Commercial Mixed-Use: 316 Issues Found

The project

A commercial mixed-use development in California. InspectMind performed a comprehensive multi-discipline plan review covering architectural, structural, fire protection, mechanical, plumbing, electrical, and civil disciplines, identifying 316 issues including critical fire protection gaps, accessibility violations, and extensive coordination errors before permit submission.

Project type

Commercial · Mixed-use · California

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

Critical findings (50)

1. Conflicting Room Function and Equipment (Pay Station vs. Mail Room)

   Architectural

   Critical

   There is a direct contradiction regarding the function and equipment of the alcove referenced by callout 10/A5-00. A6-10 depicts this space as a 'Pay Station' area containing a single recessed pay station and painted walls. In contrast, A7-00 depicts the exact same space as 'Mail 179', containing two large dropboxes (UPS/FedEx) and tiled walls.

2. Conflicting Floor Assembly: Slab on Grade vs. Framed Floor

   Structural

   Critical

   The Level 1 Foundation Plan (S101) explicitly specifies a 6-inch concrete slab on grade for the building floor. However, the Part MPR Framing Plan (S102), which covers the same building area (MPR), specifies Light Gauge Metal Framing (LGMF) floor joists with plywood decking. These are two mutually exclusive floor systems (earth-supported concrete vs. raised framed floor) for the same level.

3. Conflicting Steel Post Size Specification for Portal Framing

   Structural

   Critical

   Sheet S101 specifies new posts as "(N)HSS 5x5x1/2 POST @ LOCS", whereas the referenced portal framing sheet S103 details the posts as "(N)HSS8x2x3/8". This indicates a conflict between the square HSS sections shown on the foundation plan and the rectangular HSS sections shown on the framing plan.

4. Shaft Enclosure Fire Rating in Table 6 (1-Hour) Violates IBC 713.4 Requirement for 2-Hour in Buildings Connecting 4+ Stories

   Fire Protection

   Critical

   Table 6 specifies shaft enclosure walls as 1-hour rated with 1-hour fire doors. However, the building consists of a 6-story Lab Building and an 18-story Office Building. Per IBC Section 713.4, shaft enclosures connecting four stories or more require a minimum 2-hour fire-resistance rating. Both building sections exceed this threshold, making the 1-hour specification non-compliant. This also creates an internal conflict within the drawings, as Table 5 correctly specifies 2-hour fire barriers for shafts connecting any number of stories.

5. Code summary states accessible means of egress not required to be added in existing buildings, confirm code basis and AOMEE compliance for scope

   Fire Protection

   Critical

   The code summary (LS0-00 §5.9.13) includes a blanket statement that accessible means of egress are not required to be added in existing buildings, citing MIR 306.7.2 and 521 CMR 24.20.12 Exception a. This should be confirmed/qualified against the project’s adopted code path and scope of work to ensure any accessible spaces impacted by the project are provided required accessible means of egress (and any features such as areas of refuge, elevator provisions, signage, and two-way communication where applicable).

Sample high priority findings (0 total)

Issue categories

Architectural

Architectural issues found during plan review

Structural

Structural issues found during plan review

Fire Protection

Fire Protection issues found during plan review

Mechanical

Mechanical issues found during plan review

Plumbing

Plumbing issues found during plan review

Civil

Civil issues found during plan review

Electrical

Electrical issues found during plan review

Code Compliance

Code Compliance issues found during plan review

Value delivered

• 316 issues surfaced before permit submission
• 50 critical violations across 8+ disciplines identified
• Fire protection and accessibility gaps caught
• Cross-discipline coordination conflicts flagged