• AI-driven digital permitting tools dramatically reduce approval times by automating objective, code-based compliance checks—cutting weeks, months, and even years from project schedules.
• Contrary to common fears, AI does not replace human judgment, compromise architectural IP, or function as a “black box.” Instead, it delivers transparent, auditable reports that enhance clarity and trust.
• By standardizing compliance checks and reducing resubmissions, AI for building permits helps architects, developers, and municipalities fast-track housing delivery while lowering project costs and improving consistency.

In many cities around the world, a housing supply shortage is a very visible problem. However, a frequent obstacle to progress is much less visible: slow and inconsistent building permit approvals. Long permitting delays inflate project timelines and holding costs, while cities, developers, and residents bear the consequences.

A recent UCLA housing supply study found that cutting approval times by just 25% could boost housing production by as much as 33%. Architectural firms in metropolitan areas like Sydney, Vancouver, Los Angeles, and Austin are finding that using AI building permitting tools (such as Archistar eCheck) to automate objective aspects of permit approvals can speed up the process even more.

Yet misconceptions around AI-assisted compliance checks persist. There are fears that the AI technology will actually slow down designers and plan checkers, obscure the process, or compromise human judgment and intellectual property (IP). Future-forward architects are here to bust those myths and show that AI building permitting tools can transform housing delivery.

Reality: Architects’ designs and data are contained within the AI platform, and existing AIA agreements can cover IP concerns.

High-profile copyright lawsuits against generative AI developers have seen the likes of OpenAI, Stability AI, Anthropic, and others sued by major newspapers, record labels, and stock image companies like Getty Images. The claims allege that these AI companies are using copyrighted works to train their AI models. As a result, it’s understandable for IP owners to be cautious about protecting their assets.

For its part, while Archistar sometimes uses architects’ design data to train its AI-driven tools, it’s fully contained and anonymized. As with traditional building permitting processes, design data is not shared outside of the confines of the project.

For example, The Foothill Catalog Foundation (TFCF) launched in early 2025 to create a faster alternative to rebuild southern California housing after the devastating Los Angeles wildfires. The Foothill Catalog offers pre-approved home designs by multiple architects. By October 2025, it already had 20 home designs, with many more on the way. The foundation also has embraced AI-driven technology to help speed up the permit approval process.

Willem Swârt, Creative Director of TFCF, says that none of the architects or designers they’ve worked with so far has voiced concerns about their IP being at risk from the use of AI. “Having public agencies at Los Angeles County and the City of LA being the ones to implement Archistar creates a lot more certainty about the appropriate use of people’s instruments of service and their intellectual property,” he says.

Arno Matis, Principal of Arno Matis Architecture + Urbanism (AMAU), adds that data security amidst AI use is a complex discussion. “These questions will likely need to be addressed through digital file sharing, nondisclosure, and licensing agreements,” he says.

Matis also points to existing contract templates from the American Institute of Architects (AIA) that already grant a limited, non-exclusive license for project-specific use of digital data, specifically the AIA Document C106-2022. This contract protects IP rights in design and construction projects, and for BIM collaboration, is best used with coordinated documents, including E201-2022, E202-2022, E242-2024, and E401-2022.

Reality: Building-permit AI delivers instant pre-significant feedback and significantly reduces review times and resubmissions.

Many people have tried to incorporate large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT into their life or work and have experienced lackluster results or found that AI is not yet a panacea for accomplishing anything they can imagine it might do. So again, it’s understandable that some architects or developers may hesitate to add AI tools to their building permitting workflow, thinking it may just gum up the process.

The reality is that the architects and planners using AI platforms like Archistar eCheck for projects—from ADUs to large mixed-use towers—are already seeing significant time savings. It starts with getting AI and expert human feedback, so building permit applicants can turn in more compliant designs from the get-go, which drastically reduces review times and resubmission cycles.

Instead of waiting weeks for first-round comments, designers can see conflicts instantly and address them before handing off files to a planner. This cuts the typical cycle of three or more resubmissions down to one, or even none.

“We could use Archistar like a pre-submittal check,” Swârt says. “So, being able to test your design and better understand the parameters of zoning and different overlays before you start the process—that’s a huge time saver.”

Matis details how much time AI could save from permitting if it could automate much of building permit technical review’s three stages: rezoning, development permit, and building permit. “It’s dramatic,” he says. “You could take a two- or three-year process to building permits and shave it down like significantly: I would think less than half the time.”

Such a savings in permitting time would ultimately also result in reduced carrying costs for homeowners and developers. “Time is what’s really adding dramatically to the cost of projects,” Matis says. “By addressing the time issue, we could dramatically cut the cost of producing housing.”

As TFCF’s goals are not only to rebuild housing faster, but also more resiliently and affordably, it sees AI-assisted permitting as a factor in relieving cost. “We will inevitably save time and money,” Swârt says. “That means homeowners are saving their time and money in the process, too.”

Setting up shouldn’t slow you down either. Shajay Bhooshan, Zaha Hadid Architects’ (ZHA) Associate Director and co-founder of the firm’s internal computational design research group, ZHACODE, points out that firms can adopt AI building permitting tools quickly. “It’s a matter of turning on a few switches,” he says. “These are very high-level things that all architects should be doing, but surprisingly not many actually do.”

Reality: Building-code AI frees architects, developers, and city planners to focus on what matters.

Among other companies, Amazon, UPS, and Salesforce have all explicitly stated that AI or some type of automation would do the work of thousands of eliminated jobs. It’s no wonder then that some people may think AI permitting tools are here to replace human judgment with a robot carrying a rubber stamp. That’s far from the case.

In the municipalities already using AI building permitting platforms, expert city planners and plan checkers are needed to make qualitative judgments based on the objective data processing that AI accomplishes in seconds. One example of a qualitative or subjective judgment might be whether a new building is compatible with the character of the surrounding area or neighborhood.

AI handles the tedious and repetitive tasks like setbacks, heights, overlays, and other code conditions. This provides transparency and more time for people to focus on design intent and subjective interpretations, like neighborhood impacts. Those time savings are desperately needed in many municipalities facing an affordability crisis and a massive backlog of development.

“We broke down the development permit policy rules into qualitative and quantitative regulations, and it was something like 60/40,” Matis says, speaking of the Vancouver, British Columbia area. “Qualitative criteria nearly always require a person to make a subjective judgment based on experience.”

TFCF reinforced the notion that with AI tools inserted into the building permitting process, AI does the checking; people do the thinking. “The strength of AI is processing bulk data, and the strength of people is finding creative solutions from that,” Swârt says. “AI is a tool. I don’t foresee this replacing anyone.”

Reality: Standardized AI compliance checks ensure submissions are 100% planner-ready and strengthens trust between planners and applicants.

Relationships between architects and city planners matter. Many architects have long-standing working relationships with plan checkers and may think this familiarity will smooth the path for approvals. However, that’s not nearly reliable enough in today’s environment.

Swârt says that TFCF’s success in a short period of time has been due largely to relationships, but that’s still not enough when you’re trying to alleviate a housing crisis as quickly and affordably as possible. “At any time, you could get any number of plan checkers randomly assigned to your project, and they all kind of have different standards,” he says.

Relying on relationships with plan checkers only to be assigned someone else can pile up the time, cost, and frustration due to rework, delays, and subjective interpretations. Using AI-powered pre-checks ensures your designs conform to a baseline of compliance regardless of the reviewer. “Archistar creates that level playing field where we know what to expect before going into the process,” Swârt says.

Meanwhile, Matis points out another issue with relying on plan-checker relationships: staff shortages due to badly prepared proposals. “Projects go in and tend to sit for a long time before they get picked up,” he says. “Planners are struggling to allocate staff to get them into an actual review pipeline. There are so many non-complying proposals that each proposal takes more time because of all the unique aspects that need to be reviewed.”

Fortunately, using AI building permitting tools will only strengthen relationships, by building trust between applicants and municipalities. These tools are the fastest way to ensure permit proposals are complete, consistent, and fully prepared for planner review.

Reality: The systems result in better clarity with transparent, auditable reports showing exactly which code rules triggered a flag.

A persistent misconception about AI-based compliance checks is that they will approve or deny with no explanation. To the contrary, modern AI building permitting tools specifically increase clarity and transparency, rather than obscure their results.

For example, Archistar eCheck produces clear and accurate reports that reveal any issues between the submitted designs and the specific local building or zoning codes. These reports can help both designers and plan checkers establish a level foundation of what’s expected to make the permit approval process smoother.

“The benefit we see in Archistar is setting an objectivity to criteria for designers’ clarity,” says the Executive Director and co-founder of TFCF, Alex Athenson, AIA. “But every different plan checker will have slightly different corrections, different notes. Plan checkers can be trained, too, to have a more objective standard and criteria for reviewing plans.”

Architects see these tools as being able to create a positive feedback loop for development, where a quick and clear assessment of how building designs mesh with local codes can help both industry and city users improve what they do.

For instance, knowing quickly how designs will pass compliance can help firms like ZHA create more resilient, sustainable, and affordable modular components. “It’s about designing the rules by which components can be combined,” Bhooshan says. “Familiarity with those processes is a key design skill.”

And Matis believes that if reviewing designs from BIM metadata becomes the norm, local governments would be empowered to modernize their regulations. “If municipalities align their bylaws and building codes in a way that makes them readable by automated systems, that can speed things up a lot,” he says.

AI-assisted permitting does not replace city planners. Rather, it replaces tedium and repetition in the permit process with more time, transparency, and clarity so planners can work more accurately and with greater consistency.

“One of the benefits of these digital systems is that you can minimize costs on one hand and maximize social and ecological benefits on the other,” Bhooshan says.

Automating the objective portions of permit approvals with AI platforms acts like a force multiplier for both architects and plan checkers. It frees more of their time to focus on expert decisions like design intent and community standards.

With tools like eCheck inserted early in the process, building approvals shift into the fast lane. They empower both design professionals and city planners to build more and wait less.