Aipedia: Architects

AI building regulations checks for architects

Aipedia, by the Apex broking team · Last reviewed 2026-10-27

An AI compliance checker can flag issues, but it cannot discharge the architect's legal duty to make sure the design complies. Compliance checking is the second most common AI use in practice, and fire safety is where an error costs most.

Part of: AI in Architects

In short

RIBA's 2026 AI Report found 40% of AI-using practices use AI for compliance checking. Under Part 2A of the Building Regulations 2010, reg 11K requires designers to ensure the design would comply if built, and regs 11F to 11H set competence duties. A tool that reports "compliant" is not evidence of compliance. A missed fire safety issue is the most serious outcome, and it meets the part of architects' PI most likely to be restricted, since ARB allows aggregate or restricted fire safety cover in some cases.

How architects use AI for compliance

The RIBA AI Report 2026 found 40% of practices that use AI use it for compliance checking. Typical uses are asking a chatbot to summarise what an Approved Document requires, running drawings or models through a rules-based checker, and generating compliance tables for Part B (fire safety), Part M (access) and Part O (overheating).

The overview of AI in architecture explains how this fits with the other ways practices use AI. These tools are good at spotting the obvious and poor at judgement. They may not know which edition of guidance applies, cannot see the whole design, and often present an answer with more certainty than it deserves.

The duties that apply

Building Regulations 2010 Part 2A (England): reg 11K requires designers to ensure the design would comply if built, provide sufficient design information and report concerns. Regs 11F to 11H set competence requirements.
Architects Code Standard 3.1: work within the limits of competence, and 3.2: keep up to date with current standards and good practice.
Standard 3.5: appropriate supervision where junior staff run the checks.
Standard 4.5: accurate records of how compliance decisions were reached.

None of these is satisfied by a tool's output alone. The architect must understand and stand behind each compliance conclusion. The ARB and RIBA guide sets out the wider Code.

What can go wrong

Illustrative scenario. A practice designing a mixed-use block runs its plans through an AI checker, which reports compliant escape distances. The tool had assumed a sprinklered building and had not been told the client removed sprinklers to save cost. The error is found late, after the stair cores are fixed, and redesign causes delay. The client claims redesign and delay costs from the architect.

Other failure modes include a chatbot citing withdrawn guidance, an accessibility check that ignores level changes outside the model, and overheating assessed on default inputs. Each gives false assurance: the team stops looking because the tool said yes, and nobody records why the design was thought compliant. When the problem surfaces, the practice cannot show the reasoning a competent architect would have applied. Apex's fire safety claim case study shows how such claims develop under the Building Safety Act.

How PI usually responds

An error in compliance advice is a classic professional negligence claim, so architects' PI will usually respond whether or not AI was involved, subject to the wording. Fire safety is different in practice:

ARB's PII guidance allows aggregate cover for fire safety and cladding where sized for multiple claims, and restricted cover only after reasonable efforts to find full cover;
many policies carry fire safety or cladding restrictions, so an AI-related fire safety error may be covered on narrower terms than other claims;
where the tool was used to give advice outside the practice's declared activities, insurers may question cover.

Check how your policy treats fire safety before relying on any tool for Part B. See fire safety and cladding exclusions in PI.

Practical controls

Treat AI compliance output as a prompt to check, never as the check.
Record the edition of each Approved Document or standard the practice relied on.
Feed the tool the full design assumptions, and record them.
Have Part B conclusions reviewed by someone competent in fire safety, or a fire engineer.
Do not use AI for compliance areas outside the practice's competence.
Coordinate with the principal designer where Part 2A duties apply (see AI compliance checks for principal designers).

How Apex helps

Apex arranges PI for architects, including practices with fire safety restrictions on cover. A broker can explain how your fire safety terms would apply to a compliance error, whatever tool was involved.

Sources

Frequently asked

Can I rely on an AI tool to confirm Part B compliance?

No. Under reg 11K the designer must ensure the design would comply if built. An AI tool can help find issues, but a competent person must check the conclusion against the applicable guidance and the actual design assumptions, and the reasoning should be recorded.

Why does fire safety matter most for PI?

Fire safety claims can be large and many architects' policies carry fire safety or cladding restrictions or aggregate limits. A compliance error involving fire safety may therefore be covered on narrower terms than other claims, depending on the wording.

Do I need to tell building control I used AI?

There is no general legal requirement for architects. The CROSS-UK panel in Report 1554 said designers should disclose AI-assisted outputs in engineering submissions and that approving authorities may wish to ask, so disclosure is sensible where AI materially shaped a submission.

Check your PI covers how you use AI

Tell us about your firm and the work you do. A broker will review how your current PI treats AI-assisted work, or arrange new cover. No fee for a quote. Or call 0117 325 0027.

Start a PI quote Request a callback

Apex Insurance Brokers Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Registered in England and Wales, company number 07014570. This page is general information about how AI is used in the profession and how insurance may respond. It is not legal, regulatory or insurance advice on your circumstances, and it does not guarantee that cover will be available or on what terms.