Building Permits Are a Design Input, Not a Design Output
Consider what happens when a project’s exterior design is locked to a brand prototype. You may find out that the local municipality has specific requirements around facade articulation relative to various materials, building massing to provide visual interest through plane depth changes, inclusion of awnings, and roof element heights and shapes, and the desire for the building to feel engaging and appropriately scaled for pedestrians to meet zoning and architectural review board standards and guidelines – any and all of which may directly conflict with that prototype. If permitting due diligence wasn’t part of the early design conversation, the result could lead to redesign, resubmission, and a lost review cycle.
The best time to start preparing for permit submittals is while the construction drawings (CD’s) are still being prepared. Getting a head start means fewer surprises down the road and helps keep the process moving without unnecessary delays. A smoother process is something everyone benefits from, and with the right preparation, it is absolutely achievable. We want to share some guidance to help make that possible.
This is what having permitting due diligence milestones embedded into the design process actually means.
Tips to Build Permits Into Your Strategy
Permitting performs best when it runs alongside design, not after it. Here are two useful tips:
1. Tie permitting checkpoints to your design milestones.
Most construction document workflows follow the 30-60-90 framework. Three progressive stages of design completion before issuing for permit submittal. Each of those gates is also a permitting decision point, and treating them that way changes what gets caught and when.
At the 30% mark, the design is still loose enough in schematic planning to absorb jurisdictional feedback without significant rework. This is not the right moment to complete your Site Investigation Report: ideally, the SIR should be done prior to starting the 30%. You should identify which agencies require review, confirm zoning and use compliance, and flag anything that would force a later redesign: height restrictions, facade requirements, impact fees, special exceptions.
By the 60% stage, permit and design requirements should be actively shaping the drawings, not reacting to them. That means code compliance, jurisdictional requirements, and cross-discipline coordination are resolved together, not in isolation.
If your team is reaching the 60% mark and only then asking what the jurisdiction requires, you are already behind.
- 2. Run a permitting-specific pre-submittal checklist.
Even experienced teams get caught by this. Information gathered during early due diligence can be outdated by the time plans are ready to submit. Permit delays derail more project schedules than weather, material shortages, and coordination problems combined. A short verification call to the jurisdiction before submittal, confirming fees, submission format, required documents, and review timeframes, takes thirty minutes and can prevent a week-long setback.
As our Permitting Pitfalls Series Part 2: Permit Submittal Prep details, fees change at the start of the year, processes shift, and the person who gave you information six months ago may no longer be there.
Build that call into your process as a non-negotiable checkpoint, not an optional step.
How to Coordinate a Multidisciplinary Permitting Team and Keep Projects on Schedule
Strong building & site permitting outcomes depend on alignment across architecture, structural, MEP, and civil teams. When coordination is inconsistent, review comments increase, and timelines extend. But how do you prevent this?
1. Assign a single permitting owner from kickoff.
Using a RACI framework to clarify who is Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, and Informed for each permitting task removes ambiguity when a comment or deadline arrives. In practice, this means one person owns the permit file, tracks every agency touchpoint, and is accountable for keeping the review moving. When a comment comes in, there is no question about who handles it or who needs to be looped in.
2. If possible, hold a permitting kickoff meeting with all disciplines before CD’s begin.
Before construction documents are in production, bring architecture, structural, MEP, and civil together in the same room (or on the same call) to walk through the permitting requirements for that jurisdiction. What does the reviewing authority care most about? What are the likely comment triggers? Are there state agency reviews that require parallel submissions? Does site plan need to be approved before the building permit can even be submitted?
We know this is not always possible. What is important is that the permitting team is aware of what they need to prepare to submit, that the design team reviews the SIR to understand architectural requirements and feedback from the Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) on the preliminary site plan. Most of the time, we find it beneficial to have a scheduled SIR review call with our clients so they know the items of importance, timelines anticipated, restrictions that could be enforced, and AHJ feedback we have received that can impact the overall design and permitting timeline.
3. Build permitting response into your weekly coordination rhythm.
Even using a RACI, the comment response is where the most time gets lost after submittal. A comment that could be resolved in two days stretches to two weeks because no one has a standing meeting to work through it, and the disciplines needed are each waiting on someone else.
The fix is structural: a standing weekly check-in where the team collectively tracks any outstanding comments, pending agency responses, and upcoming submittal deadlines. This is built into how every project is managed at Interplan. Permitting coordinators and managers align weekly with the design team so nothing falls through the cracks and every review cycle is moving as fast as the jurisdiction allows.
Proactive Agency Communication Changes the Timeline
Submitting the plans, waiting for approvals, and hoping for the best is not a strategy.
Proactive communication with local agencies means establishing relationships before you submit. By the time plans are submitted, the reviewing staff is already familar with the project. You are not navigating the process as a stranger.
On a recent project, this approach proved critical. Although the SIR outlined a clear path forward, we verified key requirements again at the time of submittal and discovered that the City had updated its process. Because we caught this early, we were able to adjust our strategy and documentation upfront. Avoiding what could have been unexpected comments, delays, and additional review cycles.
For a deeper look at how to structure your upfront research, our Permitting Pitfalls Series Part 1: Preparation and Information Gathering is the practical starting point.
Building Permits as a Competitive Advantage
Teams that integrate proactive permitting due diligence gain an edge in speed, predictability, and cost control. They know what a jurisdiction will require before they ever submit. They have the relationships to move through the review process more efficiently. And when requirements shift mid-rollout, they adapt without losing momentum.
The goal of integrating permitting milestones in architecture and engineering workflows is not to add process. It is to remove the uncertainty that slows programs down and makes timelines unpredictable.
That is what great permitting coordination actually delivers: confidence that the schedule you committed to is the schedule you will hit.
Running a multi-site development program and looking for a permitting partner who operates as an extension of your team?
Contact Interplan to talk through how we support rollout programs from entitlement through execution.
