364 Issues Found in New Church Construction Documents

The project

35 critical issues including undersized septic tank (30% below code requirements), Title 24 mandatory measures failure, and egress capacity violations for 633-person occupancy, any one of which would have caused permit rejection.

A new ~11,000 SF religious facility with Assembly Group A-3 occupancy, designed for up to 633 occupants. The project included a sanctuary, social hall, classrooms, kitchen, and support spaces, with on-site septic and well systems. InspectMind reviewed architectural, structural, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, civil, and fire protection drawings against the full specification package.

Project type

Religious facility · Assembly (A-3) · Multi-discipline

Codes referenced: 2022 CBC · California Title 24 · CPC / UPC · ADA / CBC 11B · NEC / CEC

Critical findings

1. Septic Tank 30-35% Undersized

   Critical

   2,000 gallon tank specified when calculations show 2,840-3,088 gallons required per CPC Appendix H. Would cause permit rejection and potential system failure.

2. Title 24 Mandatory Measures Non-Compliance

   Critical

   Certificate of Compliance explicitly states "DOES NOT COMPLY" for mandatory measures, a direct contradiction to project specification requirements for code compliance.

3. Gas Connection Shown with No Gas Service

   Critical

   Project Directory shows Gas utility as "N/A", yet plumbing details show gas inlet and piping for water heater. Fundamental conflict about utility availability.

4. Egress Capacity Conflict (633 Occupants vs. 2 Exits)

   Critical

   Code compliance block states 2 exits for occupancy under 500, but specifications show 633 occupants requiring 3 exits. Life safety violation.

5. Plan vs. Elevation Major Discrepancies

   Critical

   Men's restroom floor plan shows 4 toilet stalls and 3 lavatories, but elevations show different fixtures entirely, fundamental coordination failure between views.

6. Site Data Contradictions Across Sheets

   Critical

   Different addresses (2700 vs 7200 Central Ave), APNs (034 vs 035), lot areas (5.07 vs 2.68 AC), and building areas (11,000 vs 10,795 SF) between cover sheet and site analysis.

7. Circuit Overload on Panel A

   Critical

   Circuit 17 shows 2.46 kW load (20.5 amps at 120V) on a 20-amp breaker, NEC overcurrent protection violation.

8. RTU Capacity Input Error (1000x)

   Critical

   Equipment schedule shows 23,800 and 47,000 under "kBtu/h" columns, implying millions of BTU/h for small commercial AC units. Values likely entered in Btu/h instead of kBtu/h.

Additional high-priority findings

1. Accessibility Door Force Violation

   High

   Drawing permits 8.5 lbs exterior door force; specification requires maximum 5 lbs, 70% over limit.

2. Lavatory Toe Clearance Contradiction

   High

   Drawing shows 6" maximum toe clearance; specification requires 17" minimum, values are inverted.

3. Building Sewer Slope Below Code

   High

   Detail specifies 0.25-0.5% slope; UPC requires minimum ~2% for building sewers.

4. Conditioned Floor Area Exceeds Building Area

   High

   Title 24 shows 11,100 SF conditioned; architectural shows 10,795 SF total building, mathematical impossibility.

5. Accessible Parking Length Undersized

   High

   Van accessible stall shows 16'-0"; specification requires 18'-0" minimum, 2 feet short.

6. HVAC Equipment Misclassified as Residential

   High

   Title 24 form classifies exhaust fans as serving "Dwelling Units" in an A-3 church occupancy, triggers incorrect ventilation standards.

7. Aluminum Wiring Contradiction

   High

   Drawing notes allow aluminum conductors; specifications explicitly prohibit aluminum wiring.

8. Structural Lumber Grade Conflict

   High

   Beam schedule specifies Douglas Fir #2 for 6x members; specification requires #1 grade for beams 6x and greater.

Issue categories

Plumbing & Septic

Undersized septic tank, slope violations, trap requirements, conflicting pipe sizes

Mechanical & Title 24

Non-compliance certificates, equipment misclassification, capacity errors

Electrical

Circuit overloads, panel schedule conflicts, code version contradictions

Accessibility / ADA

Door forces, toe clearances, grab bar dimensions, signage conflicts

Fire Life Safety

Egress capacity, exit requirements, panic hardware contradictions

Structural

Lumber grades, fire blocking spacing, mixed framing materials

Architectural

Plan vs. elevation conflicts, finish schedule contradictions, room numbering

Civil & Site

Property data conflicts, grading issues, erosion control contradictions

Issue severity breakdown

Critical

35 · Permit blockers, code violations

High

160 · Significant coordination issues

Medium

160 · Specification conflicts

Low

9 · Minor drafting issues

Value delivered

• 364 issues surfaced in automated review
• 35 permit-blocking critical issues identified
• Cross-sheet and spec-drawing reconciliation
• California code compliance verified (CBC, Title 24, CPC)
• Accessibility (CBC 11B / ADA) violations caught
• Life safety and egress deficiencies flagged

Why assembly occupancies require rigorous QA/QC

Religious facilities, event centers, and other Group A (Assembly) occupancies face heightened scrutiny from plan checkers and inspectors. With occupant loads often exceeding 500 people, issues with egress, fire protection, accessibility, and utility capacity become life-safety matters.

This project demonstrated how even experienced design teams can have coordination gaps across an 11,000 SF facility with multiple disciplines. From fundamental utility conflicts (gas piping shown with no gas service) to mathematical impossibilities (conditioned area exceeding building area), automated review catches what manual review often misses.

• Learn more about church and religious facility plan review
• Read: Church construction plan review guide