Plan Check Corrections: Common Issues and How to Avoid Them

Why corrections happen

Every experienced engineer has a stack of plan check correction letters they're not proud of. The correction process is normal — plan checkers are doing their job, and even well-prepared submittals sometimes get comments. But there's a significant difference between projects that clear first-round review and projects that go three or four rounds.

Multiple correction rounds add weeks to months to your schedule. They cost money in engineering time to respond. And they frustrate everyone involved — the owner, the contractor, the architect, and frankly the plan checker too.

Here are the corrections we see most frequently across Southern California jurisdictions — on both geotechnical reports and civil plans — and how to avoid them.

Geotechnical report corrections (top 5)

1. Missing or incomplete expansion index. California Building Code (CBC) requires an expansion index test (ASTM D4829) for all soils within 10 feet of finish grade. Plan checkers flag missing expansion index constantly — it's one of the most common corrections across every Southern California jurisdiction. Fix: make sure the report includes expansion index test results for the near-surface soils, with foundation recommendations appropriate to the expansion potential.

2. Boring depth insufficient for the proposed structure. For a two-story structure with significant loads, borings to 20 feet may not be adequate. For a hillside site, borings must reach below the potential failure plane. Plan checkers look at the boring logs and compare them to the project scope. Fix: size boring depths to the project — not to the minimum you think you can get away with.

3. Slope stability analysis not provided or not site-specific. For any project with slopes steeper than 25–33% (varies by jurisdiction), a slope stability analysis is required. Some engineers provide generic stability language without site-specific modeling. Plan checkers in San Diego, LA, and most other California jurisdictions now routinely require documented limit equilibrium analysis, not just qualitative discussion. Fix: if there's a slope, run the numbers.

4. Foundation recommendations don't match the structure. A soils report recommending "conventional footings" when the structure is a three-story with a podium basement is going to get flagged. The foundation recommendations must explicitly address the proposed structure type, story count, and loads. If the structural engineer changes the foundation type after the soils report is issued, get the geotech to issue a supplemental letter addressing the change.

5. Report not stamped or signed by a licensed GE/PE. This sounds basic, but it happens — a report gets submitted before the engineer signs it, or the stamp is a scanned image at low resolution that the plan checker can't read. Fix: submit clean, fully executed documents with legible stamps and signatures.

Civil plan corrections (top 5)

1. Drainage not designed — just shown. There's a difference between showing arrows on a plan that say "drain to street" and actually designing a drainage system. Plan checkers look for: catch basin sizes, pipe diameters and slopes, hydraulic grade line calculations for complex systems, and compliance with the local drainage design standard (usually the city's drainage design manual). Fix: if your drainage involves anything more than sheet flow to a gutter, show the calculations.

2. LID/WQMP not coordinated with the civil plans. A stormwater compliance document (LID report or WQMP) gets submitted, but the BMPs shown in it don't match what's on the grading or site plan. The sizes don't match, the locations don't match, or the drainage management areas don't reflect the actual site layout. Fix: finalize the civil site plan before finalizing the LID/WQMP — and then check both documents against each other before submitting.

3. ADA non-compliance on site improvements. Driveway slopes too steep (over 20% on residential, 15% on commercial approaches), walkways without landing areas, curb ramps missing detectable warning surfaces. Plan checkers are increasingly rigorous about ADA compliance on all site elements, not just building access. Fix: have someone specifically check ADA requirements on all pedestrian paths during the design phase, not as an afterthought.

4. Missing or incorrect earthwork quantities. Grading plans must show cut and fill quantities. If the quantities don't balance (accounting for shrinkage factor on fills), or if the plan doesn't address import/export, plan checkers flag it. In some jurisdictions, significant import or export of soil requires additional permits or hauling route approval. Fix: run an earthwork calculation and show it on the plan.

5. Utility conflicts not addressed. New drainage, grading, or retaining walls conflict with existing utilities shown on the plan — but there's no note about how the conflict will be resolved. Plan checkers flag this because they know utility conflicts discovered during construction cause expensive delays and change orders. Fix: research existing utilities thoroughly (DigAlert, utility atlas, as-builts), show all conflicts, and note the resolution.

Working on a project in Southern California? We can handle the engineering.

How to respond to corrections effectively

When corrections come in, read every comment carefully before you respond to any of them. Some corrections reference each other — fixing item 3 may also resolve item 7. Responding piecemeal without reading the full list leads to incomplete responses and additional rounds.

Respond to every correction, even if you disagree. Write a clear response note for each item explaining what was changed, or providing the technical basis for why the plan complies as submitted. Plan checkers don't like finding corrections that were supposedly "resolved" but weren't addressed.

Organize your response clearly — some jurisdictions have specific response letter formats; others just want a line-by-line PDF. When in doubt, create a response matrix: correction number, correction text, your response, and the revised sheet or document where the fix appears.

Turnaround time matters. Plan checkers often work on multiple projects and revisit submittals in the order they receive them. A fast, complete, well-organized response gets you back in the queue sooner. A slow or incomplete response means waiting through another cycle.

When to push back vs. just fix it

Not every plan check correction is technically correct. Plan checkers are human, code interpretation varies, and sometimes a correction reflects a misunderstanding of the project rather than a genuine deficiency.

Pushback is appropriate when: the correction cites a code section that doesn't apply to your project type, the plan checker is requiring something beyond the code minimum without documented justification (sometimes called a "policy" requirement), or the correction is based on incomplete review of the submitted documents.

If you push back, be specific and professional. Cite the applicable code section. Reference the page and section of your report or plan where the issue is addressed. Offer to meet with the plan checker to discuss it — most are open to conversation and a 15-minute call can resolve a correction that would otherwise require two more rounds of submittals.

Don't push back on corrections just because you don't want to do the work. If a plan checker asks for a slope stability analysis and your site has a 35% slope, they're right. Fighting it wastes time and erodes your credibility for corrections that actually deserve a response.

The best way to avoid corrections: pre-application meetings

For complex projects — hillside development, large commercial, unusual site conditions — a pre-application meeting with the plan checker before you submit is worth every minute it takes to schedule.

Most jurisdictions offer pre-application consultations for a modest fee. You bring preliminary plans and the plan checker tells you upfront what they'll be looking for, what local policies apply, and whether there are any specific requirements for your project type or location. This information is gold.

A 30-minute pre-application meeting that reveals three items the plan checker cares about saves you from a correction letter with 15 items, a 6-week resubmittal delay, and the engineering time to respond to all of them. For a project that might cost $500,000 to build, spending $300 and two hours on a pre-app meeting is not something you should skip.

Related Service

Grading Plans

We handle this for projects across Southern California.