Loading...
Loading...
See how BuildCompass surfaces code, accessibility, egress, life-safety, and documentation issues with sheet references and evidence excerpts before internal QA/QC or permit comments.
Switch between sample project types to see representative, evidence-backed first-pass review output. Actual findings depend on drawing completeness, jurisdiction, code edition, project scope, and available sheet information.
View sample by project type
General commercial, workplace, retail-service, civic, hospitality, adaptive reuse, and tenant improvement review examples.
Send one past DD/CD or permit set and BuildCompass can return a private review link with sheet references, cited evidence, and issues to review.
Files are not used to train AI. NDA available if needed.
Project
Commercial Tenant Improvement
Type
Workplace / Retail-Service Tenant Space - Group B / Mercantile accessory use
Code Basis
IBC 2021 + ADA 2010 + IPC 2021
Building
12,400 SF tenant improvement
Existing sprinklered Type II-B shell building
50 applicable checks
50
All Checks
28
Likely Compliant
7
Issues to Review
9
Needs Clarification
6
Not Applicable / Not Shown
Likely compliant based on provided sheets: Code summary identifies the primary occupancy and accessory mercantile/service component.
Why likely compliant: The submitted code summary names Group B as the primary occupancy and separately describes the small mercantile/service component.
Likely compliant based on provided sheets: Code summary lists adopted code basis used for review.
Why likely compliant: The cover/code sheet lists the main model code editions used for the sample review.
Likely compliant based on provided sheets: Existing shell building construction type is listed as Type II-B.
Why likely compliant: Construction type is stated in the code summary and appears consistent with a noncombustible shell building.
Likely compliant based on provided sheets: Plans identify building as sprinklered throughout.
Why likely compliant: The sample sheets identify the building as sprinklered and show TI sprinkler coordination intent.
Likely compliant based on provided sheets: Code summary provides occupant load by area/function.
Why likely compliant: The code summary includes an area-by-function occupant load table.
Likely compliant based on provided sheets: Code summary states tenant improvement is within existing shell building allowable area/height.
Why likely compliant: The sample documents this as an interior tenant improvement within the existing permitted shell.
Likely compliant based on provided sheets: Life safety plan shows two exits serving the tenant space.
Why likely compliant: Two exits are shown for the tenant space.
Likely compliant based on provided sheets: Common path appears acceptable based on the provided life safety plan.
Why likely compliant: The life safety plan labels a longest common path of 42 feet before exit choice.
Likely compliant based on provided sheets: Life safety plan dimensions show dead-end corridor within allowable limit.
Why likely compliant: The longest dead-end corridor dimension shown is less than 20 feet.
Likely compliant based on provided sheets: Two remote exits are separated by more than one-third diagonal distance in sprinklered building.
Why likely compliant: The shown exit separation exceeds one-third of the tenant diagonal.
Likely compliant based on provided sheets: Main corridor is dimensioned at or above required minimum clear width.
Why likely compliant: Corridor clear widths shown on the floor plan meet or exceed typical minimums for this occupancy.
Likely compliant based on provided sheets: Door schedule shows 3'-0" nominal doors on required egress/accessibility route.
Why likely compliant: Required route doors are scheduled at nominal 36-inch leaf width.
Likely compliant based on provided sheets: Occupant load and use of training room do not appear to trigger panic hardware based on the documented Business occupancy path.
Why likely compliant: The schedule does not show panic hardware, and the documented occupancy path does not clearly trigger it for this Business use.
Likely compliant based on provided sheets: Required exit access does not appear to pass through storage rooms, restrooms, or locked back-of-house spaces.
Why likely compliant: The exit access routes shown avoid prohibited intervening rooms.
Likely compliant based on provided sheets: Emergency lighting is shown along egress paths with backup/emergency circuit notes.
Why likely compliant: The electrical plan shows emergency lighting along the primary egress routes.
Likely compliant based on provided sheets: Main public entrance is identified as accessible.
Why likely compliant: The main public entrance is designated as part of the accessible route.
Likely compliant based on provided sheets: Accessible route connects entry, reception, public areas, restrooms, and service spaces.
Why likely compliant: The interior accessible route reaches the primary public and employee-use spaces shown in the sample.
Likely compliant based on provided sheets: Corridor and route widths are dimensioned above minimum clear width.
Why likely compliant: Dimensioned routes exceed the 36-inch minimum accessible route width.
Likely compliant based on provided sheets: Door schedule/general notes call out accessible thresholds at maximum 1/2 inch.
Why likely compliant: The door schedule includes an accessible threshold note.
Likely compliant based on provided sheets: Enlarged restroom plan shows 60-inch turning circle.
Why likely compliant: The enlarged restroom plan provides a dimensioned turning circle.
Likely compliant based on provided sheets: Enlarged restroom plan dimensions show compliant clear floor space.
Why likely compliant: The water closet clear floor space and side wall dimension are shown.
Likely compliant based on provided sheets: Side and rear grab bars are shown with mounting heights.
Why likely compliant: Grab bar length, location, and mounting height are documented.
Likely compliant based on provided sheets: Signage schedule includes tactile room signs with mounting notes.
Why likely compliant: The schedule includes tactile signage requirements and mounting location notes.
Likely compliant based on provided sheets: Fire extinguisher cabinets are shown along accessible path of travel.
Why likely compliant: Fire extinguisher cabinet locations are shown and appear distributed along egress routes.
Likely compliant based on provided sheets: Electrical plan shows horn/strobes, pull stations, and fire alarm notes.
Why likely compliant: The electrical systems plan includes fire alarm device locations and connection notes.
Likely compliant based on provided sheets: Door tags on floor plan generally match door schedule entries.
Why likely compliant: The door tag set appears generally coordinated between plan and schedule.
Likely compliant based on provided sheets: Restroom enlarged plan tags match the base floor plan.
Why likely compliant: The restroom enlarged plans correspond to base plan callouts.
Likely compliant based on provided sheets: Occupant load, exit count, and life safety plan are generally coordinated.
Why likely compliant: Core egress summary values appear consistent between G-001 and A-101.
Issue to review: Occupant load used in plumbing fixture schedule appears inconsistent with the code summary.
Why flagged: The plumbing fixture schedule appears to use a lower occupant load than the code summary.
Issue to review: Large training/conference room occupant load appears above 50, but door swing appears to be against direction of egress travel.
Why flagged: The room load appears over 50 and the shown door swing may be opposite the direction of egress travel.
Issue to review: Exit signs are shown at main exits, but directional sign appears missing at a secondary path change.
Why flagged: A secondary path change lacks a clearly indicated directional exit sign.
Issue to review: Latch-side pull clearance at one accessible restroom or office door appears obstructed or underdimensioned.
Why flagged: The plan suggests a possible latch-side clearance conflict at an accessible restroom door.
Issue to review: Drinking fountain or hi/lo accessible drinking fountain provision is not clearly shown.
Why flagged: The fixture schedule does not clearly show a drinking fountain, hi/lo unit, or accepted substitution.
Issue to review: Reception/service counter is shown, but no 36-inch max accessible counter segment is dimensioned.
Why flagged: The counter is present, but the accessible transaction portion is not clearly called out.
Issue to review: Life safety plan identifies a rated separation, but wall type continuity through ceiling/plenum is not clearly detailed.
Why flagged: A rated partition is identified, but continuity and top-of-wall firestopping documentation appears incomplete.
Needs clarification: Retail/service area appears accessory to business occupancy, but the code summary does not clearly state whether IBC 508 accessory occupancy provisions are being used.
Why needs clarification: The sample identifies the area type but does not state the mixed-use or accessory-use code path.
Needs clarification: Travel paths are shown but total travel distance is not dimensioned.
Why needs clarification: Travel paths are diagrammed, but maximum travel distance values are not labeled.
Needs clarification: Interior exits are shown, but exterior continuation to public way is not included in the provided sheets.
Why needs clarification: The sample includes interior life safety plans but not enough exterior/site information to trace discharge fully.
Needs clarification: Lavatory is shown, but knee/toe clearance dimensions are missing from the detail.
Why needs clarification: The lavatory location is shown, but dimensional clearance below the fixture is not documented.
Needs clarification: Switches, thermostats, card readers, or controls are shown but mounting heights are not clearly documented.
Why needs clarification: Controls are indicated but accessible reach range compliance cannot be verified from the sample.
Needs clarification: Building is marked sprinklered, but TI sprinkler head relocation/coverage is not fully coordinated on provided sheets.
Why needs clarification: The sample confirms sprinklered status but does not fully demonstrate final head coverage after new partitions.
Needs clarification: Rated wall is shown, but door schedule does not clearly show required rating/closer/latch information for one opening.
Why needs clarification: A door located in a rated partition lacks complete rating and hardware information in the schedule.
Needs clarification: Finish schedule lists finish materials but does not provide flame spread/smoke-developed classification.
Why needs clarification: Interior finish products are identified but fire performance classifications are not shown in the sample.
Needs clarification: Some wall tags are shown, but rated/non-rated partition intent is not consistently referenced between life safety and wall type sheets.
Why needs clarification: Rated partition intent is not consistently carried through all wall tag references.
Not applicable / not shown in the provided sample sheets: Project appears to use single-user restrooms, not multi-user toilet compartments.
Why not applicable / not shown: No accessible toilet compartment condition is present in the sample sheets.
Not applicable / not shown in the provided sample sheets: Wall-mounted display projection cannot be evaluated because fixture elevations are not included in this sample.
Why not applicable / not shown: Potential protruding objects are not sufficiently shown in the sample drawing excerpt.
Not applicable / not shown in the provided sample sheets: Damper coordination cannot be evaluated because detailed duct penetration sheets are not part of this sample.
Why not applicable / not shown: No detailed damper or rated penetration condition is shown for review in the sample excerpt.
Not applicable / not shown in the provided sample sheets: No multi-story shaft condition is shown in the provided tenant improvement sheets.
Why not applicable / not shown: The sample does not show a shaft enclosure condition.
Not applicable / not shown in the provided sample sheets: Site arrival, accessible parking, and exterior route cannot be evaluated because exterior/site sheets are not part of this sample.
Why not applicable / not shown: Exterior accessible arrival information is outside the included sample scope.
Not applicable / not shown in the provided sample sheets: The illustrative sample does not include every discipline or exterior/site sheet that would be needed for a full permit-set review.
Why not applicable / not shown: The sample page is intentionally limited to representative sheets, so some discipline-level and site/exterior checks are outside the included sample scope.
This illustrative sample is based on a representative commercial plan review format. Actual results depend on the uploaded drawings, jurisdiction, code edition, project scope, and available sheet information. BuildCompass supports QA/QC review and does not replace professional judgment, code consultants, or AHJ review.
Send one past DD/CD or permit set and BuildCompass can return a private review link with sheet references, cited evidence, and issues to review.
Files are not used to train AI. NDA available if needed.