"correct regarding the seismic provisions" ... quite likely more info is required.
Anyway, if intended to stand some seismic action, the construction might be still acceptable except that it will fall with especial requirements for the design as an IRREGULAR structure.
From the british incarnation of EC8
4.2.3.1 General
(1)P For the purpose of seismic design, building structures are categorised into being
regular or non-regular.
NOTE In building structures consisting of more than one dynamically independent units, the
categorisation and the relevant criteria in 4.2.3 refer to the individual dynamically independent
units. In such structures, “individual dynamically independent unit” is meant for “building” in
4.2.3.
(2) This distinction has implications for the following aspects of the seismic design:
− the structural model, which can be either a simplified planar model or a spatial
model ;
− the method of analysis, which can be either a simplified response spectrum analysis
(lateral force procedure) or a modal one;
− the value of the behaviour factor q, which shall be decreased for buildings
non-regular in elevation (see 4.2.3.3).
...
4.2.3.3 Criteria for regularity in elevation
(1)P For a building to be categorised as being regular in elevation, it shall satisfy all
the conditions listed in the following paragraphs.
(2) All lateral load resisting systems, such as cores, structural walls, or frames, shall
run without interruption from their foundations to the top of the building or, if setbacks
at different heights are present, to the top of the relevant zone of the building.
(3) Both the lateral stiffness and the mass of the individual storeys shall remain
constant or reduce gradually, without abrupt changes, from the base to the top of a
particular building.
I would have to look deeper but maybe the structure would need some changes to be acceptable under other more stringent requirements for places where strong seismic action is expected.
