The correct floor plan is determined by the decision it must support and the evidence available when it is drawn. A concept layout tests an idea. An existing-condition plan records a measured starting point. Demolition and proposed plans describe change. A permit set supports code review. A record drawing documents what was actually installed. These are related artifacts, not interchangeable names for the same picture.
The shortest selection rule is: idea → concept plan; measured building → existing-condition plan; intended change → demolition plus proposed plans; authority review → permit set; completed work → record drawing. Calling every stage an “as-built” plan hides the most important distinction: whether the drawing describes an observation, an instruction, an approval package, or a completed result.
The map answers one question
Before drawing walls, ask: what claim must this plan be trusted to make?
That question separates six common deliverables:
| Deliverable | The claim it makes | Minimum useful input | Do not treat it as |
|---|---|---|---|
| Concept plan | “This arrangement may work.” | room program, rough dimensions, adjacency needs | a measured survey or approval |
| Existing-condition plan | “This is the documented starting layout.” | field measurements, openings, fixed elements | proof of hidden construction |
| Demolition plan | “These existing elements are intended for removal.” | verified existing plan plus scoped removals | a complete proposed design |
| Proposed plan | “This is the intended post-project arrangement.” | retained conditions plus new work | permission to build |
| Permit or construction set | “This package is detailed for review or execution.” | jurisdictional requirements and coordinated disciplines | a generic floor-plan image |
| Record drawing | “This reflects documented field changes after work.” | approved documents plus construction markups and verification | the pre-project survey by default |
The map is deliberately a decision model rather than a universal document standard. Names and required sheets vary by jurisdiction, project type, and contract. The evidence states remain useful even when a local authority uses different labels.
Start with a concept only when the question is still spatial
A concept plan is appropriate when the main uncertainty is arrangement: Can 27 student desks fit while preserving circulation? Where could a café place its service counter? How might bedrooms relate to a shared living area? At this stage, the plan helps people compare options and expose missing requirements.
If the project begins with a room list, approximate dimensions, and no existing building that must be faithfully preserved, FloorPlanMaker is a natural first-pass workspace: it turns a plain-English brief into a to-scale conceptual layout for homes, classrooms, events, offices, and other spaces. The output is useful for discussion and iteration; critical dimensions still need verification before anyone relies on it for construction or safety decisions.
A concept becomes misleading when its clean geometry is mistaken for observed fact. A plausible wall location is not a measured wall location. A generated door swing is not evidence that the real opening, header, landing, or egress path works.
Existing-condition plans establish the renovation baseline
Renovation begins with a different question: what is already there, and what must remain? The plan should identify the affected rooms, walls, doors, windows, stairs, fixtures, and dimensions closely enough that proposed work can be compared against a stable baseline.
Municipal guidance makes this separation operational. Portland asks residential plans to clearly show existing conditions and new construction, with a floor plan for each affected level. Boulder calls for dimensioned existing plans, including demolition details, and separate dimensioned proposed plans. Alameda's planning checklist likewise identifies existing, proposed, and—when applicable—demolition drawings as distinct submittal artifacts.
For an existing home addition, conversion, or remodel, FloorPlanCreator.org fits the early planning job: describe the existing house and the intended change, then make the as-is and proposed states explicit before a professional develops the permit documents. It is not a measuring instrument, structural analysis, or jurisdiction-specific approval set.
This boundary is why a generic new-space layout and an existing-home alteration should not share one undifferentiated workflow. The first starts from requirements. The second starts from evidence about a real building.
Demolition and proposed plans are paired change instructions
An existing-condition plan says what is present. A demolition plan marks which parts of that verified condition are to be removed. A proposed plan shows the intended result, including what stays and what is new. Reviewers should not have to infer any of those states from line color, decorative styling, or two nearly identical drawings.
A reproducible change set uses stable identifiers across sheets:
- Give rooms, openings, and affected elements consistent names.
- Mark the existing state without silently correcting awkward geometry.
- Identify removals against that existing state.
- Carry retained elements into the proposed state unchanged.
- Label new walls, openings, fixtures, dimensions, and uses.
- Add a revision date and scope note to every exported state.
The useful unit is therefore not “a before-and-after image.” It is a traceable relationship: existing element → retained, removed, relocated, or replaced → proposed element. That relationship is what lets a reviewer find contradictions.
A permit set is a coordinated package, not a more polished concept
A floor plan may be one sheet in a permit package, but the package can also require a site plan, elevations, sections, structural information, energy documentation, electrical or mechanical plans, and project-specific details. Portland's guidance, for example, requires scale, dimensions, affected-level plans, room uses, and clear separation of existing and proposed work. Local requirements should control; a checklist from another city is evidence of common structure, not permission to reuse its rules.
The transition from proposed plan to permit set is not a graphic-design upgrade. It changes the plan's burden:
- dimensions must be coordinated rather than approximate;
- assemblies and openings must agree across plans, elevations, and sections;
- code-relevant paths and clearances must be reviewable;
- structural and building-system changes must be developed by qualified people;
- the package must follow the current authority's submittal requirements.
A concept generator can accelerate the conversation that precedes this work. It cannot convert an unverified brief into a permit-ready building simply by adding dimensions and a title block.
“As-built” needs a scope sentence
In informal residential use, “as-built” often means a measured plan of the building as it exists before design begins. In formal project closeout, the same term may mean a record drawing prepared after construction to incorporate documented field changes. The Los Angeles Bureau of Engineering, for example, describes as-built plans as drawings that incorporate contractor record-drawing markups after final inspection.
Neither usage is universally wrong, but an unlabeled file is ambiguous. Write one sentence beside the title:
- Pre-design existing condition: measured on site on a stated date; concealed conditions not verified.
- Post-construction record drawing: based on approved drawings, field markups, and the stated verification process.
That sentence is more useful than arguing about the label because it names the evidence boundary. It tells the next reader whether the drawing predates the work or records its outcome.
A five-question handoff test
Before circulating a floor plan, answer:
- Decision: Is this for option selection, renovation scoping, permit review, construction, or closeout?
- State: Does it show existing, demolition, proposed, approved, or completed conditions?
- Evidence: Which dimensions were measured, supplied, inferred, or generated?
- Authority: Who must review or approve the next use of the drawing?
- Limits: Which structural, code, site, or concealed conditions remain unverified?
If those answers are missing, the drawing may still be visually clear while being operationally unsafe. If they are present, even an early concept can be useful because nobody has to guess what it claims.
The governing principle is simple: do not ask a floor plan to carry more authority than its inputs and review stage can support. Select the artifact by job, label its state, preserve its provenance, and hand it to the right reviewer before the stakes increase.