Neither unit has a smoke alarm on its first floor, where the living room and kitchen are.
The permit set for a two-story duplex leaves the unit separation, several structural load paths and parts of the building services undefined.
Two-family duplex permit set
An architectural, structural, mechanical, electrical and plumbing permit set for a two-story, two-family duplex: site plan, floor plans, elevations and sections, foundation and framing plans, and MEP plans.
What the review compared
The review read the architectural, structural, mechanical, electrical and plumbing permit set for a two-story duplex, tracing each separation, load and service from the notes to the plans. Code checking was enabled, so the walls, alarms, framing and drainage were read against the residential code and the local amendments the review cited.
Where the permit set falls short
The unit separation wall names no tested design, and the wider second floor brings unrated walls too close to the lot lines. Neither first floor has a smoke alarm. Joists overspan, stair walls carry beams without a footing, hold-downs are not located, and bracing panels sit where a stair window is scheduled. The drains have no vents, the return devices no ducts, and the kitchen hoods and dryers no exhaust duct.
What to verify next
The designer and the engineer of record should settle the separations, alarms and load paths, and the mechanical and plumbing designers should draw the vents, returns and exhausts before the permit submittal. Examples that cite a requirement follow the codes the review cited, and every example is a question for the responsible designers.
8 selected examples from the review
Eight distinct findings, summarized for professional verification.
Upper side walls are unrated
The wider second floor sits under five feet from both side lot lines, with unrated walls.
Why it matters: The code requires one-hour walls there.
What to check: Rate the walls from foundation to roof, or set them back.
Architectural · StructuralSeparation wall has no tested design
The unit separation wall cites no tested design number, and text is missing from its notes.
Why it matters: The wall cannot be priced, built or checked.
What to check: Name the tested design and complete the notes.
ArchitecturalNo smoke alarm on either first floor
All smoke alarms are on the second floor; the living areas below have none.
Why it matters: Required alarms and interconnect wiring are missing.
What to check: Add an interconnected alarm to each first floor.
ElectricalFloor joists exceed the span table
Second-floor joists over the kitchen and dining areas span farther than the code table allows.
Why it matters: The floor framing must be redesigned before permit.
What to check: Resize the joists, or add a beam or bearing wall.
StructuralBearing stair walls have no footing
Beams at the stair openings load the first-floor stair walls, which sit on an unthickened slab.
Why it matters: The foundation is not designed for these loads.
What to check: Add a grade beam or thickened slab below.
StructuralHold-downs are not located
The notes require hold-downs at shear wall and braced panel ends; no plan shows one.
Why it matters: Their anchors are cast with the slab, so they could be missed.
What to check: Mark each hold-down with its model and embedment.
StructuralDrainage plans show no vents
Drains reach every fixture, but no vent line, stack or roof termination appears on either floor.
Why it matters: The drainage system cannot be priced or checked.
What to check: Add vent sizes, routes and roof terminations.
Plumbing · ArchitecturalReturn air devices have no ducts
Return devices in both units have no ducts, and neither air handler shows a return connection.
Why it matters: The return system cannot be priced or built.
What to check: Draw return ducts, sizes and air handler connections.
MechanicalReview scope and priorities
The review organized the questions by severity, discipline, and source context so the responsible designers could investigate them.
Structural, Architectural, Mechanical, Plumbing, Electrical, and Civil
Check the findings with the responsible discipline designers.
High priorities
Selected examples retain their assigned priority.
Drawing coordination and code checking
Code checking was enabled alongside the review of plans, schedules, details, and notes.
Findings connected to their source context
Groundbook links each finding to the sheets it came from so the responsible designer can confirm or dismiss it.
Potential impacts describe the issue type. They are not verified outcomes from this project.
Follow the information across the complete set
Groundbook reads the documents you upload and reports where they disagree, where a reference does not resolve, and where a required value is absent.
See how a full set is reviewed or how interfaces are coordinated.
- 1Map the complete set
Identify sheets, disciplines, details, schedules, and notes.
- 2Connect repeated information
Follow tags, references, and requirements wherever they reappear.
- 3Check drawings and code references
Read the detected code references alongside the drawing evidence.
- 4Return findings for verification
Organize potential issues by severity, discipline, and supporting context.
Questions for professional verification
The output supports the responsible designers as they review the source documents and decide what needs to change.
What this result means
- Groundbook surfaced potential issues for professional review.
- Severity helps prioritize which questions to investigate.
- The findings describe coordination, completeness, and code-reference questions in the uploaded set.
- Each finding includes source context for verification.
What it does not mean
- Every potential finding is a confirmed error or violation.
- The project was unsafe, unbuildable, or ultimately noncompliant.
- Groundbook replaced the responsible professionals or authority.
- A correction was made, or any cost or delay was avoided.
About this review
Is this a real review?
Based on a Groundbook review completed in November 2026. Findings are summarized.
Are these findings confirmed defects?
No. Each one is a potential issue for the responsible designer to verify against the source documents. Groundbook reports what the documents say and where they disagree. It does not make design decisions, certify compliance, or replace the authority having jurisdiction.
How long did the review take?
Turnaround runs from 20 minutes to 24 hours depending on project size.
Which codes were checked?
Code checking was enabled for this review. Groundbook detects the codes a set references, reads the codes and amendments that governments publish online, and uses licensed codes only where a license allows it.
Can I see a full report?
Yes. The sample plan review report shows all 79 findings from one review of a drawing set and its specifications, with the cited excerpts.
Continue from the case study
Explore the source-linked examples in the sample plan review report, or browse every published case study.
Give the next drawing set a connected first pass
Upload the project, choose the checks that matter, and receive structured potential findings with source context.