ADU feasibility or permit plans: what are you actually buying?

Property information asks: what can we establish online?

A property-information service organizes relevant public online information for a specific address. It may identify the parcel, jurisdiction, planning designations, assessor characteristics, maps, indexed permit references, and other available records. Its value is not the volume of downloads; it is the source-linked summary that helps an owner see what the records say and where they came from.

A records-only report should also identify conflicts and gaps. It should not quietly become a feasibility opinion, predict approval, or claim that an online map verifies a physical condition.

• Source-linked property and jurisdiction summary
• Relevant online maps and record references
• Clear notes about missing or conflicting information
• General guidance about likely next sources
• No project-specific feasibility conclusion

Feasibility asks: does one defined direction appear worth pursuing?

A feasibility review starts with the property evidence and adds a clearly described outcome: for example, a detached one-bedroom ADU in a particular part of the lot or a proposed garage conversion. The reviewer can then consider planning context, visible constraints, rough building form, access, utilities, likely consultant questions, and important unknowns.

Remote feasibility is still bounded. Without a survey, field measurements, destructive investigation, engineering, or formal agency review, the report cannot guarantee a design, price, permit, or construction result. Its job is to help the owner decide whether to proceed, revise the direction, collect more information, or stop.

Permit plans ask: how will a defined project be documented for review?

Permit-plan services begin after the project direction, major existing conditions, consultant needs, and responsibilities are clear enough to propose. The work may include design development, code and agency coordination, drawing sheets, consultant integration, owner revisions, submission support, and responses to plan-check comments—depending on the written scope.

A permit set is not simply a more detailed feasibility sketch. It is a coordinated body of information intended for agency review. That is why its fee, schedule, and responsibilities should be defined around the actual property and project rather than a generic promise.

• Defined drawing sheets and design responsibilities
• Known consultant scopes and coordination
• Included owner revision rounds
• Submission and status responsibilities
• Plan-check response boundaries

The wrong sequence creates avoidable waste

Ordering permit drawings before confirming the jurisdiction, project direction, or material site constraints can force the design team to price unknown work or make assumptions that later unravel. At the other extreme, repeatedly buying small studies without choosing a direction can delay the project without reducing uncertainty.

The right sequence is proportional. If the owner only needs an organized property record, do not sell feasibility. If one direction needs professional judgment, do not pretend a records summary answers it. If the project is already defined and documented well enough to price, do not prolong research that no longer changes the decision.

Compare proposals by the answer and handoff

When reviewing a proposal, ask what question the service answers, what information you must provide, what the final deliverable contains, how long the work usually takes, and what is explicitly outside the scope.

Then ask what happens after delivery. A good handoff tells you whether to gather measurements, contact an agency, hire a surveyor or engineer, revise the project direction, request a permit-plan proposal, or pause. That next-step clarity is part of the product.

• What decision will this service help me make?
• What property and project information must I provide?
• What will I receive?
• What will remain unverified?
• What is the likely next step?