Multifamily Apartments: 108 Issues Found

The project

A multifamily apartment complex with amenity spaces. InspectMind performed a comprehensive plan review of the architectural and structural drawings, identifying missing beam schedules for Level 2, unprotected vertical openings at glass railings, missing exit signs at stairways, and extensive coordination issues before construction.

Project type

Multifamily · Apartments · United States

Codes referenced: International Building Code · NFPA 70 (NEC) · ADA Standards

Critical findings (26)

1. Missing Beam Schedule for Level 2

   Structural

   Critical

   Drawing S-102 (Overall Floor Framing Plan - Level 2) Note 3 explicitly refers to 6/S-301 for the Beam Schedule. However, the Beam Reinforcing Schedule on S-301 only contains entries for "LEVEL 1" and "LEVEL 3". There are no beams defined for Level 2 in the referenced schedule, leaving the beam marks (BX) on the Level 2 plan undefined.

2. Missing Exit Signs at Exit Stairway

   Architectural

   Critical

   The Reflected Ceiling Plan (RCP) fails to indicate exit signs at the entrance to the required exit stairway, contradicting the building code and the sheet's own legend. IBC Section 1013.1 requires all exits and exit access doors to be marked by an approved exit sign. While the 'RCP SYMBOL LEGEND' (View 06) clearly defines a symbol for 'EXIT SIGN' (a circle with a filled sector), this symbol is missing from the plan view (View 03) at the 'STAIR' location (Grid 13), which is a designated exit ('DN' indicated on floor plan).

3. Unprotected Vertical Opening at Glass Railing

   Architectural

   Critical

   The plan shows a 'GLASS RAILING' along the edge of the 'COWORKING LOUNGE' (Room 2CW1), separating it from an area labeled 'OPEN TO BELOW'. IBC Section 712.1 mandates that all vertical openings must be protected, typically by a shaft enclosure (Section 713). A glass railing alone does not provide the required fire-resistance-rated enclosure. Unless this area is a compliant Atrium or Mezzanine, a rated separation is required.

4. Masonry Core Wall Supported on Wood Header

   Structural

   Critical

   Plans 2 and 3 specify the use of "(3) 9 1/4" LVL" (Laminated Veneer Lumber) headers spanning openings within the CMU core walls at Levels 4 through 7. As these are continuous vertical shafts for stairs and elevators, the masonry wall construction continues above these headers to the next floor/roof levels. The drawing indicates structural masonry bearing on wood members.

5. Inadequate Reinforcement Placement for Basement Retaining Wall

   Structural

   Critical

   Detail 8 (West Shear Wall) depicts a concrete wall spanning from Level P1 (El. 90'-0") to Level 1 (El. 100'-0"). Based on the Keyplan showing Stair 4 at the building perimeter and the level designations (P1 typical for basement), this wall acts as a foundation wall retaining approximately 10 feet of soil. Note 1 requires horizontal reinforcement to be "CENTERED IN WALL" for 10" walls. Centered reinforcement provides negligible effective depth (d) for resisting out-of-plane bending moments caused by lateral soil pressure, creating a high risk of flexural failure or severe cracking.

Sample high priority findings (24 total)

1. Conflicting Construction Joint Requirements for Link Beams

   Structural

   High

   S-200 Note 6 generally permits 'ALL HORIZONTAL CONSTRUCTION JOINTS' in shear walls (which include link beams per S-200 Note 5) without exception. However, S-290 Detail 4 Note 2 explicitly prohibits construction joints within link beams. This creates a direct contradiction regarding whether the horizontal joints permitted in the shear walls are allowed to extend through the link beam sections.

2. Conflicting Reinforcement Splice Length Criteria

   Structural

   High

   S-270 Note 4 explicitly requires that lap splices between bars of different sizes be a Class 'B' lap based on the *larger* bar diameter. However, S-290 Detail 16 (referenced by S-270 Note 3 for splice details) states to provide a Class 'B' lap of the *smaller* bar (or development length of the larger), which creates a direct contradiction in determining the required splice length.

3. Conflicting Plan Dimensions at Stair 7 (Level 1)

   Architectural

   High

   There is a dimension discrepancy between the Stair 7 specific plan on A-487 and the Enlarged Interior Plan on A-606 for the same Level 1 area. A-487 shows a dimension of 12'-0" and 7'-7 7/8", while A-606 shows 12'-4" and 7'-8 1/8" respectively. This 4-inch difference in the long dimension likely relates to wall thickness inclusions (e.g., CMU face vs core) or clear width definitions, but creates ambiguity in the constructed size of the stair shaft.

4. Conflicting Column Material Specification (Steel vs Concrete)

   Structural

   High

   S-101 Note 10 explicitly states that column sizes on the plan indicate "Structural Steel Columns". However, the S-101 framing notes define the system as a Post-Tensioned Concrete Slab, and the referenced detail sheet S-301 includes Detail 15 "Typical Column Splice at Beam", which depicts a reinforced concrete column connection. This creates a contradiction regarding whether the vertical structural elements are steel or concrete.

5. Cross-Reference Mismatch: S-272 References Non-Existent Detail 1/S-301 for Trim Steel at Block Outs

   Structural

   High

   S-272 Shear Wall Note 11 references 'DETAIL 1/S-301 FOR TYPICAL TRIM STEEL REQUIREMENTS AT RECTANGULAR BLOCK OUTS.' However, Sheet S-301 does not contain a Detail 1. The details present on S-301 are numbered 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, and 20. The detail on S-301 that provides trim steel requirements at openings in concrete walls is Detail 11, titled 'CONCRETE WALL ELEVATION - TRIM STEEL AT OPENINGS.' The reference appears to contain a typographical error (1 instead of 11).

6. Shear wall notes conflict on referenced detail sheets (trim steel at openings; elevator divider/hoistway beams)

   Structural

   High

   The “SHEAR WALL NOTES” are duplicated on both S-270 and S-271, but they reference different detail sheet numbers for the same requirements. For trim steel at block outs/sleeved openings, S-270 points to details on S-311 and S-301, while S-271 points to details on “S-3.1”. For elevator divider and hoistway beam connections, S-270 points to “11/S-400” while S-271 points to “13/S-400”. These are direct cross-reference contradictions for the same scope.

7. Insufficient Fire Barrier Representation for Exit Stair

   Architectural

   High

   The plan shows an interior 'STAIR' connecting levels (indicated by 'DN'), which constitutes a vertical shaft. IBC Section 713.4 requires such shafts to be enclosed with fire barriers (per Section 707). The drawing depicts the stair walls with standard thin partition lines indistinguishable from non-rated office walls, whereas the nearby elevator shaft correctly uses heavy hatched lines. This visual representation suggests a non-rated assembly, which would violate the code.

8. Unisex Restroom Wall Finish Does Not Meet Code Requirements for Public Toilet Room Walls

   Architectural

   High

   The UNISEX RR is shown with PT2 wall finish. Interior Finish General Note 2 states 'ALL GYPSUM BOARD WALLS TO RECEIVE (PT-1) EGGSHELL SHEEN U.N.O.', establishing that PT-prefixed tags indicate paint finishes on gypsum board walls. Section 1210.2.2 requires walls within 2 feet of water closets to have a 'smooth, hard, nonabsorbent surface' to a height of not less than 4 feet, with materials 'not adversely affected by moisture.' Paint on gypsum board does not meet these requirements as gypsum board is adversely affected by moisture and paint does not constitute a hard, nonabsorbent surface. The exception for toilet rooms 'not accessible to the public' does not apply to a fitness facility restroom accessible to members.

9. Non-compliant door landing slope requirement in Note 6

   Architectural

   High

   Plan General Note 6 instructs the contractor to "provide sweeped washes at a 1:12 slope" at door locations to plane out with the sloped parking deck. This conflicts with building code accessibility requirements. Per IBC 1102.1 and 1104.1, accessible routes must comply with ICC A117.1. ICC A117.1 Section 404.2.4.4 requires that the floor or ground surface within door maneuvering clearances have a slope not steeper than 1:48 (2%). A 1:12 (8.3%) slope immediately at the door location eliminates the required level landing, making the door non-compliant for accessibility.

10. Concealed Door May Not Meet Requirement for Doors to Be Readily Distinguishable as Required by Section 1010.1

    Architectural

    High

    The drawing explicitly labels a door as 'CONCEALED DOOR' connecting the Hidden Lounge to the Clubhouse. Section 1010.1 of the IBC requires that doors in the means of egress 'shall be readily distinguishable from the adjacent construction and finishes such that the doors are easily recognizable as doors.' A concealed door, by standard architectural definition, is designed to blend into surrounding construction and not be readily apparent, which directly contradicts this code requirement. As the Hidden Lounge is an occupied assembly space with the concealed door providing access to the Clubhouse (which connects to the corridor and exits), this door would serve an egress function.

Issue categories

Structural

Structural issues found during plan review

Architectural

Architectural issues found during plan review

Fire Protection

Fire Protection issues found during plan review

Value delivered

• 108 issues surfaced before construction
• 26 critical structural and life safety violations identified
• Missing beam schedules for Level 2 caught
• Unprotected vertical openings and exit sign omissions flagged