Preparing for Plan Check: Common Title 24 Mistakes to Avoid

Plan check delays are frustrating, expensive, and usually avoidable. Here are the most common Title 24-related issues that send projects back for correction, based on patterns building departments commonly flag.

Mismatched climate zone. Occasionally a report is prepared using the wrong climate zone — sometimes from a template reused across projects, sometimes from an address entry error. Every California Title 24 report should clearly state the project's climate zone, and it's worth double-checking this matches your actual site location before submittal.

Plans and report don't match. This is probably the single most common rejection reason: the floor plan submitted to the building department doesn't match the floor plan the Title 24 report was based on. This happens when plans get revised after the energy report was completed but before permit submittal, and nobody updates the energy compliance documentation to match. Always submit your Title 24 report alongside the exact same plan set you're using for the permit application — if plans changed, the report needs a revision first.

Missing HERS verification disclosure. If your compliance path includes measures requiring HERS verification (duct sealing, refrigerant charge, etc.), this needs to be clearly identified in the submitted documentation. Some building departments will flag a report that doesn't clearly disclose applicable HERS requirements, even if the underlying calculation is correct.

Incomplete mandatory measures checklist. Beyond the core envelope/HVAC calculations, Title 24 includes a list of mandatory measures (lighting controls, ventilation requirements, etc.) that apply regardless of compliance path. A report missing this checklist, or with it incompletely filled out, is a common source of plan-check comments.

Outdated software version or code cycle. Reports need to be generated using the currently adopted code cycle (2022 Energy Code as of this writing) and current compliance software. A report inadvertently run against an outdated code cycle will be rejected regardless of how accurate the underlying calculations are.

The common thread: most plan-check issues aren't about the energy calculations being wrong, they're about documentation and plan-matching details. Working with a consultant who explicitly confirms plan-set alignment and current code-cycle compliance before delivery avoids the majority of these issues.