<p>Because buildings cannot be designed completely regularly, it is crucial to recognize and correct any inevitable irregularities during the design process, evaluate how well the code provisions are working, and create suggestions for how they might be improved. Numerous studies have identified vertical irregular buildings using structural and response parameters. Still, most overlook infill walls or rely on comparisons with regular configurations, which may not align with typical design practices. Two sets of buildings were analyzed, one with stiffness and strength irregularities and the other with geometric irregularities, to better evaluate all aspects of vertical irregularity. The proposed provisions address limitations in current code-based identification of stiffness and strength irregularities by evaluating one and three consecutive storeys at both upper and lower levels. Positioning stiffness and strength irregular storey at higher levels leads to a progressive increase in strength from the ground to the roof, while fragility analysis shows a decrease in the probability of yielding, from 95% to 24%. Stiffness irregularity is identified using interstorey drift ratios with a limit of 2.0, while strength irregularity is assessed based on storey strength with a limit of 0.8. Current codes only consider lateral dimensions when addressing geometric irregularity; a novel approach that considers both vertical and lateral dimensions between the extremities, adjacent storeys, and bays is suggested, with a minimum-to-maximum dimension ratio limited to 0.33. Column damage in stepped buildings can reach alarming levels of up to 47%, whereas similar buildings with different step sizes, classified as regular, exhibit significantly lower damage (~15%). Results validated through 3D building models and fragility curves demonstrate a strong correlation between observed damage patterns and the proposed irregularity identification provisions.</p>