Accurately specifying and distinguishing between existing, to-be-demolished, and new construction is a non-negotiable requirement in Alberta’s residential renovation permit plans. Code compliance, reviewer approval, and contractor coordination depend on clear graphic conventions, disciplined annotation, and rigorous referencing of the Alberta Building Code (ABC) as well as local municipal drafting standards. In all stages-drafting, permit intake, review, and on-site interpretation-the delineation of work scope through drawing sheets, details, and schedules underpins successful projects and efficient approvals.

Granular Graphic Conventions Distinguishing Existing, Demolished, and New Elements

Mandated Lineweights and Linetypes per Alberta Standards

Differentiation between construction phases in permit plans hinges on the disciplined use of lineweights and linetypes, governed by both City of Calgary and City of Edmonton standards as well as sector best practices. For residential projects submitted for permit under ABC Part 9:

  • Existing Elements: Must be depicted as medium-weight solid lines (approx. 0.35-0.40 mm lineweight). This provides enough visual authority to be discernible, but intentionally subordinate to new work.
  • Demolished Elements: Represented as medium-weight dashed lines (~0.35-0.40 mm). Dashes must be regular and consistent, with sufficient length to distinguish from grid lines or other annotation.
  • New Elements: Always shown in heavy solid lines (0.50-0.60 mm or greater). Walls, footings, beams, and assemblies proposed for construction are thus prioritized in the drawing hierarchy.

Plan reviewers often redline when lineweights fail to maintain this hierarchy: “Ambiguous lineweights-please clarify scope of new versus existing wall at north elevation” is a standard City of Calgary reviewer comment. Uniform adherence eliminates ambiguity at both municipal and construction levels.

Standard Hatch Patterns, Fill Colours, and Material Differentiation

Visual coding extends beyond lines. Material differentiation uses both hatch patterns and, where municipal electronic submission allows, fill colours:

  • Concrete: 45° hatch per CSA drafting convention.
  • Wood: Parallel-line hatch pattern.
  • Insulation: Standard insulation batten symbol or “bubble” circle pattern.

Demolished areas are often overlaid (when allowed) with a red, orange, or otherwise distinct fill, while new construction may use green or blue fills. The City of Calgary Drawing Standards mandate that all plan symbols and hatches be called out in a drawing legend, with unambiguous graphical distinction of each status and material.

Text Styles and Explicit Annotation

Legibility and consistency of annotation round out graphic differentiation:

  • Existing: Labelled with standard (upright), all-cap text: EXISTING WALL TO REMAIN.
  • Demolished: Bold and italicized, adjacent to element: TO BE DEMOLISHED or REMOVE.
  • New: Bold, sometimes underlined annotation: NEW PARTITION, PROPOSED LVL BEAM.

Typical plan reviewer redlines include “Missing tags: indicate status of wall between Kitchen and Bath” and “Clarify scope on sheet A1.2-ambiguous annotation for bearing wall.” Annotation must sit adjacent to or within the boundary of the relevant element-over-reliance on general notes is flagged by reviewers.

Drawing Sheet Call-Outs and Detail Conventions

A disciplined approach to call-outs and referencing details, sections, and phasing is required. Call-out bubbles (circles or rectangles) must use unambiguous detail numbers and sheet numbers (e.g., 5/A3.4), always referencing tie-in locations between phases. A legend describing all symbols, hatches, and line conventions is mandatory for clarity. Standard keynotes indicating items such as “New 90-minute rated party wall per ABC 9.10.9.14(1)” or “Existing footing-see structural for as-built data” avoid future miscommunication.

Applying the Alberta Building Code Part 9: Existing vs. New, and Explicit Code Referencing

Granular Application of Code to New Versus Existing Elements

Alterations to residential buildings in Alberta require careful separation between elements subject to current ABC Part 9 and those considered ‘grandfathered.’ As clarified by City of Edmonton Building Standards:

  • “The level of life safety and building performance of lawfully existing construction must not be decreased as a result of alterations, rehabilitation, renovation, or repair.”

This fundamental code tenet governs both explicit code referencing for new work and the acknowledgment of existing non-conforming conditions.

Explicit Drawing Notes: Code Compliance for New Work

Every new addition or alteration must be explicitly tagged for code compliance in plan notation. Consider:

  • Egress (ABC 9.9.6.2): “Proposed bedroom egress window to provide minimum unobstructed openable area of 0.35m² and no dimension less than 380mm, per ABC 9.9.10.1(2).”
  • Fire Separations (ABC 9.10.9.14): “New 45-minute fire-rated wall per Table 9.10.9.14: 2 layers 12.7mm Type X gypsum board each face, 2x4 stud, 90mm mineral wool insulation.”
  • Energy (ABC 9.36.2.6): “New exterior wall to achieve RSI 3.08 (R-17.5) U-value, min. per ABC 9.36.2.6; see 9.36 Project Summary for calculation.”

The City of Calgary 9.36 Project Summary must be included on all permit sets with new exterior envelope work. Omission routinely triggers City redlines or permit holds.

Addressing Grandfathered Existing Conditions and Exceptions

Where existing conditions do not meet current standards but are to remain, document their status and reference their legally non-conforming (‘grandfathered’) status. Annotate with, for example:

  • “EXISTING basement stair does not comply with ABC 9.8.4.2 rise/run, to remain; lawfully existing, no reduction to current safety.”
  • “EXISTING single-glazed window, non-compliant with ABC 9.36, to remain in located stairwell. No decrease in energy performance, see Alberta Municipal Affairs STANDATA 19-BCI-001.”

Mitigation measures (e.g., upgraded smoke detection, additional insulation overlay where feasible) may be referenced when suggested by plan examiners: “While existing exterior wall is less than RSI 3.08 required, propose additional batt insulation interior to original studs.”

Code Tables Within Drawing Sets

To reinforce clarity for reviewers, code summary tables are incorporated at the start or within the main floor plans, e.g.:

ElementCode ReferenceRequired SpecificationProposed Specification
Ext. Wall Insulation9.36.2.6RSI 3.08 (R-17.5)RSI 3.08
Egress Door9.9.6.2810 mm min. width915 mm
Fire Separation9.10.9.141-hr rating1-hr/Type X gyp. both sides

Variance references are required for any municipal exceptions: “Variance granted for stair width per City of Edmonton STANDATA 19-BCI-001.” Omission of explicit exception call-outs routinely triggers correction requests from all major Alberta authorities having jurisdiction (AHJs).

Detail Conventions, Dimensions, and Specific ABC References

Detail callouts are used to reinforce code compliance in sections and elevations: “See Detail 5/A2.1 for Type 2 new wall assembly for compliance with ABC 9.36.2.6.” All new elements must carry explicit plan dimensions referencing ABC minimums-e.g., “NEW corridor width 1100 mm; ABC 9.9.5.1 = 860 mm minimum.”

Material notations specify grades, such as, “2x10 SPF No. 2 joists at 400 O/C, CSA O141” or “New insulation: R-24 cellulose, CSA A101.”

Strategic Dimensioning and Detailing for Existing/New Construction Tie-Ins

Dimensioning New Footings Adjacent to Existing Foundations

Integration of new structural work with existing buildings is especially sensitive. Survey data underpins all dimensioning-existing foundation lines, offsets, and heights are to be derived from as-built survey information and referenced to benchmark datum lines established on the site plan and floor plans (“BM=Top of existing foundation wall at 1043.21m, Geodetic”).

New footings must be dimensioned exactly to existing conditions, with annotations such as, “NEW 600x200mm strip footing at 1200mm offset from face of existing concrete wall; maintain 150mm min. separation per NBC(AE) Part 9, Table 9.15.1.2.”

Reviewers frequently redline when submissions use arbitrary or assumed dimensions: “Dimension tie-in between new and existing footings unclear-provide as-built verification.”

Aligning New Framing with Irregular Existing Walls

Field accuracy is managed with detailed as-built geometry. Existing wall deviations must be indicated (“EXISTING 2x4 wall in kitchen out-of-plumb, offset 30mm at mid-span; frame new pantry wall to align at closet”). Flexible framing techniques (Documented with notations such as “New top plate to be scribed to existing ceiling” and “Use shims/planning as required to achieve flush finish at new/existing interface”) must be detailed, not simply left to contractor discretion. Load transfer points are highlighted: “New LVL beam bears on existing 2x6 column-see Detail 8/A5.1, verify existing bearing at site.”

Detail call-outs (“See Detail 3/A6.3: Typical wall-to-foundation transition-existing to new”) are required to isolate these critical juncture points for review and contractor reference.

Material Transitions: Waterproofing, Insulation, and Finishes

Envelope performance-the perennial concern of both the ABC and Alberta’s climate-must be addressed where new meets old. Transitions are explicitly detailed:

  • Waterproofing: “Install new dimpled membrane at new foundation wall; overlap onto existing by minimum 300mm, seal with approved mastic per CAN/CGSB-37.2.”
  • Insulation: “Place continuous R-24 batt insulation at new stud cavity; carry through to overlap min. 400mm past joint with existing wall; tape seams with vapour barrier tape, per ABC 9.25.4.”
  • Finish Alignment: “New gypsum board to feather flush to existing wall; provide metal bead at interface.”

Reviewers and field supervisors both flag missing or ambiguous transition details: “Detail at existing/new insulation discontinuous-potential for thermal bridge,” and “Waterproofing junction not shown-add section.”

Plan-Review Redlines and Standard Jobsite Coordination Notes

Frequent municipal plan review comments arise when transitions are improperly addressed: “Insufficient structural detail at new to existing roof tie-in; clarify fasteners, sheathing, and continuity of air barrier.” Drawing sheets must use revision clouds to highlight substantial transition changes from previous submission, and call-out note tags back to corresponding enlarged details (“See 4/A8.2-waterproofing transition at cold joint”).

Permit Plan Set Organization and Annotation for Renovation Phasing and Scope Clarity

Structuring Permit Sets: Existing, Demolition, and Proposed Plans

Permit sets for Alberta residential renovations employ a disciplined organization:

  • Cover Sheet: Includes legal description, municipal address, drawing index, and project summary (often noting project phase: “Interior Main Floor Renovation-No change to building footprint or exterior envelope except as noted”).
  • Site Plan: Accurately locates the existing structure, all new additions, and any affected site elements.
  • Existing Floor Plans: Precise as-built geometry, including wall types, window/door sizes, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing fixtures with annotation such as “Existing brick to remain”. Where differences exist between original construction and actual field conditions, as-built plans must be submitted and clearly referenced.
  • Demolition Plans: Overlays of existing plans, linework for to-be-removed items shown dashed, with notes such as “R.O. to be removed,” “Remove door and frame,” “Demolish partition, salvage studs as possible.” City of Edmonton and Calgary both require all affected areas of demolition to be clearly marked, no matter how minor; partial removal or ‘by others’ demolition must also be shown.
  • Proposed Plans: Only the new work, with heavy lineweight for new walls, doors, and structural components. Explicit annotation such as “NEW LVL beam above”, “NEW window - fixed, triple-glazed, U-value 1.8W/m²K”, and “Proposed wall alignment per site measure” is required. Dimensions must run continuously across the plan to indicate both original and new geometry, including clear width, head heights, offsets, and location relative to established datums.

Separate demolition, existing, and proposed plans are required by all major Alberta municipalities for any project exceeding minor interior renovation; omitting these phases typically yields a review comment such as, “Missing clear scope sequencing-provide Demo/Existing/Proposed floor plans.”

Legends, Drawing Titles, and Detailed Annotation

Every sheet must include:

  • A legend: With symbols for door swings, new/existing/demolished line types, material hatches, section and detail bubbles, and abbreviations used on the sheet with referenced explanations (e.g., “R.O.” = Rough Opening; “LVL” = Laminated Veneer Lumber).
  • Drawing titles: Large, location-and-discipline-specific (“Second Floor Demolition Plan - Sheet A2.1”; “Proposed Kitchen Plan - Sheet A2.3”). Each phase’s plan is fully titled-“Demolition” must not be combined with “Proposed” or “Existing”.
  • Annotation: Highly specific text, boldly called out adjacent to the associated work (“REMOVE DW closet complete - frame wall flush to existing”, “EXISTING CIRCUIT TO REMAIN”, “NEW STEEL POST W/ BASE PLATE ON EXISTING SLAB, SEE 7/S1.2”).

Common reviewer comments cite omissions or ambiguous notation: “Legend incomplete-clarify linework and hatch codes”; “Annotation for new structure unclear at south wall.” Plan checkers in Calgary risk placing a permit On Hold if submitted without full phase legends and annotation.

Dimensions, Ratings, and Material Specifications

Success on review and at inspection requires dimensions, fire ratings, and material specs to be embedded directly on every plan. Each wall, door, window, or other element must indicate at least one of:

  • Clear thickness (e.g., “NEW wall 140mm overall”)
  • Fire rating (e.g., “45-min. rated partition per Table 9.10.9.14”)-especially at garage/house separations, secondary suites, party walls, and where new bedrooms are created.
  • Insulation values (e.g., “R-24 batt above; RSI 6.0 exterior foam at exposed wall envelope”)
  • Standard material notes (e.g., “NEW window: triple-glazed, U-value 1.8 W/m²K; PVC frame, CAN/CSA-A440 compliant”)

Post-permit change orders, especially on job sites, are greatly reduced when every material and rating is called out in plan and detail. “Clarify insulation value and wall assembly at addition interface” is a persistently recurring plan review comment throughout Alberta municipalities.

Common Plan Review Redlines and Jobsite Call-Outs for Existing/New Ambiguity

Structural Load Path Continuity

Municipal plan reviewers habitually flag ambiguous structural tie-ins. A representative Calgary reviewer redline: “Insufficient documentation of load transfer at new main floor beam-show connection and specify fasteners where new beam bears on existing wall.” ABC Section 4.1.1.3 mandates continuity of load path: “Structural systems…must be designed to ensure a continuous load path capable of resisting all applied loads.” Drawings must detail:

  • Species and grade of structural framing (“NEW beam: 3-2x12 SPF No.2, 300mm bearing on EXISTING stub wall”)
  • Fasteners and connectors (“(3) Hilti HST3 M12 anchor bolts @ 400mm O/C”; “NEW Simpson Strong-Tie HUC412 at new-to-existing connection”) with CSA/ASTM specs
  • Field erection notes: “VERIFY all existing bearing with General Contractor prior to placement”

On-site requests for information (RFIs) commonly seek clarification here, especially if drawings only show new beams as terminating generally at “existing wall”-without section details, contractors must request clarifications, causing delays.

Ambiguous Egress Routes

Failure to clearly delineate safe egress is another frequent trigger for review comments. ABC Section 3.4.2.5 and Part 9 egress tables establish the minimums for exit numbers and sizes. Redlines include: “Egress path from new basement bedroom not identified-show window location and compliance with 9.9.10.1.”

Plans must:

  • Explicitly highlight egress routes (with arrows or colour if permitted); “NEW egress window-0.92m x 0.61m operable clear, meets ABC 9.9.10.1(2)”
  • Dimension all paths: “Corridor width = 1100mm, meets/exceeds code minimum 860mm per 9.9.5.1”

Ambiguous egress annotation is one of the most common RFIs from framing and drywall crews, who need to verify that rough openings and framing clearances correspond to approved egress minimums.

Undefined Fire Separation Boundaries

Code requires explicit fire separation between different occupancies or construction phases-ABC Section 3.1.3.1 and 9.10.9.14 govern ratings and construction. Reviewer redlines include: “Undefined fire separation boundary at new suite entry-show extent and specify construction.”

Plans must:

  • Use hatching or shading to denote fire-rated assemblies-legend must state rating and assembly code.
  • Tag fire separations, e.g., “NEW 1-hour wall per Table 9.10.9.14”, “EXISTING 45-min rated party wall, to remain”.
  • Call out material and layering, e.g., “2x6 wood stud, mineral wool batt, 2x Type X gyp each side, taped and mudded, per ABC 9.10.9.14(3)”

Omissions routinely trigger contractor RFIs: “Confirm fire-rating of wall at garage suit addition/house interface-unclear in plan.”

Field and Coordination Challenges Correlated to Drawing Ambiguity

When drawing conventions falter, site confusion, scope creep, and code violations follow. Typical site challenges arising from poor existing/new delineation include:

  • Structural: Crews halt installation where bearing points or connections to existing are unclear, awaiting revised details.
  • Egress: Windows or doors are over-framed if actual openings don’t match code requirements or approved plans, resulting in destructive rework.
  • Fire Separation: Drywallers/framers install non-rated assemblies, believing old/new wall is non-rated-only for inspectors or AHJs to call for total demolition and correction based on modified interpretation of ambiguous plans.

Comprehensive, explicit call-outs-anchored in code and sound drafting convention-are the only effective prevention.

Conclusion

Clear graphic standards, explicit code referencing, and disciplined phase-based annotation are indispensable for differentiating existing, demolished, and new work on Alberta renovation permit plans. The standards outlined above-the sum of code, municipal guidance, and local practice-define not only how plans are drawn, but the success of permit reviews and the avoidance of costly scope error on site. Every plan, detail, and note must speak unambiguously in both regulatory and construction language. For Alberta’s residential architects, builders, and trade professionals, rigorous adherence to these conventions makes the difference between smooth review, successful builds, and trouble-free inspections-and is at the heart of every Kingsway Drafting & Design project.