14 Issues Found Including Construction Type vs. Structural Detail Conflict
Type VB permanent classification with trailer hitch detail, floor plans showing different building than elevations, and California Building Code violations— surfaced before permit submission.
The Project
A prefabricated ADU (Accessory Dwelling Unit) project in California. InspectMind reviewed the combined drawing set and identified fundamental conflicts between the stated construction classification and actual structural details, major discrepancies between floor plans and elevations showing essentially different buildings, missing foundation information, and multiple California Building Code violations—issues that would have caused immediate permit rejection.
Sample Findings
Drawings specify "Construction Type VB" (permanent wood-frame), but the "HITCH VIEW" elevation shows a trailer hitch—fundamentally incompatible for permit classification.
Floor plan shows 1 exterior door; elevations show 3 doors. "BACK VIEW" shows symmetrical facade that doesn't exist on floor plan. Window locations don't match.
Foundation Plan Note 5 references symbol "N" for pier locations on floor plan, but A3 contains no such symbols—foundation cannot be constructed.
Eave height at 12' and ridge height at 12' means zero slope—contradicts the gable roof graphic and violates drainage requirements.
Interior dimensions sum to 24'-7" but overall length is 27'-5"—nearly 3 feet of building unaccounted for in the layout.
Porch detail shows 2x4 studs adjacent to pea gravel/sand with only poly sheeting—CBC requires concrete, masonry, or cement plaster separation.
Issue Categories
Construction Classification
Type VB vs. mobile/manufactured conflicts, regulatory path issues
Document Coordination
Floor plan vs. elevation mismatches, missing referenced information
Site & Grading
Slope requirements, drainage distances, survey disclaimers
Code Compliance
Heating requirements, wood protection, mechanical ventilation
Value Delivered
"The floor plan and elevations literally showed different buildings. This would have been an instant rejection at plan check. Catching it early saved us from a complete redesign cycle."
— Project Team