If your municipality is looking into AI plan review solutions, you’ve probably heard a lot of claims about what these tools can do and how quickly they can improve permitting timelines. While some of those claims hold up, others do not.
Here are some common misconceptions we hear about AI plan review and AI plan check tools, along with what you should know before investing in this type of software.
Automated code compliance tools answer one question: whether a design meets code requirements. AI plan review answers a broader question about whether a set of plans is complete, reviewable, and ready to support a permitting decision.
The difference matters because code compliance is only part of what reviewers verify. Plans also need to show required information clearly, include documented calculations, and ensure details are sufficient to serve as a legal record. Even a technically compliant design can’t be permitted if key information is missing or isn’t legible.
AI plan review software addresses the full review process. Automated code compliance may be one piece, but completeness, clarity, and demonstrated compliance are just as important.
This is a pattern we see frequently. A city sees a demo with a sleek, ChatGPT-style interface. It looks cutting-edge. It feels like “real AI,” and decision-makers assume that means it will solve their permitting backlog.
Then six months later, they’re disappointed because their review times haven’t improved. The issue is that many people confuse aesthetics with functionality.
Some of the most effective AI tools aren’t flashy. They’re very effective at pulling relevant code sections, doing the math correctly, and organizing information so reviewers can make informed decisions more quickly. Other platforms may look impressive in demos, but don’t always have the functionality to support real-world review processes.
How the AI supports staff day-to-day matters more than how it looks. It’s important not to be swayed by the interface and to ask for proof that it delivers results for your specific use case.
If a vendor claims their AI will “replace” plan reviewers, that should raise concerns.
Ethical AI plan review software doesn’t replace expertise; it augments it. The best AI platforms are co-pilots, not autopilots. They handle repetitive, time-consuming tasks such as finding codes, performing calculations, and pulling information from plans, so reviewers can focus on synthesizing information, understanding context, and making judgment calls.
Here’s why full automation doesn’t work in plan review:
AI accuracy compounds over time. If an AI platform is 70% accurate at step one and 70% accurate at the next, by the time you get to step three, you’re down to less than 50% accuracy overall. That new workflow suddenly becomes more of a liability than a process improvement.
Effective AI plan review software knows its limits. It flags issues it can’t resolve, asks for verification before moving on, and highlights information reviewers might not have considered. But the final decision stays with staff, where it belongs.
Some vendors take software designed for plan reviewers, add an applicant login page, and call it “applicant-facing.” Others build something for applicants and market it as plan review software.
The problem is that reviewers and applicants have fundamentally different needs.
Reviewers need to validate compliance. Applicants need to understand requirements and submit complete applications. Those are different workflows, interfaces, and questions to answer.
Solutions that were purpose-built for one audience and then retrofitted for the other often feel clunky. Reviewers see features they don’t need, while applicants may get overwhelmed by information that’s irrelevant to them.
One way to see this difference in action is how platforms handle applicants and reviewers from the start. For example, CivCheck routes applicants through a guided portal where AI pre-checks submissions for completeness and common issues before they reach staff. Reviewers then receive organized applications with supporting calculations, notes, and code references ready for verification. The user experiences are connected, but are intentionally designed around very different needs.
If a platform claims to serve both sides of the counter, ask whether it was designed for each use case from the ground up or adapted after the fact. The difference will show up in how intuitive the platform is to use.
AI plan review software makes sense when reviewers are overwhelmed with volume, when incomplete submissions consume staff time, or when experienced reviewers are hard to hire or retain.
But if the issue is unclear intake instructions, inconsistent processes, or payment confusion, AI won’t fix that on its own. In those cases, improving how jurisdictions communicate requirements and steps often makes a bigger difference than layering on automation. Pre-application permitting tools like Clariti Guide give applicants clear, project-specific instructions before they submit, reducing incomplete applications and the calls, emails, and back-and-forth that bog down intake staff.
AI is a powerful tool when applied to the right problems. The best vendors are honest about when AI plan review software is the right solution or when something else is needed.
→ Learn more about choosing the right AI technology for your department's needs