Navigating ‘Not Built to Plan’ Issues: Your Guide to Rectifying Construction Deviations

Renovation complete, Mr. Lin eagerly anticipated the final inspection. He expected a formality, but the inspector, armed with the approved construction drawings, frowned. “Mr. Lin, your drawings show the study as an open space, but there’s an extra partition wall here? And this storage room isn’t on the plans.” The inspector noted ‘Discrepancy between drawings and construction; not built to plan’ and declared the inspection a failure, demanding rectification.

In a different project, Ms. Wang’s designer noticed during construction that her desired walk-in closet location slightly impacted the flow. Instead of making an unilateral decision, the designer immediately drafted revised plans and submitted a ‘Drawing Revision’ application to the authorities. When the inspector arrived, the designer presented the newly approved drawings, and the site perfectly matched the updated plans, leading to a smooth, one-time pass.

These contrasting scenarios highlight the seriousness of the ‘not built to plan’ issue, also known as ‘discrepancy between drawings and construction.’ This isn’t a minor oversight that can be ‘talked through’; it’s a critical flaw that prevents you from obtaining the ‘Interior Renovation Certificate of Compliance.’ This article will delve into why these discrepancies occur and the essential ‘remedy methods’ if you unfortunately encounter this problem.

The Challenge of ‘Not Built to Plan’: Why Minor Site Changes Derail Your Inspection

‘The plans are the plans, the site is the site,’ ‘The crew said this way is better,’ ‘It’s just a small change, it should be fine’ – these outdated mindsets are the culprits behind ‘not built to plan.’ Both homeowners and contractors underestimate the legal weight of the ‘approved drawings,’ treating them merely as ‘reference guides.’

The ‘Close Enough’ Mindset: Underestimating the Legal Power of Drawings

During a final inspection, the ‘approved drawings’ are the sole, legally binding ‘answer key.’ The inspector’s job isn’t to ‘understand’ your needs but to ‘verify’ consistency between the plans and the actual construction. Any ‘minor site modification’ that deviates from the drawings – an extra wall, a missing door, a 10% reduction in hallway width – is legally considered an ‘unauthorized alteration.’ For instance, if a homeowner adds a storage room at the end of a hallway to increase storage space, it will be immediately flagged as a failure during inspection, as it might affect turning radius or escape routes.

‘Unauthorized Decisions by Crew/Designer’: When ‘Site Aesthetics’ Trump ‘Regulatory Plans’

Sometimes, ‘discrepancies’ stem from the contractor’s ‘independent decisions.’ For example, a crew member might think, ‘The door opens better this way,’ and move it 30 centimeters without authorization. While the homeowner might see it as insignificant, inspectors may view it as a violation of building codes regarding ‘fire doors’ or ‘escape routes.’ If it’s deemed to affect public safety, the only remedy is to ‘dismantle and rebuild’ to match the original approved plans.

The Paradox of Saving Money: Hidden Costs of Substituting ‘Material B’ for ‘Material A’

The most concealed and severe type of ‘discrepancy’ involves material substitution. The plans clearly state ‘Class A fire-rated calcium silicate board,’ but the contractor, aiming to cut costs, uses ‘standard gypsum board’ or ‘Class B fire-rated’ material on site. While homeowners might not notice, inspectors will check for the ‘fire rating stamp’ on the back of the boards or request ‘manufacturer certificates.’ If material non-compliance is discovered, especially in critical areas like ceilings or partition walls, the usual outcome is ‘complete demolition and reconstruction,’ rendering all invested costs void.

Rewriting the Rules for ‘Not Built to Plan’: The Roles of ‘As-Built Drawings’ and ‘Drawing Revisions’

Given the severity of ‘not built to plan,’ does it mean it’s ‘hopeless’ once it occurs? Not necessarily. The new protocol requires you to initiate legal procedures to ‘correct the answer.’ The method of correction depends on ‘when the issue is discovered,’ falling into two categories: ‘Drawing Revision’ and ‘As-Built Drawing.’

Key SOP: What is a ‘Drawing Revision’ (Discovered During Construction)

This is the ‘optimal’ remedy, applicable when a change is realized ‘during the construction phase.’ For example, halfway through construction, the homeowner decides to alter the location of a partition wall. The correct Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) should be:

• Immediate Halt: Stop all construction on the altered section immediately.
• Resubmit for Approval: Engage an architect or designer to draft the ‘revised’ drawings.
• Submit Application: File a ‘Drawing Revision’ application with the original governing authority (e.g., building department).
• Obtain Approval: Only after receiving the ‘approval for revision’ letter can construction proceed based on the ‘new drawings.’

This ensures that by the time of the final ‘completion inspection,’ the inspector will have the ‘revised new drawings,’ thus avoiding the ‘discrepancy’ predicament.

Remedy SOP: What is an ‘As-Built Drawing’ (Discovered After Construction)

This is a ‘remedial’ measure used when the inspection is failed (‘NG’) during the ‘completion inspection’ or when a discrepancy is discovered ‘after completion.’ It’s a form of ‘reverse engineering’:

• Acknowledge Non-Compliance: You must first admit that the site does not match the original approved drawings.
• Reverse Measurement: Commission an architect/designer to conduct on-site measurements of the ‘already completed construction’ and create an ‘As-Built Drawing.’
• Submit for Retroactive Approval: Submit this ‘As-Built Drawing’ along with relevant documents (potentially including a fine receipt) to the governing authority for review, treating it as a ‘retroactive approval’ process.

However, this remedy has a critical prerequisite: the ‘unauthorized alteration’ itself must ‘not violate’ any building or fire safety regulations. If your ‘unauthorized change’ is inherently illegal (e.g., removing a load-bearing wall, obstructing fire safety equipment), then an ‘As-Built Drawing’ cannot save you.

Beyond ‘Immediate Failure’: 3 Key SOPs for Remedying ‘Not Built to Plan’

If your project is unfortunately deemed ‘not built to plan’ during the final inspection, remain calm. You must immediately initiate the remedy SOP, assess the severity of the issue, and seek professional assistance.

SOP 1: Halt Work Immediately and Honestly Assess the ‘Level of Deviation’

When the inspector points out an ‘NG’ status, the first step is to ‘face it honestly.’ You must immediately consult with your designer/architect to evaluate the ‘level’ of this ‘discrepancy’:

• Minor Deviation: Such as changing door material (with the same fire rating), slight displacement of non-structural partition walls (without affecting traffic flow).
• Moderate Deviation: Such as changing the number of partition walls (adding a room), reducing hallway width.
• Serious Violation: Such as unauthorized addition of a bathroom (involving waterproofing and drainage), obstructing fire sprinklers, or removing load-bearing walls.

SOP 2: Initiate Legal Remediation Based on ‘Level of Deviation’

Different levels of deviation require distinct remedial paths. You must ‘treat the symptom accordingly’:

• For ‘Minor/Moderate Deviations’: Immediately initiate the ‘As-Built Drawing’ or ‘Drawing Revision’ process for retroactive approval. This typically involves paying additional certification fees, administrative fees, and potentially a ‘fine’ (if already penalized).
• For ‘Serious Violations’: Abandon hope for a simple fix; the only recourse is ‘dismantling and correcting.’

SOP 3: Accept the Harsh Consequences of ‘Fines’ and ‘Dismantling’

This is the most crucial and painful step. If your ‘discrepancy’ falls into the ‘serious violation’ category, the remedy isn’t about ‘correcting documents’ but ‘correcting the construction.’ You must:

• Pay Fines: According to Article 95-1 of the Building Act, unauthorized alterations can incur fines ranging from $60,000 to $300,000 (Taiwanese Dollars).
• Dismantle and Rebuild: You must completely remove the ‘violating’ elements (e.g., newly built walls, obstructive decorations) and restore them to the state shown in the ‘original approved drawings.’
• Apply for a Second Inspection: After completing the corrections, you must pay again to schedule a ‘completion inspection.’

The cost of this process is exponentially higher, often tens of times more than initiating a ‘drawing revision’ during the construction phase.

The ‘approved drawings’ are not suggestions; they are a ‘legal contract’ between you and the governing authority. Any unauthorized changes to this contract come with a price.

Here’s a ‘Discrepancy Dashboard’ to help you quickly assess your situation:

• Level of Discrepancy: Minor Deviation (Does not affect safety/regulations)
  Example: Door material change (same fire rating); Non-structural wall displacement Legal Remedy: Submit ‘As-Built Drawing’ for record, with material certifications.
  Estimated Cost (Time + Money): Low (Certification fees + administrative time for documentation)
• Level of Discrepancy: Moderate Deviation (Requires regulatory re-evaluation)
  Example: Unauthorized addition of a partition wall; Reduced hallway width; Fire door replacement (different rating).
  Legal Remedy: Apply for ‘Drawing Revision’ or ‘As-Built Drawing,’ potentially requiring fines.
  Estimated Cost (Time + Money): Medium (Fines + Certification fees + 1-2 months for re-evaluation)
• Level of Discrepancy: Serious Violation (Absolute illegality)
  Example: Unauthorized addition of bathroom/toilet; Obstructing fire sprinklers/smoke detectors; Removal of load-bearing walls/structural beams.
  Legal Remedy: No remedy; must dismantle.
  Dismantle and restore to ‘original approved drawing’ state, then apply for a second inspection.
  Estimated Cost (Time + Money): Extremely High (Fines + Demolition costs + Reconstruction costs + Significant project delays)

The Future of ‘Not Built to Plan’: A Choice About ‘Professional Integrity’

‘Not built to plan’ is the most common and costly failure in completion inspections. It reflects not just careless construction but also a disregard for regulations. This challenging situation ultimately tests the ‘professional integrity’ of both the homeowner and the construction team.

Will you choose to make unauthorized changes during construction for temporary convenience or a ‘small perk,’ gambling on the chance of ‘not getting caught’? Or will you communicate thoroughly with your designer before starting and insist on ‘building according to plan,’ following ‘legal channels’ for any necessary changes? Ultimately, this is a choice between ‘opportunistic gambling’ and ‘professional integrity.’