Construction Contract Administration

I have recently noticed that projects are using architectural scale for Site Plans (an "A" sheet) 1/16" or 3/32".   I was taught to depict that drawing using an engineering scale (1"=20'  etc), as it tied back w/ the Civil, Site Electrical and Landscaping plans. Has this practice changed? 

I believe it has changed primarily due to ignorance of traditional building standards and processes, and failures in the mentoring of young practitioners. Also, by deciding drawing scales for the convenience of fitting a drawing onto a sheet rather than for communicating information to the contractor.  

in the field, site layout is by engineers and surveyors and, therefore, an engineering scale should be used - preferably the same scale as the survey an the civil plans.

This presumes that the BIM model, if there is a BIM model, is a Contract Document which, commonly, it is not. Although this is an evolving issue, for most projects, the 2D hard copy or 2D PDF set are the referenced, legal Contract Documents, not the model. Therefore, the Contractor or CM is bound by its Contract to those documents. For the 2D printed or digital documents, it is best practice to use an engineering scale for site drawings, for scales to align across all disciplines and, yes, for orientation to align.

Original Message:
Sent: 01-12-2026 06:05 PM
From: Guillermo Monter-Cervano, AIA
Subject: Scale for the Architectural Site Plan

Janene, I don't see an issue with the A sheets since the model info is still full size. A bigger item to track is the orientation of the site plan. Civil always places it in the correct astronomical North deviation which invariably is not 90 degrees as we typically show it in an architectural plan.

cheers

Guillermo Monter, AIA, NCARB Senior Architect Production | Klawiter Group +1 310.993.6644 +1 213.622.1855 gmonter@klawiter.com

This email and any attachments are confidential and may be privileged.

[View this post online to see image]

I prepare site plans using and "engineering" scale, since local jurisdictions require that standard.  And I try for the biggest scale that will fit on the page, just to have more room for drafting that includes notes, dimensions, etc.  

That said, 3/32" =  1'-0" is really close to 1" = 10'. (1:128 vs. 1:120).

I agree with Mark Baum. We don't train like we used to and this may be a result.

Simply put Civil Engineers/drawings should use engineers scale. Architects should use, like builders do, architectural scales on the "A" sheets and measurements. Civil engineers should draw plans in the same orientation as architectural plans indicating "plan north" and "true north" on their drawings. That's the way it was for years and years until things started changing in the mid 80s-90s. We don't mentor any more. Now we have those that weren't mentored properly trying to mentor. It's a matter of "what they don't know, they don't know", compounded over and over. It's very frustrating. 

I've never prepared an "Architectural Site Plan", so I don't know what scope you are trying to convey. If it's information that would typically be on a civil or landscape drawing at an engineers scale, than an engineers scale make makes sense. If it's more of a diagrammatic plan showing phasing or general relationships of different buildings on the site, than the specific scale matters less. Comments suggesting that appropriate mentoring requires teaching how things used to be done or what conventions to use are only useful if they also teach why those conventions exist. I wouldn't blindly follow a convention if you have information that is better conveyed in a different way, and that includes using a scale appropriate to the information you are trying to represent. My recommended priorities would be:

1. Jurisdictional or funding agency requirements - you just gotta follow them.
2. Scale appropriate to the information you are trying to convey
3. Scalar coordination with consultant documents
4. Convention. 

The top two would be requirements for responsible documentation; the bottom two are nice to have.