A rejected permit submission rarely means the design is wrong. It usually means the drawings did not give the reviewer what they needed in a form they could check. Each comment round costs weeks, so the economics of getting it right first time are compelling.
The common causes
Missing or vague code information. A cover sheet without a proper code summary, or one citing the wrong code edition, invites comments immediately. State the adopted codes and editions, the occupancy, construction type, and the allowable versus proposed figures.
Egress not demonstrated. Showing exits is not the same as demonstrating compliance. Occupant loads, travel distances, common path, exit widths and separation distances need to be shown with the numbers visible, not implied by geometry.
Accessibility gaps. Clearances at doors, turning space, mounting heights, accessible route continuity and bathroom configurations are checked closely and often drawn approximately.
Unclear assemblies. Rated walls shown without a tested assembly reference. If a wall needs a rating, the set should say which assembly achieves it.
Inconsistency between sheets. A plan showing one thing and a section another. Reviewers notice, and it undermines confidence in the whole set.
Jurisdiction specific items overlooked. Energy compliance forms, stormwater information, local zoning overlays. These vary and are easy to miss when working from another project's template.
What prevents most of it
Get the checklist first. Most departments publish a submission checklist. Building the set against it, and reviewing against it before issue, removes a large share of comments.
Do a dedicated code check. Not a general drawing review, a specific pass against occupancy, egress, ratings and accessibility, with someone other than the person who drew it.
Cross check the set. Plans against sections against elevations against schedules. Coordination errors are the easiest comments to avoid and among the most common.
Print it and read it. Text that is legible on screen at 200 percent is sometimes unreadable at issue size. Reviewers work with what is printed.
When comments do arrive
Respond to every comment explicitly, including ones you disagree with, and provide a response narrative keyed to the comment numbers showing what changed and where. Reviewers process a clear response far faster than a resubmitted set with no explanation. Where you believe a comment is mistaken, say so politely with the code citation rather than silently ignoring it.
Treating the reviewer as a collaborator rather than an obstacle shortens the second round considerably.