# What is plan check, and why does it take so long?

**Short answer:** Plan check is a jurisdiction's line by line review of your drawings against building, structural, energy, zoning and fire requirements before a permit issues. It takes months because each reviewer returns a written correction list, the design team responds, and the corrected set goes to the back of the queue. Most projects run several of those loops.

## Key facts

| Fact | Value | Source |
| --- | --- | --- |
| What it is | Documented review of drawings against adopted codes before issuance |  |
| Reviewed in parallel | Building, structural, energy, plumbing, mechanical, electrical, zoning, fire |  |
| Clean first submittals | Effectively never happen on custom work |  |
| Biggest calendar lever | Completeness of the first submittal |  |
| Time inside a cycle | Queue time plus review time plus your response time |  |

## The job a plan checker is actually doing

A plan checker is not evaluating whether your house is well designed. That is
not the assignment. The assignment is to verify that the documents in front of
them demonstrate compliance with the codes and standards the jurisdiction has
adopted, and to write down everywhere the documents fail to do so.

The distinction matters because it explains most of what frustrates owners about
the process. A reviewer cannot approve something they can reasonably infer but
cannot find drawn. If a detail is missing, the correct outcome is a correction,
even when everyone involved knows how the condition will be built. Plan check is
a documentation review, and the document is the deliverable.

The second thing to understand is that plan check is not one person. A submittal
is typically split across several reviewers working in parallel, each with their
own scope, their own comments and their own idea of what a complete sheet looks
like. The permit waits for all of them.

## Who reviews what

| Reviewer | Looking at | Typical comment |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Building and structural | Framing, lateral system, foundations, calculations | Load path not shown continuously to foundation |
| Energy | Compliance forms against the drawn assemblies | Glazing schedule does not match the compliance report |
| Plumbing, mechanical, electrical | Fixture counts, venting, equipment, service capacity | Panel schedule missing or load calculation absent |
| Zoning and planning | Setbacks, height, floor area, lot coverage, parking | Height measured from the wrong reference point |
| Fire | Access, hydrants, sprinklers, separations, egress | Turnaround dimensions not demonstrated |
| Grading and public works | Drainage, earthwork, right of way, encroachments | Drainage not shown discharging to an approved point |
| Accessibility | Applicable path of travel and clearances | Required clearances not dimensioned |

Two features of that table cause most of the confusion. First, the reviewers do
not talk to each other much, so a change made to satisfy one can create a
comment from another. Second, several of them are checking your drawings against
another document you submitted, not just against the code. The energy report,
the structural calculations and the civil plans all have to agree with the
architectural sheets, and the most common corrections in the whole process are
simply internal inconsistencies between those sets.

## Why the first submittal never comes back clean

Assume it will not. Planning on anything else is how schedules get built wrong.

**Completeness is judged, not measured.** There is no checklist that guarantees
approval. Reviewers have discretion about what constitutes a demonstrated
condition, and different reviewers exercise it differently.

**Consultants work on different clocks.** The structural calculations, the energy
report and the civil drawings are produced by separate offices at separate
times. Unless someone reconciles them sheet by sheet before submittal, they will
disagree somewhere, and disagreement is an automatic comment.

**Codes are amended locally.** State building code is adopted with local
amendments, and those amendments are where an otherwise experienced design team
gets caught. A detail that cleared review in one city may draw a comment in the
next one over.

**Corrections generate corrections.** Revising a sheet to answer a comment
changes a dimension that a different discipline was relying on. The second review
then finds items the first review never reached, because the first review
stopped at the more fundamental problem.

None of this is a sign that something has gone wrong. It is the ordinary
operation of the process, and a first submittal that returns with a page of
comments is a normal first submittal. Where this review sits among the other
approvals a project needs is covered in the
[permitting topic](/insights/topics/permitting).

## Anatomy of a correction list

A correction list is a numbered document, organized by discipline, where each
item cites what is required and what the reviewer could not find. In practice
the items fall into a few recognizable categories.

- **Missing information.** A detail, a schedule, a calculation or a note that
  the code requires and the set does not contain. The cheapest kind to fix.
- **Inconsistency.** Two sheets or two documents that contradict each other.
  Cheap to fix and embarrassing to receive, because it is self inflicted.
- **Clarification.** The reviewer cannot follow what is drawn and wants it shown
  differently. Often resolved with a single added detail.
- **Substantive noncompliance.** Something in the design does not meet a
  requirement: height, setback, egress, structural capacity. This is the
  category that can force a redesign.
- **Local amendment or policy.** A jurisdiction specific requirement that the
  design team did not apply.

The response is not just revised drawings. It is a written response letter that
answers every numbered item, states what changed and points to the sheet where
the change appears. Reviewers work from that letter. A resubmittal without one,
or with a letter that answers six of nine comments, tends to come back with the
same three comments and another full cycle attached to them.

## Corrections versus a genuine code disagreement

Most items on a list are not arguable. Something is missing, and you add it.
Fighting a correction that could have been answered in an afternoon is the most
expensive habit in permitting, because the disagreement costs a full cycle
whether you win it or not.

A real disagreement is different, and it looks like one of these:

**A factual reading dispute.** The reviewer has applied a requirement to a
condition it does not govern, or measured something from the wrong reference.
These are usually resolved in a conversation, with the code section and the
drawing open at the same time.

**An alternate means request.** The code permits approaches other than the
prescriptive one when equivalent performance can be demonstrated. That is a
formal submission with engineering behind it, not an argument, and it needs to be
raised early because it takes its own review time.

**A true appeal.** Jurisdictions have a formal path to escalate a determination
to a supervisor or a board. It exists, it is occasionally the right move, and it
is slow. Reserve it for items that would otherwise force a redesign.

The judgment call is about cost. Compare what compliance would cost against a
cycle of delay plus the effort of arguing. Drawing the detail is almost always
cheaper than winning the point. The exception is a comment that would force a
real change to the building, and that one is worth resolving properly and early,
in a conversation with a proposal attached, rather than by resubmitting the same
sheet with a note explaining why the reviewer is wrong.

## The one lever that actually moves the calendar

Everything inside a cycle is largely fixed. Queue time belongs to the
department. Review time belongs to the reviewer. What belongs to you is how many
cycles happen, and how fast you turn each one around.

A complete first submittal does not get reviewed faster. It gets reviewed fewer
times, and since each avoided loop removes queue time, review time and response
time together, that is where the months come from.

Practically, a complete submittal means: consultant documents reconciled against
the architectural set before filing, local amendments researched for that
specific jurisdiction, deferred submittals identified and labeled rather than
left ambiguous, and someone who has read a correction list before doing a
pre-submittal review of the whole package. On multi-department projects that
last pass is handled as [specialty services](/specialty-services) rather than
left to whoever files the application.

The second lever is response speed. A correction list that sits for three weeks
on a consultant's desk has added three weeks to the permit, and it is the one
delay in the entire process nobody but you controls.

## What this means for how you run a submittal

Treat plan check as a documentation exercise with a scoreboard, and it becomes
predictable. Assume corrections. Budget the cycles into the schedule rather than
hoping to avoid them. Assign one person to own the correction list and the
response letter so nothing waits on a consultant nobody called.

Then look at the drawings before they go in. The difference between a permit
that issues in three months and one that issues in eight is rarely complexity.
It is whether the set that entered the queue was actually finished, or whether
the queue got used as a review service. A department will review whatever you
hand it, as many times as you hand it over, and it will charge you a fresh place
in line every time.

## Frequently asked questions

### Can you talk to the plan checker directly?

Usually yes, and it is often the fastest way to resolve an ambiguous comment. Most departments allow appointments or calls once a project is assigned to a reviewer. Come with a specific question, the sheet and detail in front of you, and a proposed resolution. Arguing without a proposal tends to produce another written comment rather than an answer.

### Do drawings expire while a project sits in review?

Applications do. Most jurisdictions place a time limit on how long an application can remain inactive before it lapses, and a lapsed application generally has to be refiled. Code editions also change on a cycle, so a project that stalls long enough can find itself reviewed against a newer code than the one it was designed to.

### Does a deferred submittal delay the permit?

Not usually, and that is the point of one. Items like trusses, fire sprinklers or storefront systems can be approved after the main permit issues, so the project is not held while a fabricator finishes engineering. The tradeoff is that the deferred item still needs approval before it is installed, so it becomes a construction schedule risk instead.

---

Source: https://www.tricanagroup.com/insights/what-is-plan-check-and-why-does-it-take-so-long
Topic: Permits & Entitlements
Author: Hagop Sargisian, Tricana Group
Area served: Los Angeles County, CA; Orange County, CA
Published: 2026-06-25T09:00:00-07:00