AI plan review software can reduce permit backlogs and speed up review time. But it’s not the right solution for every permitting challenge.
When departments say they need to improve permitting times, the solution to actually speeding up approvals will vary depending on the root cause of those delays. Sometimes it’s a capacity issue, where staff can’t keep up with high volume. Other times, it’s application quality, with resubmission cycles and clarification loops consuming too much of reviewers’ time. In other cases, delays result from process issues that technology alone won’t fix.
Being clear about the problem your jurisdiction faces makes it easier to determine whether AI plan review will help or if you need to address another factor causing delays first.
Here are five questions to help you decide whether your department is ready for AI plan review.
AI plan review software works best when the challenge is volume or application quality.
If reviewers are overwhelmed by the number of applications, AI can increase throughput by compiling relevant information, automating routine checks, and cutting back on the manual work that slows down reviews.
But if delays stem from unclear policies that confuse applicants, missing steps in your internal process, or coordination issues between departments, technology won’t resolve those issues on its own. In some cases, introducing AI might highlight those process weaknesses more clearly.
One way to pressure-test this is to look at where delays happen. Are applications getting stuck at intake because required information is missing? Are reviewers spending hours locating details across plan sets? Those are areas where AI can make an impact.
If delays occur during routing or payment collection, or if applicants don’t understand what’s required of them, these are process issues that should be addressed before or alongside implementing new technology.
For AI plan review to be operational quickly, departments need to accept and work primarily with digital files. This typically means you have an online portal (or at minimum, an email intake) where applicants can submit PDFs, and most of your applications are already submitted online rather than in person.
Reviewers don’t need to change how they review plans overnight. Many teams still mark up drawings by hand as part of their process. But if your jurisdiction is still relying on paper submissions, setting up digital intake is the first step.
The good news is that this doesn’t require overhauling your entire permitting system. You need a reliable way for applicants to submit digital files so the AI has something to process. Most jurisdictions are already close to this point or can get there without major system changes. It’s usually a matter of setting up the submission side, not the review side.
It’s also worth noting that not all AI plan review platforms work with the same file types. CivCheck is natively built to work with PDFs, hand-drawn plans, and all kinds of permit documents, so every applicant can use it, not just architects and professionals with BIM software. Some other tools require specialized modeling files that exclude homeowners and small contractors.
One of the clearest signs that AI plan review may be a worthy investment is sustained volume that staff can’t keep up with, even when working overtime.
This often shows up as review timelines that continue to stretch, difficulty hiring or retaining qualified reviewers, or staff spending most of their time on handling incomplete submissions rather than on substantive review.
The City and County of Honolulu faced this exact challenge, with high permit volumes overwhelming their team. After implementing CivCheck, their total review time dropped by as much as 90%. Residential plan reviews that previously took 90 minutes were completed in as little as 15.
In those situations, AI can improve capacity without additional headcount, which is helpful when experienced reviewers are hard to find or when hiring budgets are tight.
Ideally, you have documented checklists or standards that reflect how reviews are performed, and staff follow them consistently. When that foundation is in place, implementation is more straightforward because vendors can map their platform to your existing process.
If your documentation is outdated, inconsistent among reviewers, or doesn’t match how reviewers do their jobs, some permit prep groundwork is required first.
Experienced vendors will bring up these gaps during implementation. They’ll ask questions that highlight where documentation and practice diverge, and they'll work with you to get them on the same page. That effort improves your review process even if you decide to delay or defer your adoption of AI.
Before investing in any technology, it’s important to understand the source of your delays.
AI plan review can help with:
AI is unlikely to help with:
If you’re not sure where delays are happening within your process, track a small sample of recent permits. Where did they spend the most time: intake, review, application corrections, or final approval? That analysis will point to whether AI is likely to address your bottleneck or whether process changes should come first.
AI plan review can be the right decision for the right department at the right time. But readiness looks different across jurisdictions, and adopting AI before your underlying process is ready can create more problems than it solves.
Taking time to ask these questions helps separate true capacity constraints from process issues that technology can’t solve on its own. Whether you move forward next month or next year, you’ll have a clearer understanding of where AI can improve outcomes and where other changes need to come first.