From Hours to Minutes: How AI Plan Review Cuts Timelines by 90% and Catches 10x More Errors
Our AI-powered solution analyzed residential plan sets in just 10 minutes each, achieving a 97% catch rate and identifying 8x more code compliance issues than traditional reviews.
Building plan reviews are a critical but often slow and error-prone step in any construction project. A single missed detail can lead to costly rework, project delays, and significant safety risks. But what if we could radically improve the speed and accuracy of this process?
Our team at PlanCheckSolver (PCS) conducted a rigorous head-to-head comparison to quantify the impact of our AI-powered solution against traditional, manual plan reviews. The results weren't just incremental—they were transformative.
The Study: AI vs. Traditional Plan Review
To create a real-world test, we took 10 complete residential plan sets that had already been reviewed by a city. Our AI was tasked with analyzing these plans against code-compliance items spanning architectural, structural, MEP, and energy codes (2022 CRC, CEC, CMC, CPC). The benchmark was clear: a typical municipal review process, which often takes 8–10 hours for a plan set of this complexity.
Our testing process was designed for accuracy and transparency:
Automated Analysis
Each of the 10 plan sets was uploaded to PCS, which performed a comprehensive, rule-by-rule review.
Human-in-the-Loop Verification
A seasoned plan reviewer then verified every issue flagged by the AI to confirm its findings and validate the results.
Baseline Comparison
Finally, we compared the AI's findings against the original city-provided comments for the exact same plans.
The Results: A New Benchmark for Speed and Accuracy
The data revealed a dramatic gap in performance between AI-assisted and traditional review methods. While a manual review took a full day, PCS completed its initial pass in under 10 minutes. More importantly, it uncovered hundreds of errors that had been missed.
| Metric | PCS | Traditional City Review |
|---|---|---|
| Total Errors Detected | 814 | 93 |
| Errors Missed | 24 | 745 |
| Overall Catch Rate | 97.14% | 11.1% |
| Typical Review Time | 10 minutes | 8 – 10 hours |
| Estimated Cost per Plan | ≈ $150 | $800 – $1,200 |
Why Traditional Reviews Fall Short
The reality is that municipal plan checkers are under immense pressure. Overworked and under-resourced, they are often allotted just a few hours to review hundreds of pages of complex drawings. This combination of limited time and varying levels of reviewer experience inevitably leaves dangerous gaps.
PCS eliminates these variables by performing a perfect, drawing-by-drawing analysis every single time. It systematically checks every rule, flagging everything from missing brace walls to incorrect fire-rated assembly specifications in minutes.
Here are just a few examples of the critical compliance issues PCS identified that were missed during the initial city review:
Building Safety Compliance
Plans failed to include required stair details such as riser height, tread depth, and clear width above the handrail. Without these dimensions, stair safety compliance could not be verified per § R311.7.
Life Safety Compliance
Plans fail to identify emergency egress windows, with the 'Egress' column in the schedule left blank. No egress callouts appear in elevations, floor plan, or notes, and critical dimensions for clear openings and sill heights are missing—all required per R310.
Energy Compliance
The plans and building sections neither illustrate nor label the required insulation assemblies or their R-values. The building section omits all envelope insulation details needed to match the CF-1R energy compliance forms.
Structural Compliance
Plans fail to identify braced wall lines, panel lengths, or bracing methods required for lateral force resistance. Without these elements, code-required verification of structural stability cannot be completed. This identification is required per R602.10.
Plumbing Compliance
Plans show a gas fireplace option but fail to include a gas piping sizing diagram. All pipe sizes, lengths, and appliance loads must be specified and approved prior to permit issuance.
Electrical Compliance
Plans show GFCI outlets near each basin but fail to confirm dedicated 20-amp branch circuits per bathroom. A simple “20 AMP” label on the plan would suffice, but without any note, location, or circuit mark, this does not comply with CEC 210.11(C)(3).
Mechanical Compliance
Plans show a dryer installed in a closet but omit the required 100 in² make-up-air opening in the door or an approved alternative. Without a louver designation or note calling out this opening, the dryer closet does not comply with CMC 504.4.1.
The Future of Plan Review: Human + AI
Our findings prove that the most effective model combines the raw power of AI with the nuanced judgment of human experts. PCS handles the exhaustive, repetitive work of code checking, freeing up domain experts to focus on complex, high-level issues. This collaborative approach pushes the overall accuracy rate above 99%, setting a new standard for building safety and compliance.
For builders and jurisdictions, this means:
Shrink review cycles from weeks to hours.
Reduce errors, minimize change orders, and save thousands on every project.
Catch critical safety issues long before construction begins.
Experience the PCS Difference
Ready to transform your plan review process? Schedule a demo to see PCS in action and discover how AI-assisted checking can make your next project faster, simpler, and dramatically more accurate.
Schedule a Demo