Most permit delays aren't caused by the obvious things. They're caused by technical problems buried in the submittal that nobody flagged during design, problems plan reviewers catch right away. Here's the list.
Every builder and developer has a story about a permit that took twice as long as it should have. The frustrating part isn't the wait. It's that the delay was usually caused by something a qualified engineer would have caught on the first pass. Plan reviewers aren't trying to fail submittals. They're working through a checklist, and when something doesn't check out, the package comes back.
The same problems come up again and again. They're easy to miss if you're not an engineer and obvious if you're a plan reviewer. This post covers the ones that cause the most delays, why they're easy to miss, and what it takes to get them right before you submit.
The Gotchas Nobody Warns You About
1. Soils Data That Doesn't Match the Foundation Design
A common and avoidable delay is a foundation design prepared without current, site-specific geotechnical data. Engineers use soil values from the geotechnical report to size footings and choose the foundation type. When those values are assumed, borrowed from a nearby project or pulled from an old report, the design isn't supported, and a careful plan reviewer will ask for the report behind the numbers.
Expansive clay soils in North Texas are especially unforgiving. Conditions can change from lot to lot depending on depth to rock, moisture and prior grading. A foundation designed for one lot's soil profile won't automatically work next door. The geotechnical report comes from a geotechnical engineering firm, and the foundation design should reference it directly.
The borrowed soils report. Using a geotechnical report from an adjacent lot or an earlier phase is a fast way to get a permit put on hold. Many reviewers check that the report matches the project address. If it doesn't, expect a comment, even if the soils really are similar.
2. Setback Violations Hidden in Scaled Drawings
Setback problems sneak up on people because the drawings look fine at a glance. The building fits on the lot. The dimensions are labeled. But when the reviewer checks against the current plat, the distances to property lines don't match. Maybe the drawing was scaled wrong, or the lot dimensions came from an old survey that missed a recorded easement or a boundary adjustment.
The fix is a current boundary survey from a licensed surveyor, with the building footprint checked against it before the site plan is finalized. Discrepancies between older plats and current conditions are common on infill lots that have been subdivided, replatted or had utilities relocated.
3. Impervious Cover Calculations That Miss Surfaces
Many jurisdictions cap how much of a lot can be covered by impervious surfaces: pavement, concrete, roofs and anything else that keeps stormwater from soaking in. What catches builders off guard is how much counts. Covered patios, pool decks, walkways, equipment pads and some pavers can all count, depending on the municipality.
A project right at the limit on paper can tip over once the reviewer adds surfaces the designer left out. In Florida, stormwater rules add another layer, since both the amount and the quality of runoff may need to be addressed in the civil documents.
The pool deck nobody calculates. In many jurisdictions a pool deck counts toward impervious cover unless the surface is documented as permeable under that jurisdiction's rules. Builders who add a pool after the site plan is approved often find themselves over the limit when the pool permit is reviewed. Run the numbers before the site plan goes in.
4. Energy Code Gaps in the Mechanical Design
Where the building envelope meets the mechanical system is where energy compliance most often breaks down, and where plan reviewers spend real time. Energy calculations are often produced by whoever draws the plans, without checking how insulation, window U-factors, air leakage and HVAC sizing interact.
A building can pass the envelope check and still have problems if the HVAC equipment is oversized, which is common when equipment is sized conservatively for comfort. Load calculations, when they exist, are often run without the actual window specs or the correct local design temperatures.
Energy code requirements differ by state, and sometimes by city:
- Texas. The state sets a minimum residential energy code, and many cities, including much of Dallas-Fort Worth, adopt a newer IECC edition with regional amendments. Expect air leakage and duct leakage testing, and check whether your jurisdiction allows or requires an ERI (HERS-based) compliance path. Confirm the adopted edition with the city before you design to it.
- Florida. Florida uses the Energy Conservation volume of the Florida Building Code. It's based on the IECC but has Florida-specific requirements and compliance paths. Performance compliance has to be shown with software the state has approved, such as EnergyGauge. Using the wrong method or software will draw plan review comments.
Testing like blower door and duct leakage tests, and any HERS rating, is done by a certified energy rater or testing agency. Line them up early so their results match what the plans say.
5. Structural Drawings That Reference the Wrong Code Edition
Codes are adopted at the state level and amended locally, and the edition in force can vary by municipality within the same state. A structural set that references IBC 2018 when the jurisdiction has adopted IBC 2021 will be flagged. So will drawings that use the wrong wind speed or seismic data for the site, or load combinations from an older edition of ASCE 7.
This sounds like paperwork, but it isn't. Wind and other load requirements can change between editions, and design that was fine under one edition may not meet the next. Plan reviewers verify the code edition, and a wrong reference triggers a correction cycle. In Florida, wind design gets extra scrutiny, especially in the High-Velocity Hurricane Zone.
6. Accessibility Requirements Missed on Commercial Projects
In Texas, accessibility is reviewed under the Texas Accessibility Standards (TAS), separate from the local building permit. Commercial projects that meet the state's thresholds must be registered with the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation, with plans reviewed and the site inspected by a Registered Accessibility Specialist, not the local building department.
Commonly missed items include accessible route continuity from the public way to the entrance, accessible parking dimensions and slopes, restroom fixture clearances and service counter heights. In Florida, the Florida Accessibility Code for Building Construction applies, and it differs from the federal ADA standards in specific ways that trip up out-of-state designers.
7. Drainage Plans That Don't Model the Design Storm
Drainage is where projects most often underinvest, and the consequences show up at plan review. Many jurisdictions require that new development not increase peak runoff to neighboring properties for specified design storms, often including the 100-year event. Showing that takes hydrologic and hydraulic calculations by a civil engineer, not just a grading plan with swales drawn on it.
The method matters as much as the result. Some jurisdictions require the Rational Method. Others require TR-55 or another approach. Using the wrong one, even if the numbers work, means the reviewer can't compare it to their standard, and you'll get a correction request.
Every item on this list is something the plan reviewer's checklist catches. A PE review should catch it first.
The Common Thread
Every issue here has the same root cause. The work was done by someone outside that discipline, coordinated by someone who wasn't tracking every requirement at once, or never reviewed by anyone with the technical background to catch it. When plan review is the first time a qualified set of eyes looks at the whole package, the delay is built in.
A PE review before submittal closes those gaps. Does the foundation design reference the right geotechnical report? Does the site plan match the current survey? Does the electrical match the mechanical schedules? Is the code edition the one the city actually adopted? Each discipline still comes from the right professional: your drafter, surveyor, geotechnical firm, civil engineer and energy rater. The review makes sure their work lines up.
How A1 Engineering Helps
A1 Engineering provides PE plan reviews with code-cited redlines before you submit. Nick Burton, PE, reviews and seals the electrical engineering directly. Structural items, including foundation design and HVHZ structural in Florida, are handled by a licensed structural engineer in our network, licensed in the project's state. A1 then supports the permit through to the Certificate of Occupancy.
For a shorter version of this list, see Why Your Project Stalls at Permitting.
If you have a submittal that's been flagged, or a project you want to get right before plan review, send your plans and comments to A1 Engineering for a PE review. For a tight timeline, call (214) 382-9584.