InspectMind AI reviews your selected civil, structural, and MEP plans for datum conflicts, utility coordination problems, and code reference errors before submission. Pay per check, with the exact price shown before payment. See pricing
Trusted by production homebuilders nationwide
Coordinating civil, structural, and MEP plans across multiple subdivisions takes time. An additional review can help your engineers investigate conflicts before submission. Permit requirements and review timelines vary by jurisdiction; the building department makes its own assessment.
A datum conflict or a utility separation violation that recurs across a subdivision means the same correction on every lot. Developer plan review at scale means a single undetected issue in the base civil set multiplies through the permit queue. Every week of permit delay is a week of holding costs on land and construction loans. The cost of catching an issue before submission is the time to fix it. The cost of catching it after is that, plus a resubmission round, plus the delay.
Teams working across jurisdictions can carry forward an outdated code edition or miss a local amendment. Check the selected codes and their applicability with your project team. Permit prep review helps your team investigate code references before submission; it does not guarantee that every applicable requirement has been checked.
Upload your plans, select the documents and available codes to include, and review findings with source references. Your team should confirm the applicable code editions, local amendments, and each finding against the original documents. AI review supplements professional judgment and cannot guarantee permit approval, complete coverage, or detection of every issue.
The Civil Checker targets the class of issues that generate the most plan check comments on residential submittals: datum conflicts between NAD83 and NAVD88 within the same set, utility separation violations where water mains sit too close to sewer, gravity flow direction errors where pipe inverts do not drain, water main conflicts with storm infrastructure, and missing erosion control and SWPPP details. Each finding references the specific sheet and detail where the issue appears. These are not edge-case errors. They are the repeating failure modes that appear across residential civil sets at production volume.
The Building Codes Checker flags wrong code editions, missing local amendments, and cross-sheet code inconsistencies before the city does. Code-year drift is particularly common when engineers carry notes forward from previous projects or from sets drawn for different jurisdictions. A single wrong code edition reference can trigger a correction letter on an otherwise clean set. The checker surfaces those errors before submission, when fixing them costs an hour, not a resubmission cycle.
The Constructability Checker catches the coordination gaps between consultant disciplines that no single consultant is positioned to catch. Civil vs. architectural conflicts, grading plan inconsistencies with building footprint changes, cross-discipline sheet conflicts where one engineer's set contradicts another's are the issues that fall through the space between disciplines. On production homebuilder projects, these conflicts are especially common because civil, structural, and MEP are drawn by different firms working on overlapping schedules with limited coordination time.
Use a repeatable review workflow across subdivisions and consultant teams. Confirm the files, review settings, and applicable codes for each project. There are no per-seat fees, and findings export to Excel for your team to track and assess.
Give your team time to investigate coordination and code findings before submission. Review the evidence, address confirmed issues, and keep the building department's requirements and professional review in your workflow.
Upload your production homebuilders drawings. Eligible work emails get a first $100 covered ($100 credit). Results in hours.
“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.”
InspectMind has found 187,000+ potential issues across 600+ companies. On one production homebuilder project, a single review returned 507 issues before the set reached the building department.
On a residential project reviewed before permit submission, InspectMind returned 36 issues across electrical, architectural, plumbing, structural, and mechanical disciplines. These findings gave the project team specific items to investigate. The issue count does not establish how many permit comments or weeks of delay were avoided.
Read the case studyOn a residential project in Sonoma County, California, InspectMind identified 47 structural issues before the drawings reached the building department. These findings provided review items for the project team. They do not establish that every permit concern was resolved or that the project would receive approval.
Read the case studyOn one production homebuilder project, a single InspectMind review returned 507 issues across the civil, structural, and MEP sets before submission. Results vary with the documents and selected scope. Your team should verify findings against the sources before acting. Paid checks carry the 5+ meaningful issues or full refund guarantee.
Read the case studyEach review runs on the same engine and returns findings cited to the sheet and code section.
Civil Engineering Review
Code Reference Verification
Cross-Discipline Coordination
Drawing sets are sensitive. We treat them that way, with clear commitments on training, retention, and access.
We don’t train public AI or third-party models on your documents, and you can opt out of our own model improvement anytime.
Request deletion of any project, any time. NDAs are available for sensitive work.
Files live in secure cloud infrastructure with customer segregation.
Straight answers before your first check.
