Land development, transportation, and site civil
AI Civil Engineering Checker
Find grading inconsistencies, drainage conflicts, utility coordination issues, and transportation alignment errors. Built for land development, transportation, and water resource projects. Handles thousands of pages and massive CAD PDFs. Results in days, not weeks.
Best for: Civil engineers, Land developers, Site contractors, GCs, Transportation engineers, Municipal reviewers.
Why Civil Engineering Errors Cost So Much
Civil engineering drawings define the site infrastructure: grading, drainage, utilities, roads, and parking. Whether it's land development, transportation, or water resources—one error can cause significant rework costs.
Civil coordination issues are especially costly because they often require extensive field modifications that affect multiple trades and site infrastructure. AI doesn't care if it's horizontal or vertical—it cross-checks all your documents for inconsistencies.
Common issues that lead to costly rework:
- Grading elevation conflicts between plans and details
- Drainage pipe sizing vs watershed calculation mismatches
- Utility crossing conflicts and clearance violations
- Fire lane width and turning radius violations
- Transportation alignment vs profile inconsistencies
- Stormwater management plan conflicts with site plans
- Missing erosion control and SWPPP details
- Coordination gaps between civil and building MEP systems
What the AI Civil Checker Catches
AI reviews civil engineering drawings for land development, transportation, and water resource projects. Cross-references grading plans, drainage designs, utility layouts, and site plans against building drawings and codes.
- Grading elevation conflicts between plans and details
- Missing spot elevations and inconsistencies
- Slope violations affecting drainage and accessibility
- Grading conflicts with building pad elevations
- Cut/fill volume calculation mismatches
- Drainage pipe sizing vs watershed calculations
- Storm inlet locations conflicting with utilities
- Detention pond volume vs release rate conflicts
- Flow direction inconsistencies across sheets
- Stormwater management plan vs site plan conflicts
- Roadway alignment vs profile inconsistencies
- Fire lane width and turning radius violations
- Parking layout dimension conflicts
- ADA route slope and clearance violations
- Curb return radius conflicts with fire access
- Utility crossing conflicts and clearance violations
- Water main sizing vs fire flow requirements
- Sanitary sewer slope and invert conflicts
- Utility easement encroachments
- Coordination gaps with building MEP systems
- Detention/retention sizing calculations
- Outfall elevation and capacity conflicts
- Floodplain boundary coordination
- Water quality BMP sizing issues
- Hydraulic calculation discrepancies
- IFC fire access requirements
- ADA site accessibility standards
- Local municipal code violations
- State DOT requirements
- EPA stormwater regulation gaps
Real Issues We've Caught
Actual issues found on real projects. Each one would have caused significant rework, change orders, or schedule delays.
What AI Found: Fire lane turning radius shown as 15 feet, but IFC requires minimum 20-foot inside turning radius for fire apparatus access.
Impact: Caught before paving. Would have required reconstruction of curbs and fire lane after final inspection failure.
What AI Found: Storm drain pipe sized for 42 CFS but watershed calculation shows 58 CFS at 25-year storm event.
Impact: Prevented undersized drainage system. Would have caused flooding and required pipe replacement.
What AI Found: Sanitary sewer crosses water main with only 12-inch vertical separation. State code requires minimum 18-inch separation.
Impact: Caught during plan review. Would have failed inspection and required trench reconstruction.
What AI Found: Grading plan shows finished floor elevation at 124.5, but architectural site plan shows FFE at 125.0.
Impact: Prevented foundation elevation error. 6-inch discrepancy would have affected drainage away from building.
See It In Action
Watch a demo to see how InspectMind AI catches issues before they become costly.
Frequently Asked Questions
Related Checkers
Civil drawings often coordinate with other disciplines. Check these related checkers:
Related Case Studies
See how other teams have used AI to catch issues before construction
What Construction Professionals Say
GCs, architects, engineers, contractors, and developers use InspectMind AI to catch issues before they hit the field.
"InspectMind caught 47 critical issues on our cold storage project—conflicts that would have cost us millions in field rework. It paid for itself on the first review."
Aaron Bass
Director of Construction, Cold Summit Development
"We used to spend 40+ hours on plan review. Now I upload the drawings, and get back a complete issue report that catches code violations I would have missed. It's a no-brainer."
Julio
Owner, Pesco Engineering
Want to learn more about AI plan checking?
Read our complete guide to understand how AI reviews construction documents, what it catches, and how it fits your workflow.
Ready to catch issues before they cost you?
Protect margins, reduce risk, and improve quality. Pay and upload — results in 24 hours.
One issue found pays for the whole check