Reconcile the landscape and civil grading at every shared point, then trace each planting area to an irrigation zone, a water source, and a controller that appears on the electrical documents. Record disagreements with both references. Horticultural, hydraulic, and water-efficiency determinations stay with the responsible designers and the reviewing agency.
Assemble a reviewable package
Gather the planting plan and schedule, the landscape grading plan, the irrigation plan and head schedule, the hardscape details, and the landscape lighting plan. Add the civil grading and site utility plans, the plumbing point of connection, and the electrical site plan.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Plan boundary | Landscape plan, civil site plan, property survey | Does the landscape work stop at the same boundary the civil and survey documents describe? |
| Grading interface | Landscape grading, civil grading plan, spot elevations | Do the two grading plans agree at every shared point, and which one governs where they differ? |
| Plant schedule | Planting plan, plant schedule, specification | Does each plant symbol resolve to one scheduled species, size, and quantity? |
| Soil and drainage | Planting details, soil specification, subsurface drainage | Is the soil profile and the drainage below each planting area described and detailed? |
| Irrigation coverage | Irrigation plan, head schedule, hydrozone description | Can each planting area be traced to an irrigation zone with a stated water source? |
| Water source and backflow | Irrigation plan, plumbing drawings, site utility plan | Does the point of connection, meter, and backflow device appear on both the irrigation and plumbing documents? |
| Controller and power | Irrigation notes, electrical plan, controller location | Is the controller located, powered, and shown on the electrical documents? |
| Hardscape details | Paving plan, sections, structural details | Does each hardscape area resolve to one section, with edges, joints, and transitions detailed? |
| Site furnishing anchorage | Furnishing schedule, anchor details, structural or paving section | Is each fixed item shown with an anchorage detail and a receiving substrate? |
| Lighting interface | Landscape lighting plan, electrical drawings, fixture schedule | Does every landscape fixture appear in the electrical documents with a circuit and control? |
| Water budget compliance | Irrigation documents, local water-efficiency requirements | Which local water-efficiency requirement applies, and which document demonstrates compliance? |
| Revision closure | Response, revised landscape and irrigation sheets, civil interface | Does the accepted change reach the planting, irrigation, and civil documents 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
Take one planting bed next to a building. Compare its spot elevations on the landscape and civil grading plans; they are drawn by different people and often disagree at the threshold. Then trace its irrigation zone back to the point of connection, check the backflow device appears on the plumbing documents, and confirm the controller has power on the electrical plan. The bed is a small area that crosses three sets of drawings.
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.