When you get a request from an Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) that doesn’t align with NFPA 25, it puts everyone in a tough spot. Say no, and you risk friction with the inspector. Say yes, and you could open your business up to unnecessary liability. 

Knowing exactly what falls within a fire code official’s authority can give you the confidence to stay compliant and defend your work when needed.

NFPA 25 is the go-to standard for inspection, testing, and maintenance (ITM) of water-based fire protection systems. NFPA 1 and the International Fire Code (IFC) both reference NFPA 25 directly, and jurisdictions across the country have adopted it as their standard. 

When it comes to ITM, this is the baseline. But in the field, there’s still a lot of confusion about whether AHJs can go beyond what NFPA 25 outlines or make up new requirements based on preference or opinion.

Here’s what the codes actually say, and how you can use that information to hold the line.

What the Codes Actually Require

According to both NFPA 1 and the IFC, you must maintain sprinkler systems according to NFPA 25. That’s not a suggestion. It’s code.

Key references include:

• NFPA 1 Section 13.3.3.2: Systems must be maintained per NFPA 25.
• NFPA 1 Section 13.3.3.4.1.1.1: Systems must also follow manufacturer instructions.
• IFC Section 901.6: Systems must be kept in good working order, with Table 901.6.1 pointing directly to NFPA 25 for ITM requirements.

Unless a jurisdiction has gone through proper legal channels to adopt a local amendment, NFPA 25 is the rulebook.

When AHJs Can Require More

There are situations where additional ITM requirements are allowed but only when backed by specific authority. These include:

• Formally adopted local amendments or ordinances
• Stricter manufacturer guidance
• Documented site-specific hazards (as outlined in NFPA 25 Section 1.2.2)
• Approved alternative methods that offer equivalent protection

In these cases, the AHJ must be able to point to a clear justification, either from code, manufacturer instructions, or a documented risk. Without that, the request doesn’t carry enforceable weight.

What AHJs Cannot Require

Fire code officials can’t enforce tasks, frequencies, or upgrades that fall outside adopted codes and standards unless they have proper backing. That includes:

• Requiring inspections or tests not listed in NFPA 25
• Imposing actions that conflict with NFPA 25 or manufacturer instructions
• Asking contractors to evaluate system design adequacy (which is not part of ITM)
• Mandating extra steps simply because “it’s a good idea”

In short, if the request isn’t supported by the fire code, a local ordinance, manufacturer documentation, or a proven hazard, it’s not enforceable.

Why It Matters for Contractors

Saying yes to extra work may seem easier in the moment, but it can put you at greater legal risk. Fire code officials generally have liability protection when acting in good faith. Contractors don’t.

Performing tasks that go beyond the code without formal backing puts your team on the hook if something goes wrong. It also creates inconsistencies across your service standards, especially if you're operating in multiple jurisdictions.

Standardizing around NFPA 25 and documented manufacturer guidance helps you stay compliant, protect your business, support your techs, and give sales and ops teams a clear framework when discussing scope and frequency with customers.

How to Respond Professionally

When an AHJ asks for something that doesn’t align with NFPA 25, the goal is to bring clarity to the conversation and make sure everyone is working from the same standards. 

Here’s how you can respond without causing friction:

• “What hazard are we looking at that makes this necessary?”
• “Can you walk me through the code section you’re referencing?”

These are fair, reasonable questions rooted in code, not opinion. Asking them helps keep the conversation grounded and defensible, especially when customers or inspectors are requesting more than what’s required.

The Bottom Line

Fire code enforcement is critical to public safety, but it has boundaries. FLS contractors who understand where those lines are can protect themselves from unnecessary liability while ensuring consistent, code-based practices in the field.

When inspectors, contractors, and building owners operate from the same standards, the result is a safer, more professional outcome for all.