5.1 Site Feasibility Studies, Existing-Conditions Due Diligence & Project Impacts
Key Takeaways
- The buildable envelope is set by the zoning ordinance (permitted use, height, setbacks, floor area ratio, lot coverage, open space, parking) and then further reduced by recorded easements, CC&Rs, protected trees, creek and bluff setbacks, and Alquist-Priolo fault-zone setbacks.
- Existing-conditions due diligence relies on instruments the architect does not produce: a preliminary title report, an ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey, a topographic and boundary survey, a geotechnical report under CBC Chapter 18, utility will-serve letters, and hazardous-materials surveys.
- A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ASTM E1527) evaluates recognized environmental conditions in soil and groundwater; it is not a building hazardous-materials survey and does not satisfy the asbestos and lead survey obligations that precede demolition or renovation.
- Statewide hazard maps must be checked parcel-by-parcel before design begins: Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones, Seismic Hazard Zones for liquefaction and landslide, Fire Hazard Severity Zones, FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps, and the Cortese List of contaminated sites under Government Code Section 65962.5.
- Buildings roughly 45 to 50 years old or older must be screened for historical-resource status before demolition or exterior alteration is assumed, because a qualifying historical resource converts a routine project into a CEQA significant-impact analysis.
Site Feasibility Studies, Existing-Conditions Due Diligence & Project Impacts
The CSE test plan opens its largest content area with a single task: conduct site feasibility studies to clarify and address project requirements. In California this is not a casual exercise. A parcel can be legally buildable and physically impossible, or physically ideal and legally frozen by a coastal boundary, a fault zone, a recorded easement, or an unmapped historical resource. Every schematic design decision that follows rests on the quality of the feasibility work, and every entitlement risk the client will later blame the architect for was visible at this stage.
Feasibility work also generates the existing-conditions data the exam tests separately: what the architect must obtain, who produces it, and what each instrument does and does not prove.
The Four-Part Feasibility Test
Work the questions in order. Each one can kill the project, so answering them out of sequence wastes the client's money.
1. Entitlement Feasibility: Is the Use Allowed?
Start with the general plan land use designation, then the zoning district. Zoning must be consistent with the general plan in general-law cities and counties, so a use permitted by zoning but inconsistent with the general plan designation signals that a general plan amendment — a legislative act, not an administrative one — is required. Confirm whether the use is permitted by right, permitted with a conditional use permit, or prohibited.
2. Physical Feasibility: Does the Program Fit?
Build the buildable envelope from the development standards and subtract every physical and legal encumbrance:
| Envelope Control | Typical Source | What It Removes |
|---|---|---|
| Height limit, story limit | Zoning ordinance | Vertical capacity; may be measured from average natural grade, not finish grade |
| Front, side, rear setbacks | Zoning ordinance | Perimeter footprint |
| Floor area ratio (FAR), lot coverage | Zoning ordinance | Total and per-floor area |
| Required parking, loading, bicycle parking | Zoning ordinance | Ground-level area or a podium/subterranean level |
| Usable open space, landscape ratio | Zoning ordinance | Site area |
| Recorded easements, rights-of-way | Preliminary title report | Buildable area, sometimes across the middle of the parcel |
| Private CC&Rs, HOA design rules | Title report exceptions | Massing, materials, colors — enforceable privately even where zoning permits |
| Protected/heritage trees, creek and riparian setbacks | Local ordinance, survey | Footprint and grading limits |
| Alquist-Priolo fault setback (presumptively 50 feet) | State fault-zone map | A hard no-build band for structures for human occupancy |
| Coastal bluff, wetland, or shoreline setbacks | Local Coastal Program | Seaward development area |
3. Regulatory Feasibility: What Approvals and Review Apply?
Identify the discretionary approvals required, the decision body for each, and the resulting CEQA pathway. Determine early whether a state agency preempts the local building department — a public school triggers DSA review, a general acute care hospital triggers HCAI review, and a project in the coastal zone triggers a coastal development permit. Run a preliminary California Building Code analysis at the same time: occupancy group, construction type, allowable height and area with any frontage and sprinkler increases, separation of occupancies, and whether the resulting building can actually be built in the envelope from step two. A program that only fits as Type I construction may be financially infeasible even though it is legally permitted.
4. Schedule and Cost Feasibility
Convert the approval pathway into a calendar. An initial study with a mitigated negative declaration and a planning commission hearing behaves very differently from a full environmental impact report with a city council appeal. Document the assumptions; they become the basis of the design schedule and of the additional-services triggers in the owner-architect agreement.
Existing-Conditions Due Diligence: Who Produces What
The architect coordinates this evidence but does not generate most of it. Knowing the correct instrument — and its limits — is exam-tested and malpractice-relevant.
| Instrument | What It Establishes | Who Produces It | California Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preliminary title report | Ownership, legal description, recorded easements, CC&Rs, liens | Title company | Order the underlying recorded documents; the report only lists exceptions |
| ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey | Boundaries reconciled with title exceptions, plotted easements, encroachments | Licensed land surveyor | The only reliable boundary source; assessor parcel maps are not survey-grade |
| Topographic survey | Contours, spot elevations, trees, utilities, improvements | Licensed land surveyor | Drives grading, accessible route slopes, and drainage design |
| Geotechnical/soils report | Soil profile, bearing capacity, groundwater, seismic site class, liquefaction and expansive-soil findings | Geotechnical engineer | Required by CBC Chapter 18; a Seismic Hazard Zone triggers a site-specific investigation |
| Utility will-serve letters and capacity studies | Whether water, sewer, power, and gas capacity actually exists at the property line | Serving utilities and districts | Capacity — not just proximity — governs; sewer capacity commonly limits infill projects |
| Record drawings and as-builts | Existing building configuration | Owner, building department microfiche | Verify in the field; record drawings are evidence, not fact |
| Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ASTM E1527) | Recognized environmental conditions in soil and groundwater | Environmental professional | Does not cover building materials; a Phase II involves sampling |
| Hazardous building materials survey | Asbestos-containing materials, lead-based paint, PCBs, mercury | Certified asbestos consultant, lead inspector | Required before demolition or disturbance under Cal/OSHA and air district rules |
| Historical resource evaluation (DPR 523 forms) | Eligibility for the California Register or a local register | Architectural historian | A qualifying historical resource makes demolition or major alteration a CEQA impact |
Statewide Hazard and Contamination Screening
Every California feasibility study includes a parcel-level map check. These are free, public, and dispositive:
- Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones — presumptive 50-foot setback from an active trace for structures for human occupancy unless a site-specific fault investigation demonstrates otherwise.
- Seismic Hazard Zones — liquefaction and earthquake-induced landslide zones under the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act; trigger a site investigation and mitigation report before a permit issues.
- Fire Hazard Severity Zones — moderate, high, and very high zones in State and Local Responsibility Areas; a very high zone imposes CBC Chapter 7A ignition-resistant construction and defensible-space obligations.
- FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps and state awareness floodplain maps — establish the base flood elevation and the freeboard the local floodplain ordinance requires.
- Cortese List (Government Code Section 65962.5) — the state list of hazardous-materials release sites; a listed parcel affects both CEQA analysis and lender due diligence.
- Coastal Zone boundary and Local Coastal Program maps — determine whether a coastal development permit is required and whether appeal jurisdiction lies with the Coastal Commission.
Determining Project Impacts
Feasibility work produces the environmental baseline the CEQA document will use: the physical conditions on the site at the time the notice of preparation is published or environmental review begins. Common early impact screens include vehicle miles traveled under Public Resources Code Section 21099, construction and operational noise against the local noise element, shade and shadow on adjacent uses, biological resources, tribal cultural resources under Assembly Bill 52 consultation, and archaeological sensitivity. Identifying these early lets the design team avoid an impact rather than mitigate it, which is always cheaper.
CSE Exam Traps & Practical Takeaways
- Trap 1: Treating a Phase I ESA as a hazardous materials survey. A Phase I addresses soil and groundwater contamination. It does not look for asbestos, lead paint, or PCBs in the building, and a demolition contractor cannot rely on it.
- Trap 2: Designing to the assessor parcel map. Assessor maps are for taxation. Only a boundary or ALTA/NSPS survey establishes the property line the setbacks are measured from.
- Trap 3: Confusing proximity with capacity. A sewer main in the street is not the same as sewer capacity. Get the will-serve letter before you fix the unit count.
- Trap 4: Skipping the age screen on existing buildings. A structure approaching 50 years old must be evaluated for historical significance before the team assumes demolition. Discovering a historical resource after the entitlement application is filed restarts environmental review.
- Trap 5: Reporting feasibility as a yes or no. The correct deliverable is a written feasibility report identifying the approval path, the assumptions, the unresolved items, and the risks — the document that later proves the architect disclosed the constraint.
An owner asks an architect to confirm that a 1968 two-story commercial building on an infill parcel can be demolished and replaced with a four-story mixed-use building. The architect has reviewed the zoning ordinance and confirmed that the use, height, and floor area ratio are permitted by right. Which of the following remaining due-diligence findings would most likely convert this from an administrative building permit into a full discretionary approval with environmental review?
During feasibility work for a 60-unit apartment project, the civil engineer confirms that an 8-inch sanitary sewer main runs in the street fronting the property. What additional confirmation should the architect obtain before the unit count is fixed in the schematic design?
A parcel lies within a mapped Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The client wants to place a two-story office building 25 feet from the mapped active fault trace. What is the architect's correct feasibility conclusion?