Permitting & Plan Review

When I open a construction defect file, one of the first document sets I request is the permit and inspection record. Before I ever set foot on the property, that record tells me what the jurisdiction reviewed, which inspections were called for and passed, and — just as important — what was never reviewed or inspected at all. Permitting is often treated as an administrative hurdle between design and groundbreaking. In my forensic practice, it functions as something much more valuable: the only independent, third-party quality check most projects will ever receive, memorialized in a public record. This article walks through the four permit families on a typical project — building, grading and site, utility, and specialty permits — how the plan review cycle actually works, who reviews what, and the permitting failure patterns that show up years later as claims, corrective work orders, and disclosure disputes.

Key Takeaways

• A building permit is not one approval. Most projects carry a portfolio: a building permit, grading and site permits, utility connection permits, and scope-specific specialty permits, often reviewed by different bureaus on different timelines.

Page 1

• Plan review is a cycle, not an event. Application, intake, multi-bureau review, comment letters, and resubmittals repeat until every correction is resolved. The stamped, approved set that emerges is the legal baseline for construction.
• The permit and inspection record is forensic evidence. It documents what an independent reviewer checked and what an inspector verified in the field — and by omission, what nobody ever looked at.
• Work performed without a permit, or beyond the approved scope, skips plan review and inspection entirely. Those gaps tend to surface at sale, refinance, remodel, or failure, frequently as retroactive permit requirements, and repair obligations.
• Permit thresholds, bureau structures, and fee schedules vary by jurisdiction. Confirming requirements with the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ) early in design is one of the least expensive risk controls available on a project.

What Does a Permit Actually Do?

A permit is the jurisdiction’s formal authorization to perform regulated work, issued after its reviewers conclude that the proposed design complies with the adopted codes — typically the International Building Code (IBC) or International Residential Code (IRC) as amended by the state and local jurisdiction, plus fire, energy, plumbing, mechanical, and electrical codes. The permit does three things at once: it triggers plan review before construction, it triggers required inspections during construction, and it creates a public record of both. That last function matters more than most owners realize. Design professionals answer to their clients. Contractors answer to their contracts. The plans examiner and the field inspector answer to neither — they are the only participants in the process whose sole job is verifying code compliance. When their record is complete, it is powerful evidence that a code-triggered review occurred. When it is silent, that silence is evidence too.

What Are the Four Permit Families?

Page 2

1. The Building Permit The building permit is the core approval covering structure, fire and life safety, means of egress, accessibility, and energy code compliance. Its plan review examines the architectural and structural drawings, structural calculations (wind, seismic, snow, and gravity loads per ASCE 7 as adopted), and energy compliance documentation. It is also the permit tied to the required inspection sequence — footings, foundation, framing, shear and holdowns, insulation, and final — and, on new construction, it is the approval on which the Certificate of Occupancy ultimately rests.

2. Grading and Site Permits Grading, erosion control, and site development permits govern the earthwork that everything else stands on: cut and fill quantities, slope stability, retaining structures, site drainage, and stormwater management. In Oregon and Washington, larger sites also require construction stormwater permits under the NPDES program (for example, Oregon’s 1200-C permit) administered at the state level. In my experience investigating drainage and settlement claims, the grading permit file — or its absence — is frequently where the story starts, because grading review is often handled by a public works or engineering group entirely separate from the building bureau.

3. Utility Permits Utility permits authorize connections to public infrastructure: water and sanitary sewer connections, storm connections, work in the public right-of-way, and service from power, gas, and telecom providers. This is also where system development charges (SDCs) and connection fees are assessed — costs that can be substantial

Page 3

and that belong in the pro forma long before permit intake. Right-of-way work typically requires its own permit and its own inspector, with restoration standards for pavement and sidewalks set by the local jurisdiction.

4. Specialty Permits Specialty permits cover scope-specific systems: the mechanical, electrical, and plumbing trade permits; fire sprinkler and fire alarm permits reviewed against NFPA 13 and NFPA 72; demolition permits; septic and well approvals; floodplain development permits where FEMA-mapped hazard areas are involved; and elevator, boiler, and pressure-vessel approvals that may run through a state agency rather than the local building department. Each carries its own plan review and inspection track. A project can hold a fully finaled building permit and still have an open or missing specialty permit — a combination I encounter regularly in due diligence reviews.

How Does the Plan Review Cycle Work?

Plan review begins with application and intake, where the jurisdiction performs a completeness check and calculates fees. The submittal then routes to multiple review bureaus in parallel — building, fire, planning, public works, and utility providers — each examining the drawings against its own scope. Reviewers document deficiencies in a comment letter (often called a checksheet or correction notice), citing the specific code sections at issue. The design team revises the documents, responds to every comment, and resubmits. The cycle repeats until all comments are resolved, at which point the jurisdiction stamps the approved set and issues the permit. Two features of this cycle deserve attention. First, the approved, stamped set is the legal baseline for construction — field changes that deviate from it generally require a revision submittal, and building from superseded drawings is a recurring root cause in the defect files I review. Second, review comments are substantive engineering and code feedback, not bureaucratic friction. When I reconstruct a project’s history, the

Page 4

comment letters and the design team’s responses often reveal exactly where a known issue was raised, how it was resolved — or how it quietly disappeared between review cycles.

Who Reviews What?

Bureau names and boundaries vary widely. Large cities may route a single project through six or more review groups; small jurisdictions may combine building, planning, and public works review in one or two people. Some jurisdictions outsource plan review to third-party firms, and many now offer or require electronic plan review. None of that changes the underlying principle: each reviewer approves only their scope, and coordination gaps between review scopes — a site grading plan that conflicts with the architectural finish-floor elevations, for example — can pass every individual review and still produce a built defect.

What About Deferred Submittals, Revisions, and Phased Permits?

Not everything is reviewed before the first permit issues. Jurisdictions commonly allow deferred submittals — design-build components such as fire sprinklers, roof trusses, and curtain wall systems that are engineered later and reviewed as separate packages. The IBC requires that deferred submittal documents be reviewed by the design professional of record before they go to the building official. Revisions handle post-permit design changes, and phased or early-start permits (foundation-only permits, for example) allow construction to begin while the balance of review continues. Each of these mechanisms is legitimate and useful. Each also creates a document-control burden. In forensic review, deferred submittals are a frequent location for scope gaps: the truss package that was reviewed but never coordinated back against the framing plan, or the sprinkler drawings approved against an architectural

Page 5

layout that had already been revised. The permit record will show the packages that were submitted — and the coordination steps between them are where I look first.

Where Do Permitting Failures Show Up in Forensic Files?

The pathway above is the pattern I see most often: work performed without a permit, or beyond an approved scope, receives no independent plan review and no inspection. Whatever was built — compliant or not — gets closed up behind finishes. The gap typically surfaces years later at a sale, refinance, remodel, or failure, when a records check reveals that the addition, the retaining wall, the converted space, or the re-roof has no permit history. The common outcomes are disclosure disputes, retroactive permit requirements with exposure of concealed work for inspection, and corrective construction. Beyond wholly unpermitted work, the recurring permitting failure patterns in my practice include:

Recurring Patterns

• Building from superseded drawings. The field set never caught up to the final approved or revised set, so the structure as built matches neither.
• Expired permits and skipped inspections. Permits lapse when inspections are not called within the code’s time limits; a permit that was issued but never finaled provides far weaker evidence of compliance than owners assume.
• Scope creep past the approved set. A permitted remodel that quietly absorbed structural changes, or a deck permit that grew into a covered structure, without a revision submittal.
• Open specialty permits at closeout. Building final passed, but a mechanical, electrical, or fire permit was never finaled — a gap that routinely surfaces in due diligence records checks.
• Grading without a grading permit. Earthwork, fills, and retaining walls placed with no engineering review, later implicated in settlement and drainage claims.

Page 6

Case Study: The Addition That Was Never There

The following is a composite scenario assembled from recurring fact patterns in forensic practice. It is illustrative, not a description of any single project or client.

A buyer purchases a home with a finished rear addition — family room below, bedroom above. Two years later, interior finishes crack and doors rack out of square. The investigation finds the addition bearing on shallow pads placed over undocumented fill. A permit records check shows the original house fully permitted and finaled; the addition appears in no permit record at all. No grading permit, no building permit, no inspections. The consequences compound. Because there was no plan review, there are no approved drawings establishing what the foundation was supposed to be. Because there were no inspections, there is no independent record of what was actually placed before it was buried. The jurisdiction requires a retroactive permit, which means engineering evaluation, selective exposure of concealed elements, and corrective work designed to current code. The dispute that follows is as much about the disclosure and the records gap as it is about the soil. The technical failure is a foundation problem; the legal and financial exposure was built the day the work proceeded without review.

Permit Family Quick Reference

Permit Family

Core Scope

Typical Reviewer

Common Forensic Issue

Building

Structure, life safety, egress, accessibility, energy

Building bureau plans

examiner

Built from superseded set; skipped or failed inspections never resolved

Grading & Site

Earthwork, drainage, erosion

control, retaining walls

Public works / engineering; state NPDES for stormwater

Unpermitted fills and walls

implicated in settlement and drainage claims

Utility

Water, sewer, storm, right-ofway connections

Utility providers; right-of-way

inspector

Undocumented connections; SDC and capacity issues found late

Specialty

MEP trades, fire systems, demo, floodplain, elevators

Trade bureaus; fire marshal; state agencies

Open permits at closeout; deferred submittals never coordinated

Pre-Construction Permit Review Checklist

Ten questions I would want answered on any project before mobilization — and that I ask of the record on any project after a problem appears:

Page 7

Ten-Point Permit Diligence Checklist

• Has the full permit portfolio been mapped — building, grading, utility, and every specialty permit the scope triggers — with the AHJ’s intake requirements confirmed in writing or from current published checklists?
• Which code editions and local amendments apply, and are the construction documents drawn to those editions?
• Have pre-application or early-assistance meetings been held for anything unusual — floodplain, steep slopes, change of occupancy, phased permits?
• Are land-use conditions of approval reconciled against the construction documents before building permit intake?
• Is there a log tracking every review comment, the design response, and the resubmittal that resolved it?
• Are deferred submittals identified on the permit documents, and is there a defined coordination step back into the primary design?
• Does the field have the current approved, stamped set — and a procedure that pulls superseded sheets?
• Is someone tracking permit expiration dates and the inspection sequence so no permit lapses midproject?
• Are utility connection permits, SDCs, and right-of-way permits secured before the schedule depends on them?
• At closeout: is every permit — including each specialty permit — finaled, and is the complete permit and inspection record archived with the project documents?

Frequently Asked Questions

Do I need a permit for a small project like a deck, fence, or water heater? It depends entirely on the jurisdiction. Most publish exemption lists (for example, low fences, small detached sheds, or finish work), but thresholds vary and exempt work must still meet code. Water heaters, electrical circuits, and structural decks commonly do require permits. The reliable answer comes from the AHJ, not from a rule of thumb.

What happens if work was done without a permit?

Typically the jurisdiction can require a retroactive permit, which may involve engineering evaluation, exposing concealed work for inspection, corrective construction to current code, and investigation fees. Unpermitted work also becomes a disclosure item at sale and can complicate insurance and financing. The cost of resolving it later routinely exceeds what the original permit would have cost.

How long does plan review take?

Page 8

It varies with jurisdiction workload, project complexity, and the quality of the submittal. Simple residential permits may issue over the counter or within weeks; complex commercial projects can run through multiple review cycles over several months. The single biggest schedule lever within the applicant’s control is submitting a complete, coordinated package the first time.

Does a finaled permit guarantee the building is defect-free?

No. Plan review and inspections are compliance spot-checks against minimum code, not comprehensive quality assurance. A finaled permit is meaningful evidence that required reviews and inspections occurred; it is not a warranty of workmanship, and it does not substitute for the project’s own QA/QC program.

Who is responsible for pulling permits — the owner or the contractor?

Contracts typically assign permit procurement to the general contractor for the building permit and to trade contractors for their specialty permits, but the obligation should be stated expressly, and owners should verify permits actually issued before work proceeds. On owner-performed work, the owner carries the burden directly.

Join the Conversation

If you review permit records in your own work — as a builder, design professional, lender, inspector, or attorney — what is the most consequential permit gap you have encountered, and when in the project’s life did it surface? Share your experience in the comments. The patterns are more consistent across jurisdictions than most people expect.

Page 9