Most plan review corrections are not surprises. They are the same issues that come up on every project: missing code references, inconsistent information between sheets, outdated code editions, and documentation gaps. The building department reviewer is going to check for all of them, and every correction cycle adds 2 to 4 weeks to your permit timeline.
This checklist covers the 12 most common sources of plan review comments across all disciplines. It is not a substitute for a thorough code review, but running through it before you submit can eliminate the easy corrections that slow projects down.
General coordination
1. Title block consistency
Check that the project name, address, project number, and code edition references are identical on every sheet. Inconsistencies between the architectural title block and the MEP title blocks are one of the most common first-round comments. If the architect lists IBC 2024 and the mechanical engineer lists IBC 2021, the reviewer will flag it even if the design is compliant with both.
2. Code edition alignment
Verify that all disciplines are designing to the same code editions. This is especially important for jurisdictions that have adopted newer codes recently. The general notes on each discipline's cover sheet should list the same editions of the IBC, IECC, NEC, IPC/UPC, and IMC/UMC. If the structural engineer is using ASCE 7-16 but the jurisdiction has adopted ASCE 7-22, the reviewer will catch it.
3. Sheet index and cross-references
Make sure every sheet referenced in the drawing set actually exists, and that the sheet index matches what is in the set. Missing detail references ("See Detail 3 on A-501" when A-501 is not included) are a guaranteed comment. Check that specification section references on the drawings match the actual spec sections if a project manual is included.
Life safety and egress
4. Occupancy classification and occupant load
Verify that the occupancy classification is stated on the drawings and that the occupant load calculations are shown. Mixed-use buildings need occupancy classifications for each area. The occupant load drives egress width, plumbing fixture counts, and ventilation rates, so an error here cascades across disciplines. Reference IBC Table 1004.5 for occupant load factors.
5. Egress paths and travel distances
Check that exit paths are shown, travel distances are calculated, and dead-end corridors are within the allowed limits. Common misses include: not showing the common path of egress travel, missing exit signs on the reflected ceiling plan, and corridor widths that do not meet IBC Section 1005. If the building has an area of rescue assistance requirement, verify it is shown.
6. Fire-rated assemblies
Every fire-rated wall, floor/ceiling, and shaft should be labeled with its rating on the floor plans, building sections, and wall types. Penetrations through fire-rated assemblies need firestopping details. Reviewers frequently flag missing UL design numbers for rated assemblies and missing fire damper callouts at duct penetrations through rated walls.
Discipline-specific checks
7. Structural: load path and design criteria
Confirm that the structural general notes include the design loads (dead, live, roof live, snow, wind, seismic) with specific values and code references. The seismic design category, wind speed, ground snow load, and risk category should all be stated. Foundation plans should reference the geotechnical report. If the structural system relies on shear walls or moment frames, verify the lateral system is identified on the plans.
8. Mechanical: ventilation and energy compliance
Check that outdoor air rates are shown on the mechanical schedules and reference ASHRAE 62.1 or the applicable ventilation standard. Equipment schedules should include efficiency ratings that comply with IECC or ASHRAE 90.1 minimum requirements. Kitchen hood exhaust rates and makeup air provisions are a frequent source of comments on restaurant and commercial kitchen projects.
9. Electrical: panel schedules and fault current
Verify that panel schedules are complete (no blank circuits with connected loads), voltage drop calculations are provided for feeders over 100 feet, and available fault current is shown at the service entrance. Arc flash labels or a note referencing the arc flash study are increasingly required. Emergency and legally required standby power systems need a load summary per NEC Article 700/701.
10. Plumbing: fixture counts and water heater sizing
Cross-check the plumbing fixture count against the occupant load calculation. IPC Table 403.1 (or the UPC equivalent) lists the required fixtures per occupant. Water heater sizing should be documented. Confirm that backflow prevention is shown where required and that the water distribution riser diagram matches the floor plans.
Documentation and compliance
11. Energy compliance documentation
The energy compliance path should be clearly stated (prescriptive, trade-off, or performance). If prescriptive, verify that insulation R-values, window U-factors, SHGC values, and lighting power densities are shown on the drawings and comply with the applicable IECC or ASHRAE 90.1 tables. A COMcheck or REScheck report is required in most jurisdictions and is frequently missing from the first submittal.
12. Accessibility
Check that accessible routes are shown from the public way to the building entrance and throughout the building. Door hardware, threshold heights, clear floor space at fixtures, and accessible parking counts are the most common ADA/ANSI A117.1 comments. Restroom layouts should be dimensioned to show wheelchair turning radius and grab bar locations.
| Discipline | Top correction trigger | Typical resubmittal cost |
|---|---|---|
| Architectural | Egress and accessibility | 2-3 weeks |
| Structural | Missing design criteria or load path | 2-4 weeks |
| Mechanical | Ventilation rates and energy compliance | 2-3 weeks |
| Electrical | Panel schedule completeness | 1-2 weeks |
| Plumbing | Fixture counts and backflow | 1-2 weeks |
| Fire protection | Missing fire-rated assembly labels | 2-3 weeks |
Running this checklist efficiently
The items on this list are exactly the types of issues that plan reviewers flag on first review. Going through them manually takes time, especially on multi-discipline projects where coordination issues span 50+ sheets. An automated pre-submittal review can flag these same categories in minutes, giving you a concrete punch list to address before the building department sees the drawings.
The goal is not perfection. It is eliminating the predictable corrections that cause resubmittals. If you can clear the obvious issues before submittal, the plan reviewer can focus on the real design questions, and your permit timeline gets shorter.