Key Takeaways:
As schools strengthen campus security, gates are playing a larger role in controlling pedestrian and vehicular access to buildings, parking lots, athletic fields and other outdoor spaces. But a gate intended to protect students can itself become a hazard if it is improperly designed, damaged, modified or poorly maintained.
That concern is behind significant gate-safety changes approved for the 2027 International Codes (I-Codes). On May 22, 2026, the International Code Council (ICC) approved proposals G183-25, RB282-25 and PM29-25, which introduce new requirements addressing manual gates in the International Building Code (IBC), International Residential Code (IRC), International Existing Building Code (IEBC) and International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC).
For school facility managers, the changes create a clearer framework for identifying gate hazards, maintaining critical safety components and determining when work on an existing gate could trigger the new safety requirements.
The changes grew partly out of a tragedy at a California school. Seven-year-old Alex Quanbeck was killed when an approximately 400-pound manual cantilever gate fell on him during recess. The gate stop was broken, and no secondary protection prevented the gate from falling. His parents, Eric and Dayna Quanbeck, subsequently worked with the American Fence Association and others to advocate for stronger model-code requirements.
The incident exposed a broader gap in building codes.
“Historically, building codes did not have specific requirements addressing many of these gates, so they may not have received the same level of attention as other building and school safety components,” says Kevin McOsker, vice president, Growth & Innovation for ICC.
The consequences of overlooking them can be severe.
“What we have seen, however, is that when a gate fails, the consequences can be extremely serious,” McOsker says. “These incidents have driven the effort to establish stronger and more specific gate-safety requirements.”
For facility managers, that means looking beyond whether a gate still opens, closes and locks. A functioning gate can still present a safety problem if a stop, support, bracket or other protective component has deteriorated or been removed.
“The most significant change is the adoption of ASTM standards for gates into the 2027 International Codes to help protect against gate failure and fall-over hazards,” says McOsker, adding that the requirements are being incorporated into both the IBC and IRC, which cover commercial and residential applications.
The approved provisions reference two new standards: ASTM F900 for industrial and commercial swing gates and ASTM F1184 for industrial and commercial horizontal slide gates. These standards address gate construction and associated safety provisions, including measures intended to prevent a gate from falling if a primary component fails.
For example, horizontal slide gates can use secondary fall-over protection such as a post or retaining bracket. Swing gates can incorporate devices that help restrain the gate if it becomes unsupported. The objective McOsker noted is to prevent a failed gate from simply falling to the ground.
The change is significant because earlier editions of the building codes did not specifically address many potential failure points in these gate systems.
“We are essentially going from having no specific requirements for these gates to having recognized standards that they are required to comply with,” he says.
Facility managers do not necessarily need to become ASTM experts, but they do need to know what type of gate they have and which standard applies.
“Facility managers need to be aware of which standards apply to the gates at their facilities and understand the safety features required by those standards,” McOsker says. “Understanding the applicable standard gives them a better idea of what makes that particular gate safe and what needs to remain in place.”
The 2027 requirements should not be interpreted as an order to replace every older school gate immediately, as McOsker pointed out.
“Building codes typically are not retroactive,” McOsker says. “When a new code is adopted, that does not mean every existing gate immediately has to be replaced or modified to comply with the new requirements.”
The important distinction is what happens when an existing gate is altered.
“Where it becomes important is when an existing gate is repaired, altered, modified or retrofitted,” he said. “At that point, the gate may need to comply with the new safety standards, including the requirements for fall-over protection.”
That provision appears in the 2027 IEBC proposal, which addresses compliance when gates are modified. Separately, the 2027 IPMC provision requires that gates be maintained in accordance with the safety measures outlined in the referenced standards.
For maintenance departments, a seemingly straightforward repair therefore deserves more scrutiny. Restoring an older gate exactly as it was may not always be the appropriate objective.
“Facility managers need to understand which components are there for safety so they do not inadvertently remove, alter or make a safety feature ineffective,” McOsker says.
The property-maintenance provisions also make the condition of the gate an ongoing concern rather than something addressed only during construction or after a failure.
“The key is making sure that the components designed to keep the gate safe remain in place and effective,” McOsker says. “If a gate is damaged, being repaired or has components that are no longer functioning as intended, facility managers should make sure the gate is evaluated before those conditions create a larger safety issue.”
The code does not establish one inspection frequency appropriate for every gate, according to McOsker. Frequency may depend on gate design, use, condition and other facility circumstances.
The larger point, he said, is that “gate safety should be part of a facility’s ongoing maintenance responsibilities rather than something that is only considered after it no longer functions properly.”
Schools should also ensure that contractors performing gate work understand the applicable standard and the purpose of each safety component.
“Someone working on the gate needs to recognize which components serve a safety function and make sure those protections are not inadvertently removed or made ineffective during the work,” McOsker said.
For a district with dozens of buildings and potentially hundreds of gates, McOsker recommends starting with an inventory.
“A good starting point is understanding what types of gates are installed throughout the district and which standards apply to each of them,” he says. “From there, facility managers can begin identifying whether the safety features required for those gates are present and functioning as intended.”
Priority should go to gates that are damaged, have undergone repairs or modifications, or may be missing a protective component.
“Ultimately, the focus should be on identifying conditions that could allow a gate to fail or fall over and addressing those safety concerns,” McOsker says.
A systemwide review can therefore begin with four steps: inventory gates by type and location; determine the applicable ASTM standard; identify required safety features and verify that they remain functional; and flag damaged, repaired or modified gates for closer evaluation.
Security projects also should be included in that review. Adding access controls, locks, operators or other security features cannot be considered independently of gate safety.
“Security improvements should not come at the expense of the safety features built into the gate,” McOsker says. “Whenever a gate is altered for security purposes, it is important to consider whether that change could interfere with an existing safety feature or make that feature ineffective.”
The 2027 I-Code provisions are model-code requirements that jurisdictions must adopt before they become locally enforceable, so facility managers should verify the code edition and requirements in effect in their jurisdiction. The approved changes nevertheless provide districts with a useful roadmap for addressing a risk that has historically received too little attention.
McOsker’s final recommendation is simple: “Gate safety should become part of the facility’s ongoing maintenance program.”
For schools already investing heavily in perimeter security, this means ensuring that the gates designed to keep people safe do not become hazards themselves.
Joel Williams is a freelance writer based in Frankfort, Illinois.
