AI plan review software has moved from novelty to a genuine consideration set for building departments nationwide. That's a healthy sign for the industry, but it also means every vendor conversation now comes with a similar set of impressive-sounding claims: faster reviews, higher accuracy, reduced backlogs. Those claims are worth taking seriously — and worth pressure-testing before you sign a contract. Here's what a municipality should actually evaluate.
1. Depth of jurisdictional data, not just breadth of marketed coverage
Ask specifically how many real, permitted plan sets the platform has processed in jurisdictions comparable to yours — not just whether it technically "covers" your state or region. A platform that's live in fifty states but has only meaningfully processed volume in a handful of pilot cities will perform very differently once it's handling your department's actual application mix.
2. Whether findings are explained, or just delivered as a verdict
A pass/fail output with no reasoning is close to useless to a professional reviewer who has to document the basis for a correction.
Look for a platform that ties every flag to a specific code citation and a clear explanation of what triggered it — something your staff can quickly verify rather than take on faith.
3. Whether a human stays in the loop for the final determination
Be wary of any platform pitched as making binding compliance decisions on its own rather than surfacing findings for a qualified reviewer to confirm. This matters for liability and defensibility as much as for staff trust — your department needs to be able to show a trained professional made the final call on every permit issued.
4. How local amendments are specifically handled
Every jurisdiction amends the model code in some way. Ask a vendor directly how their system identifies and applies your jurisdiction's specific local amendments — not the statewide or model code baseline, but the actual local ordinance as your reviewers currently enforce it. A vague answer here is a warning sign.
5. How accuracy holds up at real production volume
Pilot programs often run on a curated, relatively simple set of sample projects. Ask how the platform has performed once a jurisdiction moved from pilot to full production volume, across the full range of project types your department actually processes — including the messy, unusual submissions that don't show up in a demo.
6. Integration with your existing permitting and review systems
Understand how the platform fits into your current workflow — your permitting software, your electronic plan review tools, your staff's existing processes — rather than requiring a wholesale replacement of systems your department has already invested in.
7. Data ownership and long-term platform improvement
Understand how the underlying data foundation grows and improves over time, and whether that improvement compounds to your department's benefit or locks you into a single vendor's opaque, proprietary system with limited visibility into how conclusions are reached.
8. Implementation and training support
A capable platform still requires a thoughtful rollout — staff training, pilot periods, and a clear plan for how findings get incorporated into your existing review process. Ask what implementation support is actually included, not just promised.
Evaluating MuniPlan and PlanSpect by these same standards
We'd encourage any building department evaluating this space to ask every vendor these same questions, including us. Muniplan.com built PlanSpect around a historical database of permitted plan sets spanning jurisdictions in all fifty states, grounded findings tied to specific code citations, and a human-in-the-loop model that keeps final compliance decisions with your qualified reviewers. These aren't marketing points for us — they're the standards we built the platform against from day one, and we'd rather you hold us to this checklist than take our word for it.