What is the difference between ArchPermit and a code-lookup tool like UpCodes?

A code-lookup tool gives you the code text and leaves the rest to you: you pick the code book, you work out which jurisdiction applies, and you assemble the submittal yourself. ArchPermit starts from an address, resolves the Authority Having Jurisdiction, and returns a checklist of that jurisdiction's actual requirements with a source link and last-reviewed date on each one, then reads your documents and assembles a draft package. Neither one reviews or seals anything.

Should I use ArchPermit or hire a permit expediter?

They solve different halves. An expediter is a human service that files with the city and chases corrections, typically for a four-figure fee, and the licensed design seal is still a separate engagement you arrange. ArchPermit is software that does the research and the package preparation for $0 to $39 a month, and also does not seal anything. Many projects want both: use ArchPermit to arrive at the reviewer and the expediter prepared, rather than paying either to figure out what is required.

Why not just ask ChatGPT what my ADU permit needs?

Because a general chat model has no citation, no last-reviewed date, and no way to tell you when it is unsure. Permit requirements are jurisdiction-specific, change with code cycles, and are exactly the kind of fact a model will confabulate confidently. ArchPermit's requirements are retrieved from government sources, each carries a link and a review date, and where sources conflict it fails closed and flags the uncertainty instead of guessing.

Does ArchPermit replace hiring an architect?

No, and it cannot. Building department submittals generally require a licensed professional's seal applied under responsible control, and ArchPermit does not hold a license, employ architects, or provide, price, or collect payment for review. What it changes is how much of the work is already done, and how well specified, when you reach that architect. You engage and pay them directly.

How ArchPermit compares

Most tools do one piece. ArchPermit does the whole path.

ArchPermit is not an autonomous AI architect, not a pure code-lookup tool, and not a permit-ops workflow alone. The wedge is simple: no other product takes a messy brief all the way to a jurisdiction-specific, citation-grounded draft package with the reviewer brief already written. ArchPermit does. What it deliberately does not do is the licensed part: the seal comes from an independent architect you engage directly.

Quick answer

Four categories of tool overlap here, and they stop at different points. Code-lookup tools (such as UpCodes) give you the code text but no address-to-jurisdiction step, no checklist and no package. Permit expediters are a human service: they file with the city and chase status, but the licensed design seal is a separate engagement you arrange, and their fees run into the thousands. Generic AI chat answers fast and ungrounded, with no citations, no last-reviewed dates and nothing stopping unreviewed output from looking final. ArchPermit resolves the Authority Having Jurisdiction from an address, builds a source-cited checklist for all 50 states and DC, reads your documents, assembles a watermarked draft package, and writes the brief you hand a reviewer. None of the four, ArchPermit included, can seal a set: only a licensed architect can, and with ArchPermit you engage and pay that architect directly.

See a cited checklist View pricing

Where the other categories stop

Not an autonomous AI architect

ArchPermit automates the production work, but a licensed architect keeps responsible control and the seal wherever the law requires it. Autonomy stops at the things that carry legal accountability.

Not a pure code-lookup tool

Code lookups tell you the rules. They don’t resolve your jurisdiction from an address, read your documents, assemble a draft package, or route it through a licensed review.

Not a permit-ops workflow alone

Expediter and permit-ops tooling coordinates filings and people. ArchPermit does that on top of the grounded, cited intelligence that turns a brief into the package in the first place.

Feature by feature

An honest, side-by-side look at what each category actually does for a real submittal. Where another approach can do part of the job, we say so.

Capability	ArchPermitBrief → cited draft package + reviewer brief	DIY code research / code-lookup toolsSelf-serve reference	Permit expediters / permit-ops workflowsHuman service & filing	Generic AI tools that “guess”Fast, ungrounded chat
Jurisdiction resolution from an addressWork out the Authority Having Jurisdiction (plus flood and elevation context) from a plain address.	YesAutomatic from the address. ArchPermit resolves the AHJ before building the checklist.	NoYou pick the code book yourself; no address-to-jurisdiction step.	PartialA person knows the jurisdiction, but only once you’ve engaged and paid them.	NoWill name a jurisdiction confidently, with no guarantee it’s the right one.
Requirements grounded in cited gov sources + last-reviewed dateEvery requirement carries a citation to a government source and the date it was last reviewed.	YesEach item links a government source and shows its last-reviewed date.	PartialPoints you at the codes, but you assemble and date-check the checklist yourself.	NoKnowledge lives in the expediter’s head; no cited, self-serve checklist you keep.	NoAnswers read authoritative but are usually uncited and may be stale or invented.
Says so when unsure (fail-closed, no fabrication)When a source conflicts, an address can’t be placed, or confidence is low, it stops and says so.	YesFail-closed by design. Flags uncertainty for a human instead of inventing a requirement.	PartialIt’s just reference material, so it can’t tell you what it doesn’t cover.	PartialA good expediter will say “I’m not sure,” but it depends on the individual.	NoHallucination-prone. Fills gaps with confident, fabricated answers.
Reads your documents & extracts permit-relevant factsReads a survey, title report, or soils report and pulls the parcel, zoning, and foundation facts.	YesDocument intelligence extracts the facts and links them to the right checklist items.	NoStatic reference; doesn’t ingest or read your project documents.	PartialA human can read your documents, but it’s manual, billed, and not self-serve.	PartialMay summarize a pasted file, but extraction is unverified and not tied to a checklist.
Generates a draft packageAssembles a jurisdiction-specific draft permit package you can iterate on.	YesProduces a Draft permit-package PDF, assembled against the cited checklist.	NoTells you what’s required; you produce the package separately.	PartialCoordinates and files a package, but the production is a slow, expensive human service.	NoCan draft prose, but not an assembled, jurisdiction-specific submittal set.
Licensed-architect review + seal gate (enforced in code)Nothing is permit-ready until an independent licensed architect reviews and seals it. No tool in this table performs that review. The question is whether the tool admits it and routes you there.	YesArchPermit does not seal, and never claims to: packages stay watermarked Draft, you can never seal your own project, and it writes the brief for the independent architect you engage and pay directly.	NoNo review and no seal. It’s reference, not a responsible professional.	PartialFiles with the city, but the licensed design seal is a separate engagement you arrange.	NoNo licensed gate, so nothing stops unreviewed output from looking final.
Audit trailEvery resolution, status change, document read, and review decision is recorded.	YesFull audit trail, so you always know what ArchPermit did and why.	NoNothing is recorded; it’s a lookup, not a system of record.	PartialEmail threads and filing receipts, with no structured, queryable history.	NoChat logs at best, with no per-decision evidence trail.

Jurisdiction resolution from an address

Work out the Authority Having Jurisdiction (plus flood and elevation context) from a plain address.

ArchPermitYes: Automatic from the address. ArchPermit resolves the AHJ before building the checklist.
DIY code research / code-lookup toolsNo: You pick the code book yourself; no address-to-jurisdiction step.
Permit expediters / permit-ops workflowsPartial: A person knows the jurisdiction, but only once you’ve engaged and paid them.
Generic AI tools that “guess”No: Will name a jurisdiction confidently, with no guarantee it’s the right one.

Requirements grounded in cited gov sources + last-reviewed date

Every requirement carries a citation to a government source and the date it was last reviewed.

ArchPermitYes: Each item links a government source and shows its last-reviewed date.
DIY code research / code-lookup toolsPartial: Points you at the codes, but you assemble and date-check the checklist yourself.
Permit expediters / permit-ops workflowsNo: Knowledge lives in the expediter’s head; no cited, self-serve checklist you keep.
Generic AI tools that “guess”No: Answers read authoritative but are usually uncited and may be stale or invented.

Says so when unsure (fail-closed, no fabrication)

When a source conflicts, an address can’t be placed, or confidence is low, it stops and says so.

ArchPermitYes: Fail-closed by design. Flags uncertainty for a human instead of inventing a requirement.
DIY code research / code-lookup toolsPartial: It’s just reference material, so it can’t tell you what it doesn’t cover.
Permit expediters / permit-ops workflowsPartial: A good expediter will say “I’m not sure,” but it depends on the individual.
Generic AI tools that “guess”No: Hallucination-prone. Fills gaps with confident, fabricated answers.

Reads your documents & extracts permit-relevant facts

Reads a survey, title report, or soils report and pulls the parcel, zoning, and foundation facts.

ArchPermitYes: Document intelligence extracts the facts and links them to the right checklist items.
DIY code research / code-lookup toolsNo: Static reference; doesn’t ingest or read your project documents.
Permit expediters / permit-ops workflowsPartial: A human can read your documents, but it’s manual, billed, and not self-serve.
Generic AI tools that “guess”Partial: May summarize a pasted file, but extraction is unverified and not tied to a checklist.

Generates a draft package

Assembles a jurisdiction-specific draft permit package you can iterate on.

ArchPermitYes: Produces a Draft permit-package PDF, assembled against the cited checklist.
DIY code research / code-lookup toolsNo: Tells you what’s required; you produce the package separately.
Permit expediters / permit-ops workflowsPartial: Coordinates and files a package, but the production is a slow, expensive human service.
Generic AI tools that “guess”No: Can draft prose, but not an assembled, jurisdiction-specific submittal set.

Licensed-architect review + seal gate (enforced in code)

Nothing is permit-ready until an independent licensed architect reviews and seals it. No tool in this table performs that review. The question is whether the tool admits it and routes you there.

ArchPermitYes: ArchPermit does not seal, and never claims to: packages stay watermarked Draft, you can never seal your own project, and it writes the brief for the independent architect you engage and pay directly.
DIY code research / code-lookup toolsNo: No review and no seal. It’s reference, not a responsible professional.
Permit expediters / permit-ops workflowsPartial: Files with the city, but the licensed design seal is a separate engagement you arrange.
Generic AI tools that “guess”No: No licensed gate, so nothing stops unreviewed output from looking final.

Audit trail

Every resolution, status change, document read, and review decision is recorded.

ArchPermitYes: Full audit trail, so you always know what ArchPermit did and why.
DIY code research / code-lookup toolsNo: Nothing is recorded; it’s a lookup, not a system of record.
Permit expediters / permit-ops workflowsPartial: Email threads and filing receipts, with no structured, queryable history.
Generic AI tools that “guess”No: Chat logs at best, with no per-decision evidence trail.

Yes = does this directly · Partial = can do part of it, or only via a human/manual step · No= not what the category does. Categories are described generically; we don't compare named products or invent their pricing.

The difference is the licensed-review gate.

Speed is easy to copy. Accountability is not. Everything ArchPermit produces is marked Draft, pending licensed review until an independent licensed architect reviews and seals it. You can never seal your own project. The rule is enforced in code, not just promised in copy. That is the line between a fast guess and something you can put in front of a building department.

Start a project →Browse permit requirements

Draft until sealed

Nothing is presented as permit-ready. Every artifact stays labelled “Draft, pending licensed review” until a licensed professional signs off.

Independence enforced in code

You cannot review or seal your own project. The separation between author and reviewer is a code-level rule, not an honor system.

Grounded and auditable

Cited sources with last-reviewed dates, plus a full audit trail of every resolution, document read, and review decision, so the package can withstand scrutiny.

Which one should I use?

What is the difference between ArchPermit and a code-lookup tool like UpCodes?: A code-lookup tool gives you the code text and leaves the rest to you: you pick the code book, you work out which jurisdiction applies, and you assemble the submittal yourself. ArchPermit starts from an address, resolves the Authority Having Jurisdiction, and returns a checklist of that jurisdiction's actual requirements with a source link and last-reviewed date on each one, then reads your documents and assembles a draft package. Neither one reviews or seals anything.
Should I use ArchPermit or hire a permit expediter?: They solve different halves. An expediter is a human service that files with the city and chases corrections, typically for a four-figure fee, and the licensed design seal is still a separate engagement you arrange. ArchPermit is software that does the research and the package preparation for $0 to $39 a month, and also does not seal anything. Many projects want both: use ArchPermit to arrive at the reviewer and the expediter prepared, rather than paying either to figure out what is required.
Why not just ask ChatGPT what my ADU permit needs?: Because a general chat model has no citation, no last-reviewed date, and no way to tell you when it is unsure. Permit requirements are jurisdiction-specific, change with code cycles, and are exactly the kind of fact a model will confabulate confidently. ArchPermit's requirements are retrieved from government sources, each carries a link and a review date, and where sources conflict it fails closed and flags the uncertainty instead of guessing.
Does ArchPermit replace hiring an architect?: No, and it cannot. Building department submittals generally require a licensed professional's seal applied under responsible control, and ArchPermit does not hold a license, employ architects, or provide, price, or collect payment for review. What it changes is how much of the work is already done, and how well specified, when you reach that architect. You engage and pay them directly.

Comparisons describe categories of tools and services generically, based on how each approach typically works; they are not claims about any specific named product. We don't quote competitor pricing, because it varies by provider, scope, and jurisdiction. Any product or company names that may apply are the trademarks of their respective owners, and their use does not imply affiliation or endorsement.