Confirm the survey datum first, then trace water, each utility, and the accessible route from the site boundary to the building and back out. Record any disagreement with both source references. Document consistency is the goal here; hydraulic, geotechnical, and traffic engineering decisions stay with the responsible engineers.
Assemble a reviewable package
Start with the topographic survey, site plan, grading and drainage plans and profiles, utility plans, paving and details, and the erosion control plan. Include the geotechnical report, the architectural ground-floor plan with finished floor elevations, and the building MEP service entry points. The site is reviewed against the building, so a civil-only package can only answer half the questions.
Agree which areas and which design milestone are being reviewed, and record any document you expected and did not receive. A review can only compare what it is given, so a missing sheet is a finding in its own right. The drawing register template gives you somewhere to record the governing issue before you start.
Twelve document checks
Use one worksheet row per condition rather than per sheet. Where a condition repeats, note the locations you sampled and any exception you found. The CSV adds blank fields for the project location, source issue, reviewer, decision, revised sources, and closure evidence.
| Review area | Sources to compare | Question to resolve |
|---|---|---|
| Datum and control | Survey control notes, site plan, benchmarks | Do the site plan, grading plan, and building floor elevations refer to the same datum and benchmark? |
| Existing conditions | Topographic survey, demolition plan, utility record drawings | Which existing features are surveyed, which are from record drawings, and who verifies the difference? |
| Grading continuity | Grading plan, spot elevations, building finished floor | Do proposed contours and spot elevations meet the building thresholds and adjacent property without an unexplained step? |
| Drainage path | Grading plan, storm plan and profile, detention design | Can surface water be followed from each catchment to an identified outfall or storage element? |
| Utility crossings | Utility plan, profiles, separation notes | Is vertical and horizontal separation stated at each crossing, with the governing separation requirement cited? |
| Service entry | Site utility plan, building MEP entry points, invert data | Do the site service locations, sizes, and inverts match what the building drawings expect to receive? |
| Paving and section | Paving plan, pavement sections, geotechnical report | Does each paved area resolve to one section, and does that section cite the report recommendation it came from? |
| Accessible route | Site plan, grading, accessible route notes | Is a continuous route from the accessible parking and public way to the entrance described, with slopes stated rather than assumed? |
| Erosion control | Erosion plan, phasing notes, permit conditions | Do the described measures match the phasing shown, and is the governing permit condition identified? |
| Site structures | Site plan, structural details, retaining wall schedule | Is each wall, stair, and site structure traceable to a detail and a responsible designer? |
| Right of way interface | Site plan, agency standard details, offsite work | Which work lies in the public right of way, and which agency standard drawing governs it? |
| Revision closure | Response letter, revised civil sheets, dependent disciplines | Does the accepted change appear on every affected civil sheet and reach the architectural and MEP sheets that depend on it? |
Record “needs clarification” when a reference is missing, and reserve “resolved” for a decision supported by documents you have read. If a row does not apply to this project, write why: a blank cell cannot tell a skipped check from a completed one.
Work one condition end to end
Pick one catchment area and follow it. Read the spot elevations around it on the grading plan, find the inlet that serves it, follow the storm line on the plan to the profile, check the invert at each structure, and confirm the outfall or detention element exists in the drainage design. Then check the same line where it crosses a water or sewer line, and read the separation stated at that crossing. One catchment traced end to end usually surfaces more than a sheet-by-sheet read of the whole set.
Working one condition all the way through beats skimming every sheet, because it forces each document to answer the same question. When the answers differ, you have a finding with two references attached, which is what a designer needs in order to decide.
Close the loop
A response saying “coordinated” is the start of verification, not the end. Open the revised sheets, confirm the change, then follow it into the dependent documents: the schedule, the detail, the specification section, and the other discipline that relied on it. Record the sources you checked and the evidence that closed the question.
Where the answer is a decision rather than a correction, record the decision and who made it. The guide to prioritising findings covers how to sort what you have found once the list gets long.
Use AI for a source-linked first pass
Groundbook AI can run these comparisons across the whole set at once, returning each difference with both sheets highlighted and the supporting sources linked. It reads drawings, specifications, reports, checklists, and the building codes you upload, including scanned and hand-drawn sheets. Give the review a defined scope, then verify every cited location before turning a finding into a request.
The findings are questions for your team to settle. Design, engineering, and compliance decisions stay with the responsible professionals and the authority having jurisdiction.