Establish which accessibility requirements apply, then trace required routes from arrival points through entrances, level changes, rooms, and usable elements. Compare plans, details, schedules, and finished dimensions. Record the governing provision and reviewer decision for each question rather than relying on a general “ADA compliant” note.
Distinguish ADA obligations from adopted building codes
The DOJ’s 2010 ADA Standards address covered state and local government facilities under Title II and public accommodations and commercial facilities under Title III. The applicable obligations depend on the facility and work, including whether the question concerns new construction, alterations, or existing facilities.
State and local building-code accessibility requirements have their own adoption and enforcement context. Other federal requirements, including the Fair Housing Act or Architectural Barriers Act, may apply to particular projects. Use the Access Board’s guide to using the ADA Standards to understand these relationships. Do not assume one checklist or a building permit resolves every applicable obligation.
Record the project use, ownership, funding context where relevant, scope of work, applicable standards, and the person responsible for the applicability decision. An ADA plan review checklist should make that basis explicit. This guide covers building drawings; digital accessibility testing requires a different workflow.
Twelve accessibility evidence checks
Assemble the site and floor plans, enlarged rooms, elevations, door and fixture schedules, finish information, and the project accessibility analysis. Use a row for each route segment or distinct condition. The CSV includes fields for the exact criteria and edition, observed evidence, decision owner, and closure.
| Review area | Sources to compare | Question to resolve |
|---|---|---|
| Applicable requirements | Project use, ownership, work scope, accessibility analysis | Which federal obligations and adopted building-code provisions apply, and who records that determination? |
| Arrival points | Site plan, parking/loading, sidewalk connections | Are the relevant arrival points and entrances connected in the documented route strategy? |
| Continuous route | Site/floor plans, enlarged plans, levels | Can the route be followed across sheet boundaries to each required destination without an unexplained break? |
| Level transitions | Spot elevations, ramp/threshold details, floor finishes | Are slope, rise, landings, and finished surfaces documented on a consistent basis for review? |
| Door approach | Approach direction, swing, hardware, adjacent walls | Does the drawing show the actual approach and maneuvering condition at each opening being assessed? |
| Room use | Room layout, furniture/equipment, required clear spaces | Are clear spaces and circulation assessed against the furnished condition the project intends? |
| Toilet/bathing layout | Enlarged plan, elevations, fixture and accessory data | Do fixture positions, accessories, door movement, and clear-space dimensions describe the same arrangement? |
| Reach and operation | Device locations, counter sections, operating information | Are approach, obstructions, and the relevant operable part identified for the applicable reach/operation criteria? |
| Vertical access | Floor-use analysis, elevator/lift plans, route strategy | Is access between levels addressed, with any proposed exception linked to its governing rule and reviewer decision? |
| Signs and communication | Sign schedule, room identities, alarm/communication documents | Are required visual, tactile, and communication features assigned and consistently located in the relevant scope? |
| Alteration boundary | Existing-condition record, proposed work, applicability decision | Is work outside the renovated room addressed where required, with limitations and decisions recorded? |
| Backcheck and field evidence | Revised drawings, accepted response, field-verification list | Is the drawing question resolved, and are dimensions or operating conditions requiring field verification still tracked? |
These prompts do not prescribe universal dimensions or exemptions. The responsible reviewer must establish the applicable scoping and technical provisions for the actual condition.
Follow the route to the usable element
Start at each relevant arrival point and follow the documented route to its entrance. Continue to the destinations identified in the project’s accessibility analysis. At every sheet boundary, verify that the route resumes at the same location and level. The Access Board’s accessible-route guide explains site, building, and vertical-route relationships, including context-specific exceptions.
Next examine the interfaces: an access aisle into a walkway, a walkway into an entrance, a door into a room, and a room into the clear space serving an element. A drawn route line cannot establish all of these conditions. Open the relevant levels, sections, door approaches, and fixture or counter details.
Use finished dimensions and the intended furnished arrangement. Wall faces, counter edges, door movement, and accessory positions can affect the space being assessed. Identify missing dimensions as missing evidence; avoid asserting precise clearance from a scaled screenshot. Track operating forces and field conditions that cannot be established from the drawings alone.
Worked example: a counter changes the door approach
Hypothetical example. An enlarged room plan shows a door approach without nearby furniture. The current interior elevation and casework plan add a fixed counter beside that opening. The drawing package does not dimension the remaining approach area or explain which casework arrangement is intended.
The enlarged plan shows an open approach at this door, while the casework plan adds a fixed counter beside it. Please confirm the intended counter and door arrangement, show the relevant finished dimensions, and review the approach against the applicable accessibility provisions.
The architect and accessibility reviewer assess the condition, including approach direction, door operation, hardware, and any applicable exceptions. Backcheck the room plan, casework, door schedule, and detail references together. A general accessibility note does not resolve two drawings that still show different arrangements.
Document exceptions and alteration decisions
If a reviewer relies on an exception, record the governing provision and the facts that make it applicable. Keep the decision tied to a specific location and scope. A conclusion about one level, room, or existing element should not silently become an exception for the whole project.
For an alteration, define the area of work and identify any related route or facility obligations that need assessment. Long Beach’s nonresidential accessibility form illustrates a local correction process, but the linked form is revised January 2023 and references 2022 California codes. It is not a current nationwide ADA checklist. Confirm the applicable project edition and local requirements.
Close the drawing question with revised evidence, and retain a separate list of installation or field checks. Use the door schedule guide for opening descriptions and the architectural guide for broader plan-to-detail connections.
Use Groundbook to organize source-based questions
Groundbook can compare supplied drawings, schedules, specifications, and uploaded accessibility references to return potential findings linked to their sources. The reviewer confirms applicability, measurements, and the final decision. The output does not certify ADA compliance or replace a professional accessibility assessment.
Explore reference-based code review or start a review with your project documents.