We get calls regularly from property owners who’ve already been told no. Another designer looked at the lot, saw a constraint — a slope, an irregular shape, tight setbacks, an existing structure in the way — and concluded the project wasn’t feasible. Sometimes a contractor told them. Sometimes it was a city counter staff member. And sometimes they just looked at the lot themselves and couldn’t imagine how anything else could fit.
In our experience, “can’t be done” almost always means “I don’t know how to do it.” Those are very different statements.
The Properties That Scare Other Designers
There are certain property characteristics that make less experienced designers nervous. These are the ones that land on our desk after someone else has already passed:
Slope lots. Anything with meaningful grade change triggers hesitation because sloped sites involve grading codes, retaining wall regulations, setback-from-slope requirements, and sometimes geological review. The code provisions are technical and they interact with each other in ways that aren’t intuitive. A designer who hasn’t navigated these before will often default to “too complex” rather than doing the analysis.
Irregular lots. Flag lots, pie-shaped lots, lots with jogs or notches in the property line. These create setback geometries that are harder to work with than a clean rectangle. The buildable area isn’t immediately obvious, and the design has to be more creative to make efficient use of the space. Some designers don’t want to do that work.
Tight existing conditions. Properties where the existing house, garage, driveway, trees, or utility easements leave very little obvious room for an additional structure. The question isn’t whether there’s space — it’s whether the designer can find a configuration that satisfies setbacks, access requirements, and utility routing within the available area.
Multi-family parcels with existing structures. These are actually some of the most interesting properties we work with. The zoning often allows more density than what’s currently built, but figuring out how to add units without triggering complex building type reclassifications requires real code knowledge.
The Slope Lot That Everyone Walked Away From
This is a project we come back to often because it illustrates exactly how this works.
A property owner came to us with a sloped lot in Los Angeles. They wanted to build an ADU at the lower portion of the property — the toe of the slope. Multiple designers had looked at it and said no. The slope was too steep. The setback requirements from the descending slope made it impossible. The client was ready to give up.
We didn’t start by looking at what couldn’t be done. We started by reading the actual code provisions that governed the site. The grading code specifies how retaining walls interact with setback-from-slope requirements. The question wasn’t whether building at the toe of the slope was allowed in general — it was whether we could demonstrate, on the plans, that the specific retaining wall configuration met the required setback from the descending slope.
Once we framed the problem correctly, the solution was technical, not creative. We prepared the engineering documentation showing the retaining wall met the setback. We showed compliance on the grading plan. The city reviewed it and approved it.
The other designers weren’t wrong that the site was challenging. They were wrong that the challenge was insurmountable. The difference was that we did the analysis instead of making an assumption.
The Multi-Family Lot That Could Hold More Than Everyone Thought
Another property owner came to us wanting to maximize the unit count on a parcel in the City of LA. The lot was zoned for multi-family, but every designer they’d consulted approached the project the same way: stack the new units into the existing building classification, which pushed the entire project into a more complex and expensive construction type.
We looked at the same lot and asked a different question: does the code require all the units to be in one structure?
It didn’t. By configuring the project as individual duplexes rather than one multi-family building, we kept each structure under a simpler building type. The owner got the same unit count they wanted. Construction costs dropped significantly. Permitting moved faster because each structure was simpler to review. Same lot, same goal, completely different outcome — because we read the code as a system of possibilities, not a list of constraints.
Why “No” Isn’t Always the Answer
When a designer or contractor tells you a project can’t be done, it’s worth understanding what they actually mean. There are three possibilities:
First, the project genuinely violates a code provision that can’t be resolved. This does happen — a structure built over a property line, a building in a flood zone that can’t be mitigated, a setback encroachment with no variance pathway. But these true dead ends are rarer than people think.
Second, the project has a code challenge that the designer doesn’t know how to solve. This is the most common scenario. The designer sees a problem, doesn’t have the experience or knowledge to analyze it fully, and reports it as a dead end rather than an unsolved problem. This is understandable — you can’t solve what you don’t understand. But it means the property owner is making a decision based on incomplete analysis.
Third, the project is feasible but harder than the designer wants to take on. Some firms avoid difficult properties because the code research takes longer, the design is more complex, and the plan check process may require more detailed documentation. They’d rather take the easy project down the street. That’s a business decision, not a code limitation.
In all three cases, the property owner deserves a clear explanation of which category they’re actually in. “It can’t be done” isn’t an explanation. It’s a conclusion without the analysis to support it.
What I Actually Do When I Look at a Difficult Property
My process hasn’t changed much in ten years, and it starts the same way regardless of how complex the site looks.
First, I pull the zoning and read everything that applies to the parcel — base zone, overlays, specific plan areas, any recorded conditions. I’m not skimming for setback numbers. I’m building a complete picture of what the code allows, requires, and restricts on this specific lot.
Second, I evaluate the physical site. Dimensions, slope, existing structures, access, utilities, easements. I’m mapping the constraints against the code provisions I just reviewed, looking for where they intersect and where they create openings.
Third — and this is the part most designers skip — I ask what the code actually requires versus what people assume it requires. Is there an exception? An alternative compliance path? A definition that’s being interpreted too narrowly? This is where ten years and 1,500 projects pays off. I’ve seen enough code interpretations and plan check outcomes to know where the real boundaries are versus where people just think the boundaries are.
Only after that analysis do I start thinking about design. The code shapes the project. The design works within what the code reveals.
If You’ve Been Told It Can’t Be Done
Get a second opinion. Bring us the property address and whatever information you have — a previous designer’s assessment, a contractor’s opinion, a correction letter from the city. We’ll do our own analysis. If the project truly isn’t feasible, we’ll tell you exactly why and point you to whatever options do exist. If it is feasible and someone else missed it, we’ll show you the path.
That initial conversation is free. And for a lot of the property owners who call us, it’s the conversation that changes everything.