I don't know how a 70 year old house could be expected to "meet IBC 2006".  What do you mean by "Is this leagal?"

hokie66 : Pretty sure he meant " Is this ligal " !

If the piers are solid grouted, attached to the beams and 2" slab to prevent "walking" in a seismic event, and the 2" CMU slabs are buried sufficiently to prevent "walking", being sized for the bearing loads seen, I see no problems with the connection other than untreated wood to concrete contact.

From the picture shown, the 2" slab does not see much if any bending, the load from the CMU blocks being distributed to the soil structure through the 2" CMU in shear at a 45 degree plane - no bending.  No problem for me.

However, the wood beams appear to be another matter.  The one on the right appears to be deteriorated.

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering
Motto:  KISS
Motivation:  Don't ask

Is there a specific defect that brought you to this issue (other than the fore-mentioned unprotected timber) or is it one of those "Id like to have my house inspected for various reasons". Maybe settlement cracks showing up inside?  

-Robert Miller, E.I.T.
KPA Structural Engineers

For a house of that age the better question is; is it adequate?

Judging by the apparently more recent packer it barely appears to be adequate (as would be expected with the underside of footing at 3" deep.

It's obviously not original as the other piers are the nice looking tapered CIP concrete ones.