Slow permitting is often blamed on planning departments stalling development projects. Shital “Al” Dhakal, founder of land use data platform Conflation Labs, says the real bottleneck is scattered information. The data needed to answer a single zoning question is spread across a dozen disconnected sources. Staff must assemble answers manually before they can respond to anyone.
Dhakal spent years working in municipal planning departments in the San Francisco Bay Area before building technology to address the problem. Based on that experience, he argues that the permitting slowdowns frustrating developers and homeowners nationwide are a data infrastructure problem rather than a bureaucratic culture problem.
Scattered Zoning Records
When a business owner asks a planning department whether they can open a coffee shop on a specific parcel, the answer isn’t in one place. According to Dhakal, a planner first pulls up geographic information system (GIS) data to identify the parcel and its zoning district. The planner then works through a zoning ordinance that may run thousands of pages, finds the relevant use classifications, and checks development standards. Only then can the planner respond.
“The ordinances are so convoluted, so long,” Dhakal says. For a layperson, he adds, the volume of information is hard to absorb. He says the information is siloed across GIS data, local zoning ordinances, other development standards, and “local tribal knowledge in people’s heads.”
This unwritten institutional knowledge, which experienced staff carries with them, is especially hard to systematize. Dhakal points to cases where a city has an informal policy on a use type, such as data centers, that the written ordinance doesn’t reflect. A planner might know from internal memos or institutional memory that the city has a moratorium on, or a preference for, a certain use. That context stays in someone’s head or in an unpublished internal document. When that planner retires or leaves, the knowledge leaves too.
Even experienced planners do significant research before answering routine questions. Dhakal says staff must piece together all of these details before they can tell someone, “You can build a two-story taco shop at 123 Main Street.”
Delays Versus Diligence
This fragmentation creates a persistent misunderstanding between developers and municipalities. From the outside, slow permitting looks like obstruction. From the inside, Dhakal says, it’s due diligence.
“The problem is not the process that we have put in place,” Dhakal says. “It’s that because information lives in ten different places, it’s hard to come up with a decision.”
According to Dhakal, planning staff is doing what the public expects: verifying that proposed construction meets health, safety, and land use standards. The problem is that the tools for that verification are slow and manual.
“On the developer’s part, it looks like the city is knowingly making things slower, which is not the case,” Dhakal says. “They’re doing the due diligence.” He adds that this work is what taxpayers fund.
This perception gap fuels political pressure for regulatory reform, even when the underlying problem may be operational rather than regulatory. Cities genuinely trying to process permits efficiently can still appear unresponsive. Their staff may spend hours piecing together answers that a better-integrated system could assemble in seconds.
Mandates Outpace Staffing
The fragmentation Dhakal describes isn’t unique to any one municipality. Zoning ordinances nationwide were written and updated over decades, often by different administrations using different formats and terminology. GIS systems were built separately from document management systems. Development standards sometimes sit in standalone documents that aren’t cross-referenced with the main zoning code.
Many states now impose hard deadlines on permitting timelines. Dhakal cites California, Florida, Texas, and Georgia as examples. As these deadlines spread, the fragmentation problem becomes more acute. Cities are being asked to respond faster without necessarily having better tools.
At the same time, Dhakal says planning departments are losing experienced staff to retirement faster than they are replacing them. Fewer younger workers are entering the planning and building field. As a result, departments are squeezed between tighter mandates and shrinking teams.
For real estate professionals, this context affects site selection and project timelines. A city that seems slow on permitting may not be hostile to development. It may be under-resourced and working with fragmented data systems.
Consolidating Zoning Data
Tools that combine GIS data, zoning ordinances, development standards, and city-specific context in one place can answer straightforward zoning questions in seconds. Conflation Labs is one company building this type of tool. Dhakal says software works well when an ordinance is clear, but staff still need to handle unclear rules, missing data, and final decisions.
“One thing people get wrong about AI is they think of it in binary,” Dhakal says. “Either it works, or it doesn’t.” In his view, software should take over repetitive lookups so planners can focus on judgment calls. “Who enjoys going into the ordinance looking for the same detail ten times a day?” he says.
Faster first-pass reviews could help cities meet state deadlines and spare applicants costly delays. Dhakal says an architect may now wait two weeks to learn a plan needs five corrections. For real estate professionals, consolidated data could let analysts draft about half of a week-long zoning report in minutes. Some steps, such as getting a zoning verification letter, still require contacting the city.
“The due diligence need not go away, but we need not also wait a long time for the permit or for these questions to get answered,” Dhakal says.
About the Expert: Shital Dhakal is the founder of Conflation Labs, a zoning and permitting data platform, and previously worked inside municipal planning departments in the San Francisco Bay Area.
This article is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, financial, or investment advice. The views and opinions expressed herein reflect those of the individuals quoted and do not represent an endorsement of any company, product, or service mentioned. Readers should conduct their own due diligence and consult qualified professionals before making any investment decisions.
