Match each stall to its mounting type, material, and clearance basis, then compare door swing and hardware, support blocking, and grab bar coordination against the drawings that receive them. Keep accessible and ambulatory stalls distinct from standard stalls.
Assemble the review package
Gather the toilet room plan, accessible-stall dimension diagram, wall-blocking or backing details, the accessory and grab-bar plan, and the issued toilet compartment specification. Review one toilet room completely, since accessible and ambulatory stall requirements can differ from the standard stalls in the same room.
WBDG publishes UFGS 10 21 13: Toilet Compartments as a public guide-specification reference (accessed September 22, 2026). Use your project’s issued specification and amendments for the actual comparison; the guide specification does not automatically govern your project. The checklist below is an original suggested review workflow, not a reproduction of the UFGS requirements.
Eight checks to run against the issued set
Use one record per location or system. The CSV contains the same eight prompts plus fields for source revisions, observed evidence, the review owner, the decision, and closure references.
| Check | Sources to compare | Question to resolve |
|---|---|---|
| Mounting type | Toilet room plan notes + specified mounting type | Does each stall’s mounting method (floor-mounted, ceiling-hung, floor-to-ceiling) match between the plan notes and the specification? |
| Material and finish | Room finish schedule + specified material options | Is the selected material (solid plastic, phenolic core, powder-coated metal) identifiable, and does the drawn finish tag match the specified option? |
| Accessible and ambulatory dimensions | Accessible-stall plan dimensions + clearance basis cited in the specification | Do the drawn accessible and ambulatory stall dimensions match the clearance basis the specification cites for each? |
| Door and clear width | Door swing and clear opening + hardware clauses | Does the drawn door swing and clear width leave the required clearance, and is the specified latch hardware suited to that approach? |
| Support blocking | Wall section and blocking details + anchorage clauses | Is blocking or backing shown at the height and location the specified panel and pilaster anchorage requires? |
| Grab bar coordination | Accessory plan + compartment clear-floor-space notes | Do the compartment panel locations leave the clear floor space and grab-bar mounting locations shown on the accessory or plumbing plan? |
| Wall condition at supports | Panel/pilaster mounting selection + wall type at that location | Does the wall construction at each panel or pilaster support the selected anchorage (masonry anchors versus stud blocking)? |
| Submittal scope | Specified submittal requirements + finish schedule | Does the requested submittal (color or finish selection, hardware samples) match every distinct combination shown in the finish schedule? |
Worked example: a door swing narrows the accessible clearance
Illustrative example: an accessible stall’s clear floor space is drawn to the correct dimension, but the door is shown at a nominal panel width rather than the wider approach clearance the specification’s accessibility basis calls for, so the swinging door reduces the required clear space when open.
Trace the door width shown on the plan into the specified door and hardware clauses, confirm the approach clearance basis with the designer, and correct the drawn width or door swing before the panel order is placed. Recheck the adjacent grab bar and lavatory clearances at the same stall, since a corrected door swing can affect them too.
Avoid a false conflict
A stall labeled "accessible" on the plan does not by itself confirm every dimension meets the clearance basis; verify the door approach, turning space, and grab bar locations together. Likewise, do not assume every stall in a room shares one mounting type without checking the schedule.
When requirements disagree, follow the project’s document-control and clarification process. Do not assume that drawings always override specifications, or the reverse. Identify the exact sources and request an authorized decision.
Close the issue across the affected documents
Record the location or tag, drawing and specification references, issue dates, observed difference, and the decision needed. Assign an owner and keep the item open until the response identifies the governing requirement. Check the revised drawings and specification references together; a response email alone may leave the issued package inconsistent.
For the overall process, use the guide to drawing and specification conflicts. Mark an inapplicable checklist row with a reason, and distinguish a verified correction from a question that still needs design information.
Where Groundbook fits
Groundbook’s drawing and specification review helps investigate potential disagreements in the documents you supply. Include the relevant specification sections and drawing references, then verify the cited evidence with the responsible reviewers before acting on a finding.