Why Automated Code Compliance Tools Don’t Reduce Permitting Times

If you’re trying to accelerate your permit approval times, you’ve probably heard of automated code compliance tools as a potential solution.

But despite being marketed as “AI for permitting,” these tools aren’t capable of shortening permitting times on their own.

And not because the technology doesn’t work or isn’t useful. It does. And it is.

But because the real drivers of permitting delays aren't usually design violations. They're incomplete submittals, missing documents, absent calculations, or local requirements that weren't met. 

What automated code compliance tools are useful for

This isn’t to say that automated code compliance tools aren’t useful. They’re just not effective if your goal is to reduce permit review times, because they’re not actually permitting tools. They’re design aids.

What automated code compliance tools are useful for is helping architects and permit applicants:

• Catch obvious code conflicts early by checking layouts for items like exit counts and spacing, travel distances, corridor and stair widths, and occupancy-based area limits. 
• Identify basic compliance mistakes to fix before submission, such as insufficient exits or undersized corridors.

So if your goal is faster permits, these solutions can help, but only when paired with tools and processes that actually address what slows reviews down.

Why automated code compliance tools aren’t useful for reducing delays

Compliant design doesn’t mean permit-ready

Imagine you’re reviewing this submission as a building official. Would you issue a permit?


Probably not. Because there are no supporting documents, dimensions, calculations, callouts, or annotations. So even if the design appears to meet code, there’s no way to verify that from the submission itself.

And permits aren’t approved based on what the designer knows or whether or not a design appears code compliant. They’re approved based on permit documents that clearly demonstrate compliance in the way reviewers expect.  

Different jurisdictions often require different proof for the same codes

Even when two jurisdictions adopt the same building code, they often expect compliance to be demonstrated in very different ways.

In one city, a signed affidavit might be enough to confirm a drainage requirement. In another, that same code section may require detailed calculations, diagrams, and an engineer’s stamp.

Much of permitting complexity comes from documentation requirements, not the underlying code. And automated code compliance engines are simply not designed to interpret or meet these jurisdiction-specific expectations.

So you end up with the same amount of comments, corrections, and resubmittals whether these tools are used or not. 

In permitting, automated compliance tools can create more work

Rather than seeing a reduction in staff workload after implementing automated code compliance into their permitting workflows, cities like Singapore and Mumbai instead saw the work shift to someone else, because these tools have limitations.

They require highly structured, standardized BIM models (when real architectural files vary widely and rarely meet those formats), and reviewers still need documentation to be presented according to local conventions.

So over time, this led to consultants being hired solely to rework models so automated systems could interpret them.

The work didn’t go away. It just moved to a new step.

These tools don’t address the real cause of delays

Most permit delays don’t happen because a design breaks the code. They happen because of issues like:

• Missing permit documents
• Incomplete or inconsistent sheets
• Compliance not being clearly shown
• Missing calculations or narratives
• Overlooked administrative requirements
• Multiple resubmittals

And none of these issues are visible to automated code compliance engines.

What tools actually reduce permitting times

Permitting moves faster when applicants submit complete, well-documented, locally compliant plans on the first attempt.

That means:

• All required sheets included
• Clear dimensions, notes, and callouts
• Calculations provided where needed
• Local amendments followed
• Jurisdiction-specific forms and narratives included
• Nothing missing that triggers a correction cycle

Tools that help applicants improve their permit documents, not just their design model, are the ones that meaningfully reduce review times.

AI permit preparation tools like CivCheck focus on exactly this: improving the quality and completeness of submittals so projects pass in fewer rounds. By scanning draft submissions for everything a plan reviewer evaluates, these tools lead to higher-quality plans, fewer resubmittals, less intake back-and-forth, and ultimately fewer applications to process.