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Norfolk and Baton Rouge to a common taxonomy. In every city, the largest group of violations concerns equipment that was not tested, serviced or maintained, from 35.1% of New York City FDNY summons charges to 69.2% of Baton Rouge's coded inspection rows. Fire extinguisher findings are 11.8% to 21.7% of records in four cities. Philadelphia's most cited Fire Code section in 2025 was periodic testing, and San Francisco's was alarm system maintenance. New York City stands apart: unwarranted alarms are 20.5% of its summons charges. Cities record violations in different units and code systems, so the report compares shares within each city rather than counts. The full code-to-category mapping is published for reuse under CC BY 4.0.
Suggested headlines
- Untested equipment, not blocked exits, tops fire code violations in five cities
- Fire extinguishers make up as much as 21.7% of city fire code violations
- Unwarranted alarms are 20.5% of FDNY summons charges in 2025
- Philadelphia closed 81.1% of its 2025 fire code violations
- Five cities, five code systems: one map of the most common fire code violations
How to cite this report
Fire Life and Safety. (2026). Most Common Fire Code Violations: What Five Cities' Records Show. Retrieved from https://firelifeandsafety.com/reports/most-common-fire-code-violations/
Reuse license
Data and tables are licensed CC BY 4.0. Attribution: “Source: Fire Life and Safety, Most Common Fire Code Violations: What Five Cities' Records Show” with a link to this page.
Download the data
Every table in this report is available as a CSV under CC BY 4.0. The fact sheet lists each value with its source URL and access date.
- derived_metrics.csv (CSV)
- fact_sheet.csv (CSV)
- How each city records a fire code violation (CSV)
- Share of fire code violation records by category, by city (%) (CSV)
- Top 10 fire code violation codes in each city (CSV)
- Cross-city ranking: median category share across five cities (CSV)
- Correction, resolution and failure measures published by each city (CSV)
- Violation groups by city: upkeep, paperwork and physical conditions (%) (CSV)
- Mapping table: every city code assigned to the common taxonomy (CSV)
Frequently asked questions
Which cities publish fire code violation data?
New York City (FDNY summonses via OATH), Philadelphia, San Francisco, Norfolk and Baton Rouge publish violation codes or descriptions. Detroit, Cincinnati, Fresno and San Antonio publish inspections without structured violation codes.
How many records does this report cover?
105,389 records: 73,542 New York City charges, 22,128 Philadelphia lines, 5,021 Norfolk records, 3,488 San Francisco items and 1,210 Baton Rouge rows.
Why does New York City show so few extinguisher violations?
FDNY summonses are an enforcement tool with broad charge groups. Extinguishers are 1.9% of charges, while unnamed system testing is 33.2% and unwarranted alarms 20.5%.
What share of San Francisco fire violations involve alarms?
32.8% of 2025 San Francisco violation items involve fire alarms, smoke alarms or related features; "alarm system maintained" alone is 22.8%.
How common are extension cord violations?
Electrical hazards and extension cords are 15.6% of Norfolk's 2021 records and 9.6% of Philadelphia's 2025 lines, but 1.6% of San Francisco's 2025 items.
Are exit sign and emergency lighting violations common?
They are 23.0% of Baton Rouge's 2022 coded rows and 5.3% of Philadelphia's 2025 lines. See our emergency lighting inspection page.
Can I compare violation counts between cities?
No. Each city counts a different unit under a different code, and none of the counts are divided by comparable inspection totals. Compare category shares within each city.
What share of Philadelphia fire code violations are still open?
4,166 of 22,128 Fire Code violation lines dated 2025 were open on 2026-10-26.
What do restaurants get cited for most?
In Norfolk's 2021 restaurant records, extinguishers were 17.7%, electrical hazards 15.3% and kitchen hood and cooking suppression 14.9% of 763 records.
Can I reuse the data?
Yes. Tables and CSVs are CC BY 4.0 with attribution to Fire Life and Safety. Underlying city data keep their own portal terms.
Methodology
Selection: we searched the Socrata Discovery API and ArcGIS Hub on 2026-10-26 for city or county datasets with fire inspection or fire violation records that carry a violation code or description. Five qualified: NYC OATH Hearings Division Case Status (FDNY-issued summonses), Philadelphia L&I code violations (Fire Code sections prefixed F-), DataSF Fire Violations, Norfolk Fire-Rescue Inspections and Baton Rouge Fire Department Occupancy Inspections. Detroit, Cincinnati, Fresno and San Antonio publish inspections without structured violation codes and are used only for context.
Inclusion: the latest full calendar year in each file (2025 for New York City, Philadelphia and San Francisco; 2021 for Norfolk, whose last record is dated 2022-11-15; 2022 for Baton Rouge, whose file has almost no rows after 2022). New York City counts every charge on a summons (up to six). Philadelphia excludes property maintenance (PM) and other non-fire codes. No business names or addresses are used or published.
Taxonomy: 15 categories based on the brief's list (extinguishers, exits and egress, alarms, sprinklers, electrical, storage, kitchen hood, permits and records, fire doors, emergency lighting) plus signs, hazardous materials, unnamed system testing, unwarranted alarms and other. Each city code is assigned by explicit override, code-prefix rule, description keyword rule or IFC chapter fallback, in that order. The full mapping is table t7.
Derived metrics: category shares are computed within each city. Groups sum categories. The cross-city ranking is the median share with each city weighted equally. Resolution shares use each city's own status field as of 2026-10-26, and median days count resolved records only. Formulas and inputs are in derived_metrics.csv.
Limitations: units differ (summons charges, violation lines, items, inspection rows); code editions differ; New York City data are enforcement summonses, not routine inspection findings; Norfolk and Baton Rouge data are three to four years older; generic codes leave 19.8% of Norfolk and 12.5% of Baton Rouge records unclassified. Nothing here is legal or compliance advice; check the code as adopted by your jurisdiction.
Conflicts: no two sources report the same statistic, so no figures had to be reconciled. Last updated 2026-10-26.
This report presents published data with its limitations. It is not legal, engineering, financial or investment advice. Requirements depend on the code edition your state and local fire marshal have adopted; confirm with your authority having jurisdiction.
Sources, ranked by quality
Tier 1: primary and official sources (18)
- [1] San Francisco Fire Department via DataSF. Fire Violations (dataset 4zuq-2cbe). Violations dated 2025-01-01 to 2025-12-31; dataset refreshed daily (loaded 2026-10-26). Accessed 2026-10-26.
- [2] San Francisco Fire Department via DataSF. Fire Inspections (dataset wb4c-6hwj). Inspections started 2025-01-01 to 2025-12-31. Accessed 2026-10-26.
- [3] NYC Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings via NYC Open Data. OATH Hearings Division Case Status (dataset jz4z-kudi). FDNY-issued summonses with violation dates in 2025; status as of 2026-10-26. Accessed 2026-10-26.
- [4] City of Philadelphia, Department of Licenses and Inspections via OpenDataPhilly. Licenses and Inspections Code Violations. Fire Code (F-) violations dated 2025; status as of 2026-10-26. Accessed 2026-10-26.
- [5] City of Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge, Open Data BR. Baton Rouge Fire Department Occupancy Inspections (dataset h453-hp7u). Inspections completed in 2022 (latest full year in the file; last updated 2025-05-28). Accessed 2026-10-26.
- [6] Norfolk Fire-Rescue via City of Norfolk Open Data. Fire-Rescue Inspections (dataset jf3j-u4s7). Inspections completed in 2021 (latest full year; last record 2022-11-15). Accessed 2026-10-26.
- [7] Virginia Open Data Portal. Fire-Rescue Inspections (catalog record). Catalog record modified 2026-10-03. Accessed 2026-10-26.
- [8] City of San Antonio, Open Data SA. Fire Department Inspections. Completed inspections, 2025 calendar year; file updated 2026-10-06. Accessed 2026-10-26.
- [9] City of San Antonio, Open Data SA. Data Preparation: Inspections (PDF). Undated method note. Accessed 2026-10-26.
- [10] Fire Department of the City of New York (FDNY). NYC Fire Code. Current. Accessed 2026-10-26.
- [11] San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Ordinance 248-22: 2022 San Francisco Fire Code. Operative 2023-01-01. Accessed 2026-10-26.
- [12] Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development. Codes (2021 Statewide Fire Prevention Code effective date). Effective 2024-01-18. Accessed 2026-10-26.
- [13] Louisiana State Legislature. R.S. 40:1646, Inspection of life safety systems and equipment. Current text. Accessed 2026-10-26.
- [14] National Fire Protection Association. NFPA 10 standard development page. Current. Accessed 2026-10-26.
- [15] National Fire Protection Association. NFPA 101 code development page. Current. Accessed 2026-10-26.
- [16] City of Detroit. Annual Life Safety Fire Inspections (feature layer schema). Schema checked 2026-10-26. Accessed 2026-10-26.
- [17] City of Cincinnati. Inspections & Certificates (dataset ivda-umw7). Schema checked 2026-10-26. Accessed 2026-10-26.
- [18] City of Fresno. Fire Inspections (feature layer schema). Schema checked 2026-10-26. Accessed 2026-10-26.
Tier 2: trade bodies, market research, company data (4)
- [19] International Code Council. Philadelphia Fire Code 2018 (product description). 2018 edition. Accessed 2026-10-26.
- [20] International Code Council. 2021 International Fire Code (IFC). 2021 edition. Accessed 2026-10-26.
- [21] Tyler Technologies (Socrata). Socrata Discovery API catalog search. Searched 2026-10-26. Accessed 2026-10-26.
- [22] Esri. ArcGIS Hub dataset search. Searched 2026-10-26. Accessed 2026-10-26.