Why Building Plans Get Rejected: 7 Official Lists Compared

Most plan review comments don't say a design is wrong. They say something isn't there. Read the lists building departments publish of the comments they write most often, and the same words keep coming up: missing, omitted, not provided, not shown, failure to provide.

We compared seven of those lists, from Houston, Plano, Oakland Park, Northbrook, Dayton, Miami-Dade County and UC Riverside's campus plan review office. Only one problem is on all seven: sheets that aren't properly signed or sealed. Missing design criteria, an incomplete site plan and an unclear scope of work are each on six. Below is what each department actually asks for, how to fix each problem before you submit, and a checklist that covers all of it.

The seven lists we compared

None of these departments says how often each comment comes up. Plano calls its lists a top 10 but gives no counts. So the numbers below measure how many departments name a problem, not how often it happens.

The plan review comments that show up most

We grouped each list's items by the problem they describe and counted a list once per row, however many of its items fit. That grouping is our judgment, which is why every list is linked above.

One thing stands out. Dayton last revised its guide in 2011, and Houston revised its list in March 2025. Fourteen years apart, both ask for sealed plans, a code analysis and a complete site plan. None of this is new, and most of it isn't hard. It's just easy to miss when a set comes together under deadline.

The repeat problems, and how to fix each one

1. Sheets that aren't signed or sealed

Every list has this one. Three of Plano's ten commercial items are about seals: architects' seals missing signatures and dates, engineers' seals missing the same, and seals that aren't from Texas. Miami-Dade flags energy calculations "not signed by person who prepared them." Houston requires electrical plans to be signed by a Texas-registered professional engineer or designed by a master electrician registered with the city, whose name, license number and signature go on every electrical sheet.

The cover sheet is rarely the problem. The misses are at the edges: calculations, reports and energy forms that need their own signature, a consultant's sheets added late, or a seal from the wrong state. If you sign digitally, ask the department how it wants signed files prepared. Oakland Park rejects plans when it is "unable to verify digital signature," and separately rejects files that are "copy-protected or secured."

2. Missing design criteria and code analysis

Six lists. UC Riverside's fire and life safety reviewers put "Missing Code Analysis" first. Dayton asks for the use group, type of construction, allowable area, height and number of stories. Oakland Park wants the type of construction, occupant load, roof live and dead loads and fire separation on the cover sheet. Houston asks for occupant load and allowable area calculations, plus a PDF of the site's wind speed lookup from the ASCE 7 wind speed website.

For commercial work, put a code analysis on the cover sheet: adopted codes, occupancy, construction type, allowable and actual area and height, and occupant load. For houses, add a design criteria table with live, dead, wind, snow and seismic loads as they apply. Attach anything the reviewer would otherwise have to look up, like the wind speed report or the geotechnical report.

3. Site plans that aren't to scale or don't show enough

Six lists. Northbrook's second item is a site plan not drawn to scale. Houston's commercial list names eight things a site plan must show, including dimensions to all property lines, the exit route to a public way, parking, a north arrow, and easements and setback lines. For houses, Houston wants every existing and proposed structure, all impervious cover, and dimensions from each wall to the nearest property line. Plano flags remodel site plans that don't show where the addition sits relative to the existing house. Oakland Park wants the finished floor elevation on the site plan, and Miami-Dade's plumbing reviewers want the location and size of the water service and sewer connection.

Draw it to scale, with a north arrow and a dimension to every property line. Show easements, setbacks, existing and new structures, utilities and meters, and the finished floor elevation where your jurisdiction regulates it. Houston does: its amendments to the 2021 IBC set the first floor of new buildings at least 12 inches above the rim of the nearest sanitary sewer manhole.

4. A scope of work the reviewer has to guess at

Six lists. Miami-Dade writes "Scope/area of work not defined." UC Riverside writes "Failure to provide scope description on plans." Dayton and Houston both flag HVAC drawings that don't say whether the equipment is new or existing, and Oakland Park asks plumbing designers to state whether fixtures connect to existing piping. Plano wants options on new homes, like a game room or study, designated and their square footage noted.

Write a short scope paragraph on the cover sheet. Then make every discipline's sheets say what is new, what is existing to remain and what is being demolished. If you're revising an issued permit, Miami-Dade wants the original permit drawings submitted so the reviewer can see how far the revision reaches.

5. Energy paperwork that doesn't match the drawings

Five lists. Miami-Dade's first mechanical and energy item is "Energy calculations do not match construction plans." Houston asks for everything on the COMcheck envelope report to be carried onto the plans: where the roof and wall insulation is, whether it's cavity or continuous, and the U-factor and SHGC of every window, plus U-factors for opaque doors. Northbrook flags wrong insulation values and insulation types that aren't identified, spray foam included. UC Riverside wants every energy compliance form filled out and signed.

Run the energy compliance report against the final design, not the one from design development, and put its values on the wall sections and window schedules where a reviewer will look for them. If the windows or insulation change late, run it again.

6. Fire-rated assemblies without a tested design

Four lists. Houston wants a PDF of the tested design from an approved testing agency for every fire-rated assembly on the plans, unless the assembly is a prescriptive one from IBC Section 721. Dayton asks for approved listed assemblies for walls, floor/ceilings, roof/ceilings, penetrations and shafts. Miami-Dade flags rated walls that aren't detailed and missing penetration details at back-to-back outlets and at the panel. Oakland Park flags missing firestopping and fireblocking details.

Give every rated wall, floor and ceiling a design number, include the listing, and detail whatever passes through it: pipes, ducts, outlet boxes, and trusses where they cross a rated membrane.

7. Sheets that contradict each other

Only three lists name this, but they get specific. Dayton has five of these items on its own: civil, landscape and architectural site plans that don't match; a door schedule that isn't consistent with the drawings; a truss layout that doesn't match the framing plan; exit signs on the electrical sheets that aren't coordinated with the exits on the architectural sheets; and a water meter or sewer lateral that the site plan and plumbing plans put in different places. Plano flags new homes whose overall width and depth differ between the foundation plan, plot plan and first-floor plan. Miami-Dade flags circuit numbers that aren't coordinated with the panel schedule.

These are the hardest to catch in your own set, because each sheet looks right on its own. The only fix is a deliberate cross-check pass, discipline against discipline, before the set goes out.

8. The wrong code edition

Three lists. Plano flags "wrong code year references" on both commercial and residential sets. Oakland Park rejects mechanical plans that cite the wrong edition of the Florida Building Code. Houston asks for a cover sheet statement of the code the city has adopted, and on houses wants every code reference to cite the 2021 IRC.

Confirm which editions and local amendments your jurisdiction enforces on the day you submit, state them on the cover sheet, and check every general note that cites a section number. Notes get copied from project to project, and section numbers move between editions.

Houses: smoke and carbon monoxide alarms

Northbrook flags smoke detector locations missing from the submittal. Oakland Park flags missing smoke detectors inside and outside existing bedrooms. Houston wants carbon monoxide alarms shown outside each sleeping area, and inside any bedroom where the bedroom or its attached bathroom has a fuel-fired appliance. Show both on the floor plan or electrical sheet, for existing bedrooms as well as new ones when the work triggers it. Our plan check response guide has a worked example of how an addition can bring the existing house's alarms up to current requirements.

Intake rejections: when the set never reaches a reviewer

Some lists separate screening from technical review. Oakland Park's starts with a permit technician section: files that can't be opened or are corrupted, copy-protected files, too many separate PDFs, complete plans not resubmitted, a missing designer's stamp, and plans filed under the wrong permit type. Plano rejects construction documents marked "Not for Construction," "Bid Set" or "Pricing Set." Dayton lists incomplete applications, a missing plan review fee and a check for the wrong amount. Houston's residential list opens with an unsigned ownership declaration, and then plans that were never uploaded at all.

These are the cheapest problems to prevent and some of the most frustrating to get. Under many state permit deadline laws, the review clock doesn't start until the application is complete. Upload rules also differ between departments: Oakland Park rejects sets split across too many PDFs, while other portals want each plan set and document as its own file. Read the rules for the portal you're using.

Pre-submittal checklist

• Every sheet, calculation, report and energy form is signed or sealed by the responsible professional, licensed in the project's state.
• Digital signatures can be verified, and no file is secured or copy-protected.
• The set is a construction set, with no "Bid Set," "Pricing Set" or "Not for Construction" notes.
• The cover sheet states the adopted code editions and local amendments, with a code analysis or design criteria table.
• Design loads are listed, and supporting reports such as wind speed and geotechnical are attached.
• The site plan is to scale, with a north arrow, property line dimensions, easements, setbacks, utilities and a finished floor elevation where required.
• A written scope is on the cover sheet, and every discipline shows what is new, existing and demolished.
• The energy compliance report matches the final design, and its values appear on the drawings.
• Every fire-rated assembly has a design number and listing, and its penetrations are detailed.
• Dimensions, schedules, site utilities and circuit numbers agree from sheet to sheet.
• Smoke and carbon monoxide alarms are shown where required.
• The application is complete, fees are paid, and files follow the portal's upload rules.
• On a resubmittal, every earlier comment has a written response and every change is clouded.

Where software helps, and where it doesn't

PlanChecker.AI is a pre-screening tool. It doesn't replace the plan reviewer or the professional who signs the set, and it won't tell you whether your application is complete, your fee is paid or your seal is valid. Those stay on the checklist. It can help with the parts that are hard to check by eye:

• Upload the PDF set. Each sheet is classified by discipline.
• Run a plan check. It flags potential code issues and conflicts between disciplines, with code citations, as findings for your team to review.
• Search building codes by city and state. Each result links to the cited provision; confirm it matches the edition your jurisdiction has adopted.
• Ask Mr.Beam where something is shown. Answers point to their source sheet, so you can check each one.

AI output can contain inaccuracies or omissions, and it does not establish that a set is complete, compliant or approvable. Your licensed professionals remain responsible for reviewing every finding; see our AI disclosure. See how a project moves from upload to review, or compare Basic and Pro plan details.

Frequently asked questions

What is the most common reason building plans are rejected?

Among these seven lists, sheets that aren't properly signed or sealed is the only problem every department names. Missing design criteria or code analysis, incomplete site plans and an unclear scope of work each appear on six of the seven. None of the departments publishes how often each comment occurs, so read this as what departments call common, not a measured ranking.

What is the difference between a screening rejection and plan review comments?

Screening, sometimes called intake, checks that a submittal is complete and readable: the application, fees, file format, required documents and signatures. Plan review checks the design against the adopted codes. Oakland Park's list keeps the two apart, with a permit technician section ahead of the discipline sections. A screening rejection sends the set back before technical review starts.

Do these lists apply in my jurisdiction?

Partly. Most departments enforce some edition of the same model codes, but each state and city adopts its own editions and amendments, and some comments are purely local. Houston's finished floor rule, for example, comes from its own amendments to the 2021 IBC. Many departments publish a list like these, so search your building department's website for "common plan review comments" or "common corrections" before you submit.

What should I do when my plans come back with comments?

Answer every comment by number, make the fix on the drawings, cloud the change and point to the sheet where it was resolved. UC Riverside counts resubmitting "without answering or addressing previous plan review comments" among its most common fails. Our guide to responding to plan check comments has a response letter template and a worked example.

Start a 14-day trial of Basic

Every new account starts with a 14-day free trial of Basic, then $80/month. Card required; cancel before the trial ends and you won't be charged. Run your set through a plan check before it goes to the building department. Start free trial.