Waterfront hotel
Door schedule and separation requirements disagree
Sleeping-unit entry doors opening into an interior lobby were marked unrated, while the surrounding separation called for protected openings.
See sources and verification stepsLayouts · Schedules · Consultant drawings
AI floor plan review
Check the layout against the rest of the set. Groundbook reviews floor plans alongside schedules, details, specifications, and consultant drawings to flag potential conflicts with evidence your team can verify.
Inside Groundbook
From floor plans to findings
Bring the matching documents
Upload the current floor plans and the schedules, details, structural and MEP drawings they depend on. Add project checklists and code-reference PDFs when they are part of the scope. Identify which issue is current.
Explain what needs checking
Name the floors, unit types, interfaces, and requirements that matter for this review. Identify incomplete areas and distinguish documents being checked from supporting references. Clear instructions help your team assess the returned findings.
Review what Groundbook found
Scan potential issues by severity and discipline. Open each finding beside its highlighted drawing and linked sources, confirm the context, and have the responsible designer resolve the question across the affected documents.
A real review, with sources
See the finding beside the layout
This hotel review connected the entry-door locations on the floor plan with the door schedule and referenced separation requirements. Open the image to inspect the evidence view.
A floor plan review checklist
Follow the layout into its supporting documents
Use these prompts to define the review scope. The available drawings and reference information determine which questions can be assessed; findings need complete source context and professional verification.
| Check | Documents and relationships | What the reviewer verifies |
|---|---|---|
| Dimensions and levels | Compare stated room dimensions, floor elevations, and reference datums across plans, sections, and details. | Confirm units, dimension endpoints, and finish-versus-structure conventions before treating different numbers as a conflict. |
| Doors and room schedules | Follow door and room tags from the layout to the schedules, wall information, and specifications. | Resolve inconsistent identities, opening sizes, ratings, or related requirements with the responsible designer. |
| Openings and penetrations | Compare equipment and service locations with the corresponding slab, wall, and structural opening information. | Look for a separate opening schedule, referenced detail, or deferred package before concluding that an opening is missing. |
| Clearance and access requirements | Bring documented access zones, door information, equipment clearances, accessibility criteria, and egress references into the review. | Verify the actual geometry and applicable requirements. A missing dimension or ambiguous symbol needs clarification, not an assumed measurement. |
| Architectural and MEP coordination | Match rooms, equipment tags, shafts, fixtures, and service connections across the drawings that describe the same area. | Check that the location and intended requirements agree, then review dependent schedules, sections, and details. |
| Layout revisions and references | Check whether a changed room, opening, or equipment location is reflected in dependent callouts and the current document issue. | Confirm the governing revision and trace unresolved references before issuing the next package. |
From published project reviews
Three questions a layout can hide
These anonymized findings show how a plan can disagree with another source. They are potential issues from Groundbook reviews; final design decisions and completed corrections are not claimed.
Mixed-use residential
Structural and mechanical floor elevations differ
Structural and mechanical plans showed different elevations for the same floor area, creating a cross-discipline coordination question.
See sources and verification stepsMixed-use residential
A required opening appears in only one discipline
A sump shown in the mechanical/plumbing design was not represented in the corresponding structural slab and footing area.
See sources and verification stepsChoose a useful starting point
Review a layout your team can verify
Start with a current floor or unit plan whose supporting documents are available. Identify the review milestone, known gaps, and responsible reviewers. A sketch may support an early discussion; a documented plan set gives the team more relationships to check.
After reviewing the findings, record the decision and affected drawings. Resolve the same question in the plan, schedule, section, and consultant sheet where needed, then verify the next issue.
See how architecture teams use Groundbook throughout coordination and design review.
Questions, answered
FAQs
What is AI floor plan review?
AI floor plan review examines a drawn layout together with its supporting documents to identify potential conflicts, omissions, and inconsistent requirements. Groundbook connects findings to the relevant drawings and references so the project team can verify them and decide what needs correction.
Can an AI floor plan checker work from a PDF?
Groundbook reviews project PDFs, including drawings exported from CAD or BIM tools. Include readable notes, dimensions, and schedules, plus the consultant sheets and references needed to understand the layout. The review does not require a live CAD or BIM model.
Can I submit a single floor plan?
You can define a review around the documents available, but a single plan limits what can be checked. Door requirements may live in a schedule, floor levels in a section, and openings in a structural sheet. Include those sources for a useful cross-document review and identify anything still missing.
Can Groundbook check an AI-generated layout?
A readable PDF can be included in the review regardless of how it was created. The useful checks depend on the dimensions, annotations, and supporting documents available. A concept image without reliable scale or requirements provides limited evidence; the project team should develop and verify that information before relying on technical findings.
Does layout checking include accessibility and egress?
These topics can be included through the project drawings, checklists, and code-reference PDFs selected for review. Groundbook raises potential document questions for verification. The responsible professionals confirm geometry, code editions, local amendments, applicability, and final compliance decisions.
Does Groundbook design or approve the layout?
Groundbook reviews the documented design and returns potential findings with their sources. Creating layout alternatives, choosing room arrangements, confirming measurements, and approving the design remain with the project team and relevant authorities.
Keep exploring
Continue your review
Review the whole set
Connect drawings, specifications, and project requirements.
Construction document reviewCoordinate the interfaces
Follow openings, levels, and equipment across disciplines.
Cross-discipline reviewTrace the requirement
Bring project code references into a source-backed review.
Building code reviewGive your next layout a closer look
Bring the floor plans and the documents they depend on.