When a plan examiner or design professional stamps your drawings “approved as noted,” the overall submission has been accepted and work can move forward, but you are required to incorporate every correction marked on the documents. The reviewer will not look at the set again unless the changes are significant enough to force a formal re-review, so the burden of catching and applying each markup is entirely on you.
That distinction is the whole point of the status. It saves the weeks a full “revise and resubmit” would cost, but it trades that speed for responsibility.
What “Approved as Noted” Means on a Set of Plans
The reviewer is saying the design concept is acceptable, but specific items need correction, and work may proceed provided it complies with the notations marked on the documents. No further sign-off is required unless the reviewer explicitly asks for one.
This stamp shows up in two different settings, and the difference changes who is enforcing the notes against you.
In a building department plan review, the notes come from a government plan examiner enforcing building codes. Those corrections carry regulatory authority and become conditions of your permit. In a submittal review of shop drawings or product data, the notes come from an architect or engineer checking your submission against the contract documents. Those corrections carry contractual authority under whatever agreement governs the project. Either route, ignoring a note is not an option.
How It Compares to Other Review Stamps
Knowing where “approved as noted” sits on the spectrum of possible responses prevents misreading the stamp you actually got.
- Approved. The submission complies with all requirements. Proceed without changes.
- Approved as noted. The submission is acceptable, but specific corrections must be incorporated. Work may proceed while you make those changes. No resubmittal is required unless the reviewer explicitly asks for one.
- Revise and resubmit. The submission has significant problems. Work may not proceed until you fix the issues and the reviewer signs off on the revised version.
- Rejected. The submission fails and must be redone entirely. Nothing moves forward until a new, compliant submission is approved.
Some offices rename “approved as noted” to “approved as corrected,” “furnish as noted,” or “reviewed, corrections noted.” The underlying meaning is the same. If the label on your set is unfamiliar, check the project specifications or the reviewing authority’s definitions before assuming.
What to Do Next
Read Every Sheet, Not Just the Ones You Expect
Corrections usually appear as colored ink on physical prints or digital callouts on electronic plan sets. The most common convention is a revision cloud drawn around the area that needs attention, often paired with a text note. You may also see strike-throughs on dimensions, arrows pointing to elements requiring different materials, or marginal notes referencing specific code sections.
Read the full returned set. Reviewers sometimes flag issues on structural, mechanical, or site plans that the original designer didn’t anticipate, and missing a note buried on sheet S-4 because you only checked the architectural set is one of the most common avoidable mistakes in this process. If any markup is unclear, call the reviewer before guessing. A five-minute phone call beats a failed inspection.
For electronic reviews, corrections often arrive as a marked-up PDF with comment layers. Open the file in software that displays all annotation layers. Some PDF viewers hide certain comment types by default, which can make it look like there are fewer corrections than actually exist.
Produce a Corrected Set
Once you understand every note, prepare a clean set of drawings that incorporates all noted changes into a single final document. If the reviewing authority requires a resubmittal for the record, that corrected set becomes the official construction document. Many building departments charge a re-review fee if corrections require multiple rounds, so getting everything right in one pass saves time and money.
Distribute the Corrected Plans
Get the updated set to every subcontractor and trade working on the project. This step gets skipped more often than it should, and the result is always the same: someone builds to the old drawings, the inspector catches it, and you’re tearing out work. A short coordination meeting where you walk through the specific changes and confirm each sub has the updated sheets is worth the hour it takes.
Keep the Approved Set On Site
Most jurisdictions require that the approved, corrected plans stay accessible at the job site throughout construction. Inspectors expect to see the stamped set when they arrive, and not having it available can trigger a stop-work order on the spot. Keep a physical or digital copy wherever your local code official expects to find it.
Schedule the Next Inspection
After corrections are in place and the plans are distributed, schedule your first milestone inspection with the local building department. Required lead times vary by jurisdiction, but most departments need at least one business day of advance notice, submitted through their online portal or by phone. Coordinate the timing with your subs so the work is actually ready when the inspector arrives.
Who Is Still on the Hook
An “approved as noted” stamp does not shift responsibility from the contractor to the reviewer. Under the AIA Document A201, the industry’s most widely used general conditions contract, the architect reviews submittals only for general conformance with the design concept expressed in the contract documents. The architect is not checking your dimensions, quantities, or installation details. All of that remains the contractor’s responsibility even after the submittal comes back approved.1University of Wisconsin System. AIA Document A201 – 2017 General Conditions of the Contract for Construction
Section 3.12.8 of the A201 makes this explicit: the work must conform to approved submittals, but the contractor is not relieved of responsibility for deviations from the contract documents just because the architect approved a shop drawing or product data sheet.1University of Wisconsin System. AIA Document A201 – 2017 General Conditions of the Contract for Construction If your submittal contained an error the reviewer missed, you still own the consequences. The reviewer’s stamp is not a warranty that everything on the drawing is correct.
The same principle carries into building department plan review. A government plan examiner checks your drawings against code requirements, but the approval does not guarantee that every detail of your design is structurally sound or code-compliant. The design professional of record retains responsibility for the accuracy and completeness of the construction documents. Some jurisdictions formalize this through certification forms in which the design professional attests that all corrections have been properly incorporated.
What Happens If You Ignore the Notes
The notes attached to your approval are not suggestions. In the permit context, they function as conditions of the building permit, and deviating from them is treated the same as deviating from any other code requirement. That means correction notices, fines, and potential stop-work orders. Each day a violation continues after notice can be treated as a separate offense, so the costs compound quickly.
In the contract context, review comments effectively become part of the construction requirements. Under the A201, a written order from the architect for a minor change in the work qualifies as a contract modification.1University of Wisconsin System. AIA Document A201 – 2017 General Conditions of the Contract for Construction Ignoring those comments can constitute a breach of contract, exposing the contractor to claims for damages, back-charges, or termination. Many construction contracts also include liquidated damages clauses that impose a daily dollar amount for delays caused by noncompliance, enforceable as long as the rate reflects a reasonable estimate of actual harm rather than a penalty.
The most immediate consequence is a failed inspection. When the inspector arrives and the work doesn’t match the approved, corrected plans, you’ll be sent back to fix the problem before any further inspections are scheduled. Repeated failures eat your timeline and trigger reinspection fees.
The bigger risk comes at the end of the project. A building cannot be legally occupied without a Certificate of Occupancy, and that certificate requires passing a final inspection that confirms all work complies with the approved plans and applicable codes. If unresolved notes from the original review surface during the final walk-through, the CO is denied. Without it, no one can move in, tenants can’t take possession, and the building sits empty while you scramble to fix issues that should have been addressed months earlier.
Unaddressed comments also create litigation exposure. If a structural failure or safety issue traces back to a correction you were told to make but didn’t, the documented trail of the reviewer’s notes becomes powerful evidence against you. Courts treat those comments as proof that you were on notice of the problem. Claiming ignorance is not a defense when your stamped set shows the correction in red ink.
When You Disagree With a Note
Sometimes a reviewer’s note reflects a code interpretation you disagree with, or a required change creates a technical conflict with another part of the design. You are not locked into accepting every comment without question, but the process for pushing back is formal.
Most building departments have a board of appeals or similar body that hears disputes over code interpretations, denials, and requests for variances. Typical grounds include challenging a code official’s interpretation, requesting approval for alternative materials or methods, or seeking a variance where strict compliance creates an undue hardship. Filing deadlines are tight, often 30 days or less from the decision, and incomplete applications will not be processed.
For submittals reviewed by an architect or engineer rather than a government authority, the dispute resolution mechanism lives in your contract. The A201 includes provisions for resolving disagreements between the contractor and architect, typically starting with a written request for clarification and escalating through the project owner if necessary. What you should not do is quietly ignore a comment you disagree with and build it your way. That approach virtually guarantees a failed inspection or a breach-of-contract claim, and it eliminates any sympathy you might have gotten from a board or arbitrator.