IN THE OFFICE

Risk Management

Managing Risk in a Dynamic Building Code Environment

Streamline a complex compliance process

By Joe Shields & Derek Steffen

Most large construction projects span multiple years, which is often long enough to overlap at least one cycle of the International Code Council’s (ICC) standard three-year update schedule. This is well understood among design professionals, who typically manage the exposure by locking in an applicable code version at permit issuance or some other defined contractual milestone.

If only it were that simple.

On any given project, multiple authorities having jurisdiction (AHJs) may apply the same underlying code differently, with no guarantee that a third-party compliance tool will reflect what a local inspector will actually enforce. New technology is adding another layer of complexity. Today, there are digital platforms that continually update and publish code content, as well as AI-assisted tools that can interpret code requirements and run compliance checks instantaneously. Both developments give design professionals more to work with and more to be accountable for.

The responsibility for interpreting the building code, tracking how requirements evolve over the life of a project and documenting the basis for every compliance decision remains with the design professional. Understanding where the compliance landscape is shifting, and why, is the first step toward managing the risks it creates.

A Move Toward Dynamic Codes

Digital platforms now aggregate federal, state and local code requirements into a single searchable database, streamlining the process by which design professionals cross-reference separate printed volumes or jurisdiction-specific files. Meanwhile, AI-assisted tools can interpret code requirements on demand and flag potential noncompliance, shifting the process away from manually reading and applying each provision toward a more automated review workflow.

These tools offer genuine efficiency gains. However, they also introduce a compliance risk if different team members, or the same team members at different points in a project, work from subtly different interpretations of the same code.

That risk is compounded when design professionals rely on AI tools to interpret code. If a designer uses AI to query a requirement rather than reading the code directly, and that AI is either trained on an older version of the code or introduces its own interpretive error, the designer may not know they’ve been relying on incorrect information until permit review or inspection.

Tools can speed up code research by helping users identify relevant provisions and address specific questions, but they cannot sign off on a design or confirm compliance with an AHJ’s requirements. That judgment requires human review and application of professional judgment.

The stakes of getting that judgment wrong are significant. Building codes are rarely as clear-cut as they appear. An architect or engineer may read a requirement, make a sensible professional judgment and design accordingly. But sound judgment alone is not always enough. If a dispute ends up in litigation, the question could be not whether the designer’s interpretation was defensible, but whether the court or jury finds the argument more convincing than the claimant’s.

In a civil lawsuit, the claimant generally only needs to show that their version of events is more likely than not. This is often described as the 51% threshold. In a litigation environment where plaintiff counsel have grown increasingly adept at exploiting interpretive ambiguity, particularly in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Fair Housing Act (FHA) accessibility claims, the gap between a defensible design decision and a successful lawsuit is often narrower than design professionals expect.

When Compliance Gaps Surface — & What They Cost

A building project’s design phase can run anywhere from several months to a few years. In most jurisdictions, the building code is set at the time of the permit issuance and remains in effect for the duration of the project.

Once construction is underway, project teams are not typically expected to revise plans every time a code changes. However, that does not remove their broader duty to exercise professional judgment or to consider the best interests of the project and public safety. In practice, teams may still need to pause when a code change occurs midproject and assess whether the update is significant enough to incorporate anyway.

The cost implications of compliance gaps depend heavily on when an issue surfaces. There are three distinct stages at which compliance gaps are typically caught, each with escalating consequences:

1. During the design

This is the lowest-cost stage to identify a compliance gap, but only if the design team is actively monitoring for code amendments. Changes flagged early can still be resolved in the design documents, with limited downstream impact on project schedule or budget, assuming partial construction has not commenced in a fast-track mode where early construction is noncompliant with a recent code change.

2. At permit issuance

If a code amendment was missed during design, the AHJ may be the first to flag it. By this point, the design is further along, and changes can ripple across disciplines, creating schedule and cost impacts that may have been avoided with earlier visibility.

3. During construction or final inspection

This is the highest-stakes scenario, as rework may require removing or rebuilding work in place, creating significant financial exposure.

As digital platforms update code content more frequently and AI tools introduce new layers of interpretive variability, the window for catching issues at the lowest-cost stage is under pressure. The later a compliance issue is caught, the more expensive it becomes and the more likely it is that an update was missed rather than misapplied.

Managing the Risk

Given the complexity of the compliance environment today, the most effective risk management strategies focus on rigorous quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) processes. The following practices can help design professionals form a defensible position.

Agree on the code baseline at the outset.

The contract should state which edition of the code applies to the project. It should also make clear that any later code changes or new interpretations requiring further work fall outside the original scope, and revisions to completed or in-progress construction documents may be provided as additional services. The owner and architect should have this conversation, with the owner signing off on any changes or additional services. That gives design professionals a clear reference point if requirements change once the project is underway.

Conduct regular code reviews.

At each major design phase, from schematic design through design development, construction documents and permit issuance, the project team should formally confirm which code version is being applied and whether any updates have occurred since the previous milestone. This helps identify changes proactively and enables all disciplines to work from the same baseline at every stage.

Engage AHJs early & understand overlaps.

Pre-application meetings with AHJs beginning in the design development phase can help project teams understand upcoming code requirements and gain clarity on how specific provisions are likely to be interpreted and applied locally. On projects subject to multiple AHJs — for example, a state health department and a local fire marshal operating under different code versions — teams should identify which authority applies the more stringent standard and design to that benchmark. The goal is either to achieve alignment across jurisdictions or to be prepared for the most conservative interpretation from the outset, rather than face conflicting requirements at different inspection stages.

Consider retaining an accessibility code consultant with expertise in the applicable codes, particularly ADA & FHA.

Accessibility compliance is a common area of risk given the number and complexity of applicable codes and advocacy groups seeking examples of violations, even if there is not an aggrieved party.

Assign compliance decision-makers.

When midcycle code changes arise, there should be a defined process for evaluating whether they should be incorporated and who makes that decision.

Typically, the design team and contractor provide technical input and explain the implications, and the owner makes the final determination. The decision of whether to incorporate changes must be documented and retained in the project file.

For example, if a change to the National Electrical Code is evaluated and the project owner decides not to implement it for specific reasons, those reasons need to be on record. If an incident occurs years later, the ability to demonstrate that the issue was raised, evaluated and decided upon by the appropriate party can determine whether a position holds up or fails under legal scrutiny.

Document decisions in real time.

Undocumented decisions can later be disputed. Clear written records of what was discussed and decided and who authorized action are important for claims defense. Requests for information (RFIs) provide a practical way to capture field decisions in real time. A verbal direction given on a site walk can be followed immediately with a request to document it in an RFI, creating a contemporaneous record that protects all parties. On large or complex projects, teams may generate dozens of RFIs daily. Adding compliance-related decisions to that workflow costs little and can provide significant protection

Be careful with AI.

Design professionals using new technologies to speed up interpretations and decision-making should still carry out due diligence and not rely solely on digital tools. Records should be kept of which code version was consulted at each project stage. As code platforms become more dynamic, it is increasingly important to demonstrate that the design complied with the code in effect at a specific point in time, both for permit defense and for allocating responsibility if requirements change.

Code compliance will always require professional due diligence and application of professional judgment. What is changing is the volume of information, the pace at which interpretations evolve and the sophistication of the litigation environment that may follow when something goes wrong. The design firms best positioned to manage that exposure are those that treat compliance not as a moment of approval but as a discipline maintained throughout a project’s entire life cycle.