Feasibility Report

The most expensive mistakes in residential construction don't happen during construction. They happen months or years earlier, during the period when an owner commits to a project without understanding what they're actually committing to. A feasibility analysis exists to close that gap - to answer the hard questions about site, cost, schedule, and risk before those answers become six-figure surprises.

Last updated: February 2026

Why Feasibility Matters - The Cost of Skipping It

Every experienced construction manager has a collection of stories about projects that went wrong before they ever broke ground. Not because of bad contractors or flawed design, but because the owner committed to a project they didn't fully understand. They bought a lot without evaluating what it would cost to build on. They hired an architect before knowing what their site would allow. They designed a house before understanding what their geology would require. By the time the real numbers emerged, they were hundreds of thousands of dollars into a process that couldn't deliver what they expected at the price they expected to pay.

These are not edge cases. On complex residential projects in Los Angeles - hillside new construction, fire rebuilds, major renovations in the corridor from Pacific Palisades through Bel Air, Beverly Hills, Brentwood, and Malibu - this is the norm. The conventional project sequence puts design before construction knowledge, which means the most expensive variables are addressed last. Feasibility analysis inverts that sequence. It puts the hard questions first, when the answers are least expensive and the owner still has room to adjust course.

The Real Cost of Skipping Feasibility

These scenarios are composites drawn from real project conditions. None are hypothetical.

The hillside lot that needed a $600K foundation. A buyer purchased a vacant hillside lot in Bel Air for $3.2M. The lot had a panoramic view, good street access, and was zoned for single-family residential. On paper, it looked straightforward. What the buyer didn't evaluate before purchasing was the geotechnical condition: the lot sat on a formation of fractured shale with a bedrock depth that varied from 8 feet to over 40 feet across the building envelope. The foundation system required 24 caissons drilled to competent bearing, a grade beam network, and structural shoring for the temporary excavation. The foundation alone cost $640,000 - a number that wasn't in anyone's mental model when the lot was purchased. A geotechnical screening and preliminary foundation assessment during due diligence would have revealed this condition and allowed the buyer to factor it into the purchase price, negotiate accordingly, or walk away.

The renovation that became a full teardown. An owner in Beverly Hills purchased a 1960s ranch-style home intending a major renovation - new kitchen, new bathrooms, expanded primary suite, updated systems throughout. The architect developed a beautiful renovation design. When demolition began and the walls were opened, the team discovered: the original foundation was unreinforced and didn't meet current seismic code, the framing had extensive termite damage in concealed areas, the existing plumbing was cast iron with significant corrosion, and the electrical panel was a Federal Pacific unit that couldn't be re-used. Once the structural engineer evaluated the scope of remediation required to bring the existing structure to current code, the cost of "renovation" exceeded the cost of tearing down and rebuilding. The owner had already spent $180,000 on architectural fees, engineering, and permitting for a renovation scope that no longer existed. A pre-purchase feasibility assessment including invasive testing at critical locations would have identified the structural and systems conditions that made this property a teardown candidate, not a renovation candidate.

The fire rebuild where insurance covered 60% of actual cost. After the Palisades fire, an owner began planning to rebuild their 3,400-square-foot home. Their insurance policy provided $1.8M in dwelling coverage - roughly $530 per square foot. The owner assumed this would cover the rebuild. What they didn't account for: their lot is in a PGRAZ zone, which requires a new geotechnical investigation, slope stability analysis, and potentially upgraded foundation systems before a building permit can be issued. The PGRAZ process alone adds 4-6 months to the project timeline and $150,000-$250,000 in geotechnical, engineering, and compliance costs. When actual construction costs were estimated at $850-$1,000 per square foot for a comparable replacement, the total project cost landed between $2.9M and $3.4M. The insurance gap was $1.1M to $1.6M. A feasibility analysis performed within the first 60 days of the loss would have revealed this gap before the owner committed to an architect, before they started spending ALE coverage on temporary housing while waiting for a design that might not be financially viable, and before the emotional commitment to rebuilding made the decision harder to evaluate objectively.

The lot where the LADWP transformer killed the schedule. A developer purchased a hillside lot in the Hollywood Hills and moved quickly into design, permitting, and contractor selection. Everything was progressing on schedule until the electrical engineer submitted the LADWP service application and discovered that the nearest transformer couldn't support the load required for the new residence. LADWP's timeline for transformer installation or upgrade: 12 to 18 months from application approval. The entire project sat idle for 14 months waiting for electrical infrastructure. The carrying cost on the construction loan during that period exceeded $280,000. This is exactly the kind of issue a feasibility analysis identifies early - because it's not a permitting issue, it's not a design issue, it's an infrastructure issue that nobody in the conventional project team thinks to evaluate until it's too late.

The house designed without understanding site work costs. An owner in Pacific Palisades hired an architect to design a 5,500-square-foot home on a hillside lot with ocean views. The architect designed a $4.2M house (at approximately $760/SF for the structure). What the design didn't account for was the site work required to make the lot buildable: $380,000 in grading and earth export (the lot required 3,200 cubic yards of cut with limited on-site fill opportunities, and the Hillside Construction Regulations limited haul trips to 8 per day), $260,000 in retaining walls on the downhill side, $140,000 in shoring for the temporary excavation, and $85,000 in drainage and erosion control systems. The site work alone totaled $865,000 - more than 20% of what the owner had budgeted for the entire project. This is what happens when design proceeds without construction input.

The grading export that cost $400,000. On a hillside project in Brentwood, the grading plan called for 4,800 cubic yards of earth export. At roughly $85 per cubic yard (including loading, hauling, disposal fees, and traffic control), the export alone cost $408,000. Nobody had evaluated hauling constraints during design. The haul route required a traffic management plan, the HCR hauling regulations limited the daily haul trip count, and the export took 14 weeks instead of the 6 weeks the schedule assumed. That 8-week delay cascaded through the foundation and framing schedule. A feasibility-stage grading analysis would have identified the export volume, evaluated haul route constraints, estimated the timeline accurately, and given the design team the information they needed to optimize the grading plan before committing to it.

The Asymmetry of Feasibility Investment

A comprehensive construction-informed feasibility analysis for a complex residential project in Los Angeles typically costs between $15,000 and $25,000 depending on scope and complexity. That investment routinely identifies $200,000 to $500,000 or more in costs that weren't in the owner's mental model - costs that, if discovered later, trigger redesigns, permit amendments, schedule delays, and the compounding expenses that come with them. In some cases, the feasibility analysis reveals that the project shouldn't proceed at all - and that finding, while unwelcome, saves the owner millions in committed capital on a project that was never going to deliver the expected outcome.

What "Due Diligence" Actually Misses

When owners begin evaluating a property or a project, they typically engage some combination of real estate agents, permit expediters, owner's representatives, and architects. Each of these professionals contributes genuine expertise to the evaluation. The problem is not that any of them are doing their jobs poorly. The problem is that none of their roles include evaluating what it actually costs to build on the specific site. That's a construction question, and without construction knowledge in the evaluation, the most expensive questions go unanswered.

What a Real Estate Agent Evaluates

A good residential real estate agent provides market analysis, comparable sales data, zoning verification, disclosure review, and transaction management. On a hillside lot or a fire-damaged property, they'll pull the listing disclosures, identify recorded easements, note the zoning designation, and provide comparable land sales to inform the purchase price. This is essential information, and an experienced agent in the Westside luxury market is a critical member of the acquisition team.

What the agent doesn't evaluate - because it's not their expertise - is what the zoning actually means for buildable area once you apply the Baseline Hillside Ordinance setbacks, the Baseline Mansionization Ordinance (BMO) or Residential Floor Area (RFA) calculations, the grading limitations, the protected tree ordinance, and the fire zone requirements. They don't evaluate what the slope and geology mean for foundation cost. They don't assess whether the access road can handle construction equipment. They don't analyze whether the utility infrastructure can support the intended use. These aren't failures of real estate due diligence - they're simply outside the scope of what a real estate agent does. But owners who rely solely on real estate due diligence are making decisions with incomplete information about the most expensive variables in their project.

What a Permit Expediter Evaluates

A permit expediter evaluates the regulatory pathway. They'll pull the zoning information from ZIMAS, identify the applicable overlays (Hillside, Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, Coastal Zone, Historic Preservation, etc.), determine whether the project requires by-right approval or discretionary review, and map the permitting timeline. Some expediters provide preliminary code analysis, identifying setback requirements, height limits, lot coverage maximums, and FAR calculations. For a detailed discussion of Los Angeles permitting pathways, see our permitting guide.

What the permit expediter doesn't evaluate is what happens between the property line and the building permit. They can tell you the maximum buildable area under the zoning code, but they can't tell you whether the foundation system required to support that buildable area costs $200,000 or $800,000. They can identify the grading limitations under the Baseline Hillside Ordinance, but they can't tell you what the grading export will cost or how long the hauling will take. They can note the fire zone designation, but they can't estimate the cost premium of Chapter 7A construction on your specific design. Permit expediters evaluate code and zoning feasibility. Construction feasibility is a different analysis entirely.

What an Owner's Representative Evaluates

An owner's representative serves as the owner's agent during the development process. In theory, they provide project oversight, team coordination, budget management, and decision support. A good owner's rep can be valuable on complex projects, particularly for owners who don't have development experience. They coordinate between the architect, engineers, contractors, and the owner. They track budgets, review invoices, manage schedules, and facilitate communication.

What most owner's representatives lack is hands-on construction management experience. Many come from real estate development backgrounds, architecture, or project management consulting. They understand the process of development but not the mechanics of construction. They can review a contractor's bid, but they may not be able to independently verify whether the quantities are correct, the unit costs are reasonable, or the schedule assumptions are realistic. The construction knowledge gap in the owner's representative role is particularly consequential during feasibility, because this is the phase where construction-specific variables - geology, access, grading, shoring, utility infrastructure - drive the largest cost impacts. For a deeper discussion of how different delivery models address this gap, see our guide on delivery methods.

What an Architect Evaluates During Early Design

Architects evaluate the design potential of the site. They assess views, solar orientation, spatial relationships, circulation, and how the building program fits the lot. During early design, an experienced residential architect will consider the basic site constraints - setbacks, height limits, grading - and develop a concept that responds to the topography. This is essential creative and technical work, and a talented architect's early design exploration is one of the most valuable phases of the project.

But architects design buildings. They don't price them - at least not with the specificity required to make financial decisions about the project. An architect can provide a general sense of what "this kind of project usually costs," but they typically don't have the data or the methodology to evaluate site-specific construction costs: the foundation system, the grading and export, the shoring, the retaining wall remediation, the utility upgrades, the access constraints, and the long-lead items that control the schedule. When the architect and the construction manager work together during feasibility, the design is informed by construction reality from the start. When design proceeds without construction input, the budget reconciliation happens later - and later is always more expensive.

The Common Entry Points - Who Needs Feasibility and When

People arrive at the feasibility question from different directions. The buyer evaluating a hillside lot is asking a different question than the homeowner whose house burned down, and both are asking different questions than the owner who's two years into design and just got a cost estimate that blew up their budget. The analysis adapts to the entry point, but the core methodology is consistent: evaluate the site, estimate the cost, identify the risks, and give the owner the information they need to make a decision.

Buying a Hillside Lot

If you're considering purchasing a hillside lot in Los Angeles - whether it's a vacant parcel in Bel Air, an older home on a Brentwood hillside that you intend to demolish, or a fire-damaged lot in the Palisades - the feasibility analysis is your most important due diligence tool. More important than the appraisal. More important than the title report. Because the purchase price of the lot is only one component of your total investment. The construction cost to make that lot usable is the other component, and on hillside sites, construction cost varies by a factor of three to five between lots that look similar on paper.

Two adjacent hillside lots can have dramatically different construction costs based on differences in geology (one sits on competent bedrock at 12 feet, the other requires caissons to 45 feet), access (one has a 30-foot-wide street frontage, the other requires a 200-foot private driveway with a 22% grade), grading (one is a relatively flat pad site, the other requires 5,000 cubic yards of cut with full export), and utility infrastructure (one has adequate electrical service, the other needs a transformer upgrade with a 14-month lead time).

Before purchasing a hillside lot, evaluate these categories at minimum:

Site access and construction logistics. Can construction equipment reach the building pad? Is there a staging area for materials? Can a concrete truck navigate the access road? If the answer to any of these is "no" or "only with significant accommodation," that's a major cost driver. On properties where the access constraints are severe, you may need crane-served delivery, helicopter drops for steel, or hand-carry of materials - each of which multiplies cost and extends schedule.

Slope and geology indicators. Walk the lot with someone who understands soil and rock conditions. Look for signs of historic movement - tension cracks, displaced retaining walls, leaning trees, seepage areas. Pull the available geotechnical reports from neighboring properties if they exist. Check ZIMAS for regulatory overlays: Hillside Area, Landslide Area, Liquefaction Zone, Fault Zone. These designations have direct cost implications for foundation design, grading permits, and engineering requirements.

Utility infrastructure. Verify electrical service capacity with LADWP. Verify water service and fire flow capacity. Verify sewer connection availability and capacity (or assess private sewage disposal requirements). Check gas service. Of these, electrical is the most common schedule killer. If the site requires a new transformer or a service upgrade, that's 12 to 18 months before you can energize the building.

Regulatory overlays. Beyond basic zoning, check for Specific Plan areas, Historic Preservation Overlay Zones (HPOZ), Coastal Zone, Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ), and Hillside Construction Regulation (HCR) applicability. Each of these adds requirements, timeline, and cost. The Coastal Zone alone can add 6-12 months of Coastal Commission review to your permitting timeline.

ZIMAS is your first stop for regulatory research. It's the City of Los Angeles' mapping system and will show you every applicable overlay, zoning designation, and planning case associated with a specific address or parcel. It's free, it's public, and it's the starting point for any property evaluation in the City.

Fire Rebuild - Should I Rebuild or Sell?

This is the most emotionally charged feasibility question, and it deserves the most rigorous financial analysis. After a total loss, the owner faces a decision that involves insurance coverage, construction cost, land value, timeline, personal attachment, and financial capacity. The feasibility analysis provides the data that makes this decision rational rather than reactive.

The rebuild calculation has four components:

Insurance dwelling coverage vs. actual construction cost. Most homeowner policies in the Palisades fire area carried dwelling coverage between $400 and $650 per square foot. Actual reconstruction costs in 2025-2026 range from $700 to $1,200+ per square foot depending on the complexity of the site, the finish level of the home, and the regulatory requirements triggered by the rebuild. For a 3,500-square-foot home with an insurance limit of $550/SF and an actual rebuild cost of $900/SF, the gap is $1,225,000.

PGRAZ implications. If your property is in a PGRAZ zone - and many properties in the Palisades fire area are - the rebuild triggers mandatory geotechnical review by the Grading Division. This means a new soils investigation, a slope stability analysis, and potentially an upgraded foundation system. The PGRAZ process adds 4 to 6 months to the pre-construction timeline and $150,000 to $250,000 in geotechnical, engineering, and foundation costs that wouldn't apply to a non-PGRAZ rebuild.

ALE (Additional Living Expense) coverage. Most policies provide ALE coverage for 24 months after the date of loss, with some extending to 36 months. The project timeline for a fire rebuild in a PGRAZ zone typically runs 30 to 42 months. If the total timeline exceeds the ALE coverage period, the owner bears the cost of temporary housing during the gap. At $8,000 to $15,000 per month for comparable rental housing on the Westside, a 12-month ALE gap represents $96,000 to $180,000 in out-of-pocket housing costs.

Current land value. In some cases, the current market value of the land (as a vacant lot, post-fire) exceeds what the owner paid for the property. If the land is worth $3M, the insurance payout is $1.8M, and the actual rebuild cost is $3.2M, the owner is looking at $1.4M out of pocket to rebuild - or they could sell the lot for $3M, take the $1.8M insurance payment, and deploy $4.8M into a different property without construction risk, timeline uncertainty, or ALE pressure.

Major Renovation of an Existing Property

Renovations present a unique feasibility challenge because the existing conditions are partially concealed. You can see the layout, the finishes, the visible structure. You can't see the foundation condition, the framing behind the drywall, the plumbing and electrical in the walls and slab, or the drainage systems below grade. Feasibility for a major renovation is fundamentally about managing the uncertainty of what you'll find when you open the building up.

The critical threshold in Los Angeles is the 50% rule: if the cost of the renovation exceeds 50% of the replacement cost of the existing structure, the project triggers a substantial remodel classification that requires bringing the entire structure up to current code. This includes seismic upgrades, energy code compliance, accessibility requirements, and fire and life safety systems. On a property where the existing structure was built to 1960s or 1970s standards, the cost of code-required upgrades can push a renovation into teardown territory.

Pre-renovation feasibility should include invasive testing at critical locations: core samples of the foundation to assess condition and reinforcement, selective demolition to expose framing connections and identify concealed damage, plumbing scope (camera inspection of drain lines, pressure testing of supply lines), and electrical assessment (panel capacity, conductor condition, grounding). These investigations don't eliminate uncertainty, but they significantly reduce it. The cost of invasive testing - typically $10,000 to $20,000 depending on scope - is a fraction of the cost of discovering the problems during construction.

On hillside properties, renovation feasibility must also evaluate the condition of existing retaining walls, the adequacy of the drainage system, and whether the existing foundation meets current seismic requirements.

Already in Design - The Budget Doesn't Work

This is the most painful entry point, and it's more common than it should be. An owner has spent 6 to 18 months in design with an architect. They've invested $150,000 to $300,000 in architectural fees, structural engineering, civil engineering, and other consultants. The design is beautiful. The plans are at Design Development or early Construction Documents. And then they get a cost estimate - either from a general contractor bidding the project or from a cost estimator - and the number is 30% to 50% higher than what they expected.

This happens because design proceeded without construction cost input. The architect designed to the program (what the owner wanted), not to the budget (what the owner could afford). Nobody evaluated the site-specific cost drivers during design because nobody with construction knowledge was at the table. The foundation system that the structural engineer designed costs $400K more than the allowance in the architect's conceptual budget. The grading and export that the civil engineer specified adds $300K that wasn't in anyone's model. The cost per square foot for the finish level the owner selected is $1,100/SF, not the $800/SF they assumed.

At this stage, feasibility analysis takes the form of value engineering and scope realignment. The construction manager evaluates the current design, identifies the major cost drivers, quantifies the gap between the estimate and the budget, and develops options for closing the gap. This might mean redesigning the foundation approach (reducing the number of caissons by adjusting the building footprint), reducing the scope (eliminating the basement level that's driving 40% of the foundation cost), adjusting the finish level (specifying millwork instead of custom, domestic stone instead of imported), or phasing the construction (building the main house now and the guest house later).

It's not too late. Design can be revised, scope can be adjusted, budgets can be realigned. But the cost of that revision increases the further you are into the design process. A feasibility analysis at the concept phase costs $15,000-$25,000 and adjusts a design brief. A value engineering exercise at Construction Documents can cost $50,000-$100,000 in redesign fees and delays the project 3-6 months. The math argues for early engagement.

Family Office and Investment Evaluation

For family offices, wealth managers, and private investors evaluating residential development opportunities in Los Angeles, feasibility analysis is a financial underwriting tool. The question isn't "do I like this property?" It's "what's the total project cost, what's the realistic timeline, and what's the risk-adjusted return?"

Total project cost for a development evaluation includes: land acquisition, closing costs, carry costs during entitlement and construction, design and engineering fees (typically 12-15% of construction cost for custom residential), permitting and agency fees, construction cost (the largest variable), construction financing costs, and contingency. On a $15M total development cost with a 30-month timeline and a construction loan at 9%, the financing cost alone is $2.25M. Getting the timeline wrong by 12 months adds $750,000+ in carry costs.

Construction cost is the largest single variable in the development pro forma, and it's the one most often estimated incorrectly. General market assumptions ("hillside construction costs $800-$1,200 per square foot") aren't specific enough to underwrite an investment decision. The actual cost depends on the specific site conditions, access, geology, regulatory requirements, design complexity, and finish level. A feasibility analysis provides a Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) estimate with identified cost ranges for each major cost category, giving the investment team the data they need to model scenarios and evaluate risk.

What a Construction-Informed Feasibility Analysis Actually Evaluates

A construction-informed feasibility analysis evaluates nine interconnected categories. Each category produces specific findings that feed into the preliminary cost assessment and risk register. The categories are not independent - site conditions affect foundation requirements, which affect grading, which affect schedule, which affect cost. The value of the analysis is in understanding these interdependencies before design begins, when the information can actually shape decisions.

Site Conditions and Logistics

The site logistics assessment evaluates how the project will be built - physically, practically, on this specific piece of ground. This is the analysis that most due diligence processes skip entirely, and it's often where the biggest surprises live.

Access routes and constraints. How do you get to the site? How wide is the street? What's the grade of the approach? Are there weight restrictions on the road? Can a standard concrete truck (40 feet long, 80,000 lbs loaded) make the turn from the public road onto the property? Can a drill rig for caisson installation reach the building pad? Can a crane be set up within reach of the building footprint? On a flat lot in Beverly Hills, these questions are straightforward. On a hillside lot in the Bird Streets, on a private road above Sunset Plaza Drive, or on a canyon lot in Mandeville Canyon, the answers define the construction methodology and the cost.

The difference between a site with 30-foot-wide access and one with 12-foot-wide access is not linear. It's exponential. A 30-foot access road can handle two-way construction traffic, a concrete pump truck, and a mobile crane. A 12-foot access road means single-lane traffic, flaggers for every truck delivery, possible crane disassembly and reassembly at the site, and material deliveries in smaller vehicles that require more trips. On projects I've managed on narrow hillside access roads, the logistics premium has added 15% to 25% to the construction cost compared to equivalent projects with standard access. For a detailed discussion of hillside construction logistics, see our comprehensive guide.

Staging and material storage. Where do the materials go when they arrive? Where do the workers park? Where does the crane set up? On a flat lot with street frontage, there's usually adequate space. On a hillside lot where the building pad occupies most of the usable area, staging becomes a logistics exercise. You may need to rent adjacent property for staging, establish a remote staging area with shuttle deliveries, or sequence material deliveries just-in-time because there's nowhere to stockpile.

Neighbor exposure. On hillside sites, construction operations often affect adjacent properties. Crane overswing may cross property lines. Excavation and shoring may affect neighboring foundations. Construction traffic may impact shared access roads. Noise and vibration may affect occupied homes. These aren't just courtesy issues - they're legal and contractual issues. Crane overswing requires a license agreement from the neighboring property owner. Shoring that extends beyond the property line requires an encroachment agreement. Construction traffic on shared private roads may require maintenance agreements. The feasibility assessment identifies these exposure areas and flags them as risk items that need to be addressed before construction begins.

Geotechnical and Foundation Assessment

The soils report is the single most important document in a hillside construction project. It determines the foundation system, which is typically the largest single cost variable in the below-grade work. A preliminary geotechnical assessment during feasibility doesn't replace the full soils investigation that will be required for the building permit - but it provides enough information to estimate foundation costs within a meaningful range and identify conditions that could make the project significantly more expensive than expected.

What the soils report tells you. A geotechnical investigation involves drilling exploratory borings, collecting soil samples, performing laboratory analysis, and producing a report that describes the subsurface conditions and provides foundation recommendations. The report tells you: soil type and bearing capacity (what the ground can support), bedrock depth and condition (where you'll find competent bearing for deep foundations), groundwater conditions (whether you'll encounter water during excavation), slope stability (whether the hillside is stable under the proposed loading), and liquefaction potential (relevant in certain areas, particularly in fill soils).

What it tells you about foundation cost. The foundation system recommendation in the soils report directly translates to cost. A conventional spread footing foundation on competent soil at shallow depth might cost $80,000-$150,000 for a moderate-sized home. A caisson foundation with 20+ drilled piers to bedrock at 30-40 feet costs $400,000-$800,000+. The difference between these two conditions is the difference between a $1.2M project and a $2M project - and the lot surface gives you almost no indication of which condition exists below it.

The variable bedrock problem. On many hillside sites in Los Angeles, bedrock depth varies significantly across the building footprint. Three exploratory borings might encounter bedrock at 12, 25, and 38 feet respectively. The foundation design must accommodate the deepest condition, but the actual depth at each caisson location won't be known until the caissons are drilled. This creates a cost uncertainty that persists into construction. A good feasibility assessment acknowledges this uncertainty, provides a cost range rather than a single number, and includes a contingency recommendation specific to the geotechnical risk.

Shoring requirements. If the project involves excavation on a hillside, temporary shoring is required to stabilize the excavation during foundation construction. Shoring systems range from simple soldier piles and lagging ($50-$100 per square foot of retained face) to secant pile walls or soil nail walls ($150-$300+ per square foot) depending on the soil conditions, excavation depth, and proximity of adjacent structures. Shoring is a significant cost item that's often underestimated or omitted from early budgets.

Dewatering. If the soils investigation reveals groundwater at or above the proposed excavation depth, dewatering may be required during construction. Dewatering involves pumping groundwater to maintain a dry excavation. Depending on the volume and the duration, dewatering can cost $5,000-$15,000 per month for the duration of the below-grade work. It also requires a dewatering permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, which adds timeline and compliance cost.

Grading and Earthwork

On hillside sites, grading is not a preliminary step before the "real" construction begins. Grading is construction. It's often the most expensive, most time-consuming, and most regulated element of the site work. A feasibility-stage grading analysis evaluates the volume, cost, and timeline implications before design proceeds.

Preliminary cut/fill analysis. Using the topographic survey and the preliminary building footprint, a feasibility analysis estimates the volume of earth that needs to be cut (removed from the hillside) and the volume that can be used as fill (placed on-site to create level areas). The difference between cut and fill determines the export volume - the earth that must be trucked off-site. On hillside sites in Los Angeles, significant export is the norm. Fill opportunities are limited by compaction requirements, slope stability considerations, and the simple geometry of building on a steep site.

The real cost of moving dirt. Earth export on hillside sites in Los Angeles typically costs $65-$100+ per cubic yard, including excavation and loading, hauling to a disposal site, disposal fees, and traffic control on the haul route. For a project requiring 3,000 cubic yards of export at $85/CY, that's $255,000 in earthwork alone. And that number doesn't include the cost of the grading contractor's equipment mobilization, the temporary erosion control during grading, or the compaction testing and inspection.

BHO grading limitations. The Baseline Hillside Ordinance (BHO) limits the maximum grading quantities on hillside lots in the City of Los Angeles. The formula is based on the lot area and the slope, and it establishes a maximum amount of earth that can be moved. If the project design requires grading that exceeds the BHO limits, a Zoning Administrator adjustment or variance may be required - which adds 6-12 months of discretionary review to the permitting timeline. Knowing whether the design triggers a BHO exception is essential information during feasibility, because it directly affects the project timeline and the risk of denial.

HCR hauling restrictions. The Hillside Construction Regulations (HCR) govern construction activity on hillside sites, including hauling. The HCR limits the number of haul trips per day (typically 8-10 one-way trips), restricts hauling hours, and requires specific haul routes. These restrictions directly control the grading timeline. If the project requires 3,000 cubic yards of export and each truck carries 10 cubic yards, that's 300 truck trips. At 8 trips per day, that's approximately 38 working days - or about 8 calendar weeks. On projects where the haul route requires traffic control, the actual throughput may be lower. Understanding the hauling timeline during feasibility allows accurate scheduling and cost estimation for the entire project.

Haul route identification. The haul route must be approved by the Department of Building and Safety, and the approval process requires identification of the specific route, traffic management plan, and sometimes a road condition assessment (pre- and post-hauling). Certain streets are restricted for haul traffic. Certain neighborhoods have additional restrictions on construction vehicle traffic. Identifying the approved haul route during feasibility prevents surprises during permitting.

Permitting and Agency Pathway

The permitting analysis during feasibility maps the regulatory path from concept to building permit, identifies the agencies and approvals required, and estimates the timeline. On a straightforward by-right project in the City of Los Angeles, the permitting timeline is 6-12 months. On a project requiring discretionary approvals, environmental review, or multiple agency clearances, the timeline extends to 18-36 months. Knowing which category your project falls into is essential for realistic scheduling and financial planning.

Jurisdiction mapping. Los Angeles is not one jurisdiction - it's a patchwork. The City of Los Angeles (LADBS), the County of Los Angeles (Public Works), and independent cities like Beverly Hills, West Hollywood, Malibu, and Calabasas each have their own building codes, zoning ordinances, permitting processes, and timelines. The feasibility analysis identifies which jurisdiction governs the property and maps the specific permitting requirements for that jurisdiction.

Baseline Hillside Ordinance review. For properties in the City of Los Angeles designated as Hillside Area on ZIMAS, the BHO establishes specific requirements for building height, lot coverage, floor area ratio, grading, retaining walls, and fire access. The feasibility analysis reviews the BHO requirements against the preliminary design concept to identify constraints and confirm that the proposed project complies - or, if it doesn't, to identify the discretionary approvals required to proceed.

Fire zone triggers. Properties in Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ) or Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) areas trigger additional construction requirements under Chapter 7A of the California Building Code. These requirements affect exterior materials, window and door specifications, ventilation screening, eave construction, and landscape design. The cost premium for Chapter 7A compliance varies by design but typically adds 5-12% to the exterior shell cost. More significantly, fire zone designation may trigger additional fire department review, fuel modification plan requirements, and enhanced fire sprinkler requirements.

Discretionary approval identification. This is the single most important permitting variable. A by-right project follows a predictable timeline. A project requiring a Zone Variance, Zoning Administrator Adjustment, Conditional Use Permit, or CEQA environmental review follows an unpredictable timeline that can add 12-24 months to the process. The feasibility analysis reviews the preliminary design against the applicable codes and identifies any trigger for discretionary review. If discretionary review is required, the analysis assesses the likely timeline, the cost of the application process, and the risk of conditions or denial.

Coastal Zone. For properties in Pacific Palisades (west of Chautauqua Boulevard), Malibu, and other coastal areas, the California Coastal Commission has jurisdiction over development within the Coastal Zone. Coastal Development Permits add a layer of review that focuses on public access, visual resources, habitat protection, and sea-level rise. The Coastal Commission's review timeline is typically 6-12 months after the local jurisdiction has completed its review. This is a serial process - the Coastal Commission review begins after local approval, not concurrent with it. For a Palisades property in the Coastal Zone, this can add a full year to the permitting timeline. A detailed treatment of permitting pathways and agency coordination is available in our permitting guide.

Utility Assessment - The Sleeper Issues

Utility infrastructure is the feasibility category that catches the most sophisticated owners off guard. Everyone expects the permitting process to take time. Everyone expects the foundation to cost money. Almost nobody evaluates whether the existing utility infrastructure can support the project until after design is complete and service applications are submitted. By then, the schedule impact is locked in.

The LADWP transformer problem. This is the most common schedule-killing utility issue on residential projects in Los Angeles. LADWP (Los Angeles Department of Water and Power) owns and maintains the electrical distribution system, including the transformers that step down voltage from distribution lines to service voltage. On hillside sites, many of these transformers are sized for the original development (typically 1950s-1970s homes with modest electrical loads). A new custom home with high-capacity HVAC systems, EV charging, pool equipment, and smart home infrastructure may require a transformer upgrade or a new transformer installation. LADWP's timeline for transformer work: 12 to 18 months from approved application. This timeline runs regardless of your construction schedule. Identifying the transformer requirement during feasibility means the LADWP application can be submitted at the earliest possible date - potentially concurrent with design, rather than after permitting. For more on the LADWP clearance process and its impact on project timelines, see our permitting guide.

Water service and fire flow. The water service assessment evaluates two things: domestic service capacity (is there adequate water pressure and volume for the proposed use?) and fire flow (is there adequate water pressure and volume for the fire suppression system?). On hillside sites at high elevations, fire flow can be a significant issue. If the existing water main can't provide the required fire flow, the project may need to install an on-site water storage tank with a fire pump - a $100,000-$200,000 addition that's rarely in anyone's early budget.

Sewer service. For properties connected to the public sewer system, the feasibility assessment verifies that the existing connection has adequate capacity and that the connection point is at the correct elevation relative to the proposed building. For hillside properties not connected to public sewer, the analysis evaluates private sewage disposal (septic) requirements, including percolation testing and the approval process through the County Health Department. Private sewage disposal systems can cost $80,000-$150,000 and require specific lot area for the leach field, which may constrain the building footprint.

Environmental and Compliance Screening

Environmental compliance on residential projects in Los Angeles involves multiple agencies, overlapping jurisdictions, and requirements that can add significant time and cost if they're not identified early.

Protected species. The California gnatcatcher, the California red-legged frog, and other state and federally listed species have been identified in habitat areas throughout the hillside communities of Los Angeles. If a protected species or its habitat is identified on or adjacent to the project site, the project may require biological surveys, nesting season restrictions (which can prevent grading during February-August), habitat mitigation, and agency consultations that add 6-12 months to the timeline.

Protected trees. The City of Los Angeles Protected Tree Ordinance restricts the removal of native oak trees, western sycamores, California bay laurels, and southern California black walnuts. If protected trees are on the site, the project requires a tree report, and any removal requires mitigation (typically 2:1 replacement planting) and a tree removal permit. Heritage trees (defined by species and trunk diameter) may have additional protections that effectively prohibit removal, constraining the building footprint.

Demolition requirements. For renovation or teardown projects involving structures built before 1978, AQMD (South Coast Air Quality Management District) requires asbestos and lead paint surveys before demolition. If asbestos-containing materials or lead paint are identified, they must be abated by licensed contractors under specific protocols before general demolition can proceed. Asbestos abatement on a typical residential structure costs $15,000-$50,000. Lead paint abatement adds $10,000-$30,000. These costs are predictable but frequently omitted from early budgets. For more on environmental review and CEQA requirements, see our permitting guide.

Stormwater and LID compliance. The City of Los Angeles Low Impact Development (LID) ordinance requires new construction and major renovations to capture and treat stormwater runoff on-site. The LID requirements vary by project size but typically involve bioretention systems, permeable paving, or capture-and-reuse systems. On hillside sites with limited flat area, achieving LID compliance can be a design constraint that affects landscape design, hardscape materials, and drainage infrastructure. The cost of LID compliance systems ranges from $20,000 to $80,000 depending on the lot size and impervious area.

Preliminary Cost Assessment

The preliminary cost assessment is where all the preceding analysis converges into numbers. This is not a bid. It's not a guaranteed maximum price. It's a Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) estimate that provides a range-based cost projection with identified assumptions, qualifications, and risk factors. The purpose is to give the owner a realistic cost framework before design begins or progresses further.

ROM pricing methodology. The ROM estimate is developed from current cost data, adjusted for the specific site conditions identified during the feasibility analysis. It breaks the project into major cost categories: site work (grading, export, shoring, retaining walls, utilities), foundation, structural shell (framing, roofing, exterior closure), mechanical/electrical/plumbing systems, interior finishes, and general conditions. Each category is estimated as a range, with the low end reflecting favorable conditions and efficient design, and the high end reflecting challenging conditions or premium specifications.

What drives the gap between $800/SF and $2,400/SF. When people ask about construction cost in Los Angeles, they typically hear a wide range. The reason for the range is that "cost per square foot" is an average that conceals enormous variation in the underlying components. An $800/SF project and a $2,400/SF project are not building the same thing. The major cost drivers include below-grade construction (the foundation, shoring, waterproofing, and structural slab for basement or sub-grade levels can cost $500-$1,000+ per square foot of below-grade area), site work intensity (a flat lot with standard access vs. a hillside lot with crane-served delivery and significant grading), structural complexity (a simple wood-frame structure vs. a steel-frame or concrete structure), finish level (production-grade fixtures and finishes vs. custom millwork, imported stone, and bespoke hardware), systems sophistication (standard HVAC and electrical vs. zoned geothermal, whole-house automation, and AV integration), and design complexity (a rectangular floor plan vs. a compound-curved geometry with multiple cantilevers).

Why "cost per square foot" misleads on hillside sites. On a flat lot, the cost per square foot is a reasonable approximation because the site work is a small percentage of the total project cost. On a hillside site, the site work - grading, shoring, foundation, retaining walls, access - can represent 25-40% of the total project cost. When you calculate cost per square foot for a hillside project, that number includes hundreds of thousands of dollars of below-grade work that has nothing to do with the living area. A 4,000-square-foot house that costs $4M on a flat lot costs $800/SF. The same 4,000-square-foot house on a hillside lot with $1.5M in site work costs $5.5M, or $1,375/SF. The house didn't get more expensive - the dirt underneath it did. The feasibility cost assessment separates the site work from the building cost, giving the owner a clear view of what they're paying for each component.

Long-Lead Identification

Certain items on every project control the schedule not because they're complex to install, but because they require long lead times to procure, fabricate, or approve. Identifying these items during feasibility prevents schedule surprises during construction.

• LADWP transformer installation: 12-18 months. As discussed above, this is the most common long-lead item on residential projects in the City of Los Angeles. Identifying it during feasibility allows the service application to be submitted as early as possible.
• Geotechnical investigation and Grading Division approval: 8-16+ weeks. The geotechnical investigation, soils report, and Grading Division review are sequential processes that must be completed before the grading permit can be issued. On PGRAZ properties, the review process is extended by the requirement for PGRAZ-specific geotechnical analysis and review.
• Structural steel fabrication: 12-20 weeks from approved shop drawings. If the project design uses structural steel (common on hillside homes with large cantilevers or open-span designs), the fabrication lead time is 12-20 weeks from approved shop drawings. This is a serial process: the structural engineer completes the design, the fabricator develops shop drawings, the engineer reviews and approves the shop drawings, and then fabrication begins.
• Custom windows and doors: 14-24 weeks. High-end window and door systems from European manufacturers (Schuco, Vitrocsa, Sky-Frame, and similar) have lead times of 14-24 weeks from order. American manufacturers like Fleetwood and Western Window Systems run 8-14 weeks. On projects with large glazing systems, window procurement is a critical path item that must be managed from early in the construction schedule.
• Specialty stone: 12-20 weeks. Imported natural stone (marble, limestone, travertine) from Italian, Turkish, and other quarries requires 12-20 weeks from order to job site delivery. Domestic stone is faster (6-10 weeks) but the selection may be more limited. On projects with significant stone work, the stone selection needs to happen during design development - not during construction - or it becomes a schedule constraint.

Risk Assessment

Every project carries risk. The question is not whether risks exist but whether they've been identified, quantified, and assigned a mitigation strategy. The feasibility risk assessment creates the initial Risk Register - a structured document that identifies each significant risk, estimates its probability and cost impact, and recommends a mitigation approach.

How risks are categorized. The Risk Register organizes risks into categories: site/geotechnical, regulatory/permitting, design, cost, schedule, and external. Each risk is assigned a probability rating (low/medium/high), a cost impact range (in dollars), and a schedule impact estimate (in weeks or months). Risks are then ranked by their combined probability and impact to identify the highest-priority items requiring active management.

Common high-impact risks on LA residential projects. Based on projects I've managed across the Westside, the risks that most frequently materialize include: geotechnical conditions worse than the investigation predicted (probability: medium; impact: $100K-$400K), permitting delays due to agency staffing or incomplete submissions (probability: high; impact: 2-6 months), utility infrastructure inadequacy discovered during construction (probability: medium; impact: $50K-$200K + 6-14 months), scope growth during design (probability: high; impact: 10-25% of construction cost), subcontractor availability and pricing volatility (probability: medium-high; impact: 5-15% of trade costs), and weather-related delays on hillside sites during the rainy season (probability: medium; impact: 4-8 weeks).

Contingency recommendations. The risk assessment informs the contingency recommendation - the percentage of the construction budget held in reserve for unforeseen conditions and scope changes. For flat-lot new construction with standard conditions, a 10% contingency is typically adequate. For hillside new construction, 15-20% is appropriate. For renovation or remediation projects with significant unknowns, 20-25% is warranted. For fire rebuilds on PGRAZ lots with incomplete geotechnical information, 20-25% is the minimum. These percentages are not padding - they're risk-informed reserves based on the specific risk profile of the project.

What the Feasibility Report Looks Like

The feasibility analysis produces a 15-20 page report organized into six sections with supporting appendices. It's not a brochure, and it's not a form letter with blanks filled in. It's a site-specific, project-specific assessment written by a construction manager who has evaluated the conditions, researched the regulatory requirements, developed preliminary cost estimates, and identified the risks.

The report addresses each of the nine categories discussed in detail in Section 4 above: site conditions and logistics, geotechnical and foundation assessment, grading and earthwork, permitting and agency pathway, utility assessment, environmental and compliance screening, preliminary cost assessment, long-lead identification, and risk assessment.

Executive Summary

The report opens with an executive summary that presents the key findings in a format that allows the owner (or their advisor, or their wealth manager) to understand the high-level assessment without reading the full report. The executive summary includes a go/no-go recommendation, a preliminary cost range, an estimated timeline, and a summary of the top risks.

Sample Executive Summary Table

Sample Risk Register (Excerpt)

What You Receive

The complete feasibility report includes an executive summary with go/no-go recommendation, a detailed findings report (15-20 pages covering all nine analysis areas), a preliminary ROM cost estimate with cost ranges by category, a Risk Register with probability, impact, and mitigation for each identified risk, a preliminary project timeline with critical path identification, and appendices including ZIMAS data, relevant code sections, reference photographs, and supporting documentation. The report is delivered within 3-4 weeks of engagement, following a site visit, regulatory research, and cost analysis.

The feasibility report is Phase 1A of the BCG pre-construction process. If the findings support proceeding, the next step is Phase 1B: pre-construction services, which includes architect selection support, design-phase cost management, detailed constructability review, and progressive budget development as the design evolves. The Phase 1A feasibility findings feed directly into Phase 1B, ensuring continuity of knowledge and avoiding the information loss that occurs when different teams handle different phases.

The Cost of Feasibility vs. The Cost of Not Doing It

A comprehensive construction-informed feasibility analysis for a complex residential project in Los Angeles costs between $15,000 and $25,000 depending on the complexity of the site, the scope of the analysis, and whether preliminary geotechnical or other third-party investigations are included. On a project with a total cost of $3M to $10M+, the feasibility analysis represents 0.2% to 0.8% of the total investment.

That investment routinely identifies $200,000 to $500,000 or more in costs that weren't in the owner's original mental model. These are not hypothetical costs - they're real line items that will appear in the construction budget regardless of whether they were identified during feasibility or discovered during bidding. The difference is that costs identified during feasibility can be addressed through design optimization, scope adjustment, or informed budget allocation. Costs discovered during bidding trigger redesigns, permit amendments, and schedule delays that compound the financial impact.

The most valuable feasibility finding is sometimes the recommendation not to proceed. On roughly one in five feasibility analyses I've conducted, the findings indicated that the project as conceived was not financially viable - either the construction cost exceeded the owner's budget by a margin that couldn't be closed through scope adjustment, or the site conditions presented risks that weren't justified by the project economics, or the regulatory pathway was too uncertain to commit capital. In each of these cases, the feasibility fee saved the owner the cost of an architectural engagement ($150,000-$300,000), engineering fees ($50,000-$100,000), and potentially land acquisition or construction commitments that would have been difficult to unwind.

The Three Outcomes

Proceed: The project is feasible as conceived. The cost estimate aligns with the budget (or can be aligned through minor scope adjustments), the timeline is acceptable, and the risks are manageable. This is the green light to engage an architect and begin design with confidence that the project can be delivered within the established parameters.

Proceed with conditions: The project is feasible, but with specific conditions that must be addressed. These might include: adjust the design program to reduce below-grade scope (saving $400K in foundation cost), initiate the LADWP transformer application immediately (to avoid a 14-month schedule gap), budget an additional $200K for site work beyond what was originally anticipated, or obtain additional geotechnical information before committing to the foundation design. This is the most common recommendation - the project works, but only if the owner incorporates the feasibility findings into the design brief and budget.

Do not proceed: The project as conceived is not feasible. The cost exceeds the budget by a margin that can't be closed, the regulatory pathway presents unacceptable risk, or the site conditions make the project impractical. This recommendation is unwelcome but valuable. Better to learn this after a $20,000 feasibility analysis than after $300,000 in design and engineering fees.

When to Commission a Feasibility Analysis

The right time for feasibility analysis depends on where you are in the project development process. The earlier the engagement, the greater the value - because the analysis can inform more decisions when more decisions remain to be made. Here are the key decision points where feasibility analysis delivers the highest value.

Before purchasing a property. This is the highest-value engagement point, particularly for hillside lots, fire-damaged properties, and properties with known complexity. The feasibility analysis becomes part of the purchase due diligence, allowing the buyer to factor construction costs into the acquisition price, negotiate based on identified conditions, or walk away before closing. On vacant hillside lots, the construction cost to make the lot usable is often equal to or greater than the land cost. Knowing that number before you buy changes the decision calculus entirely.

Before hiring an architect. If you already own the property, commissioning a feasibility analysis before engaging an architect allows you to provide the architect with a construction-informed design brief. Instead of asking the architect to "design a 5,000-square-foot house on this lot," you can say: "Design a 5,000-square-foot house on this lot, knowing that the foundation system requires caissons to 30 feet (budget $450K-$600K), the grading export is limited to 2,500 cubic yards (which constrains the sub-grade program), the site access requires crane-served delivery for steel and concrete (build the construction logistics into the design), and the total project budget including site work is $5.5M." That's a fundamentally different design conversation - one that produces a design aligned with construction reality from the first sketch. Understanding the architect's role in the CMAR process helps clarify how this early collaboration works.

During early design. If the architect is already engaged and working through schematic design or design development, a feasibility analysis at this stage serves as a cost and constructability check. Is the emerging design compatible with the site conditions? Are the cost implications of the design decisions being tracked? Are there design alternatives that could achieve the same program at lower cost? This is the value engineering window - the period when design changes are least expensive and most impactful. Once construction documents are complete, changes become orders of magnitude more expensive.

After getting a cost estimate that doesn't match expectations. If you've completed design and received a cost estimate that's 30-50% over budget, a feasibility-stage analysis can identify the specific cost drivers, evaluate alternatives, and develop a path to budget alignment. This is a more expensive engagement than pre-design feasibility because it involves evaluating a completed design rather than informing a design brief. But it's still less expensive than proceeding with a project you can't afford or abandoning a $200K+ design investment.

Before committing to a fire rebuild. For fire-damaged properties, the feasibility analysis should be commissioned within the first 60-90 days after the loss. This allows the analysis to inform the rebuild-vs.-sell decision before the ALE clock runs, before emotional commitment to rebuilding hardens, and before an architectural engagement begins. The rebuild decision is a financial decision, and it requires financial data - specifically, the gap between insurance coverage and actual construction cost.

How Feasibility Connects to Pre-Construction and Construction

Feasibility is not a standalone service. It's the first phase of a continuous process that extends through pre-construction and construction. The value of the feasibility analysis is maximized when the same team that conducts the analysis remains involved through design, permitting, and construction - because the knowledge accumulated during feasibility directly informs every subsequent decision.

The Phase 1A to 1B to Phase 2 Framework

BCG's engagement framework progresses through defined phases. Phase 1A is the feasibility analysis described in this guide. Phase 1B is pre-construction services: ongoing cost management during design, constructability review of the evolving plans, subcontractor pre-qualification, schedule development, and progressive budget refinement. Phase 2 is construction, executed under a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) contract that's informed by all the preceding analysis. This phased approach is the CMAR (Construction Manager at Risk) delivery model applied to custom residential construction. For a comparison of how CMAR differs from other delivery methods, including the traditional design-bid-build approach, see our delivery method comparison guide.

How Feasibility Findings Feed Pre-Construction

The feasibility report creates the baseline that all subsequent analysis builds on. The preliminary cost estimate becomes the benchmark against which design decisions are evaluated ("adding the basement level adds $600K to the foundation - is that within budget?"). The Risk Register evolves into the Constructability Tracking Log, where risks are actively monitored and mitigation strategies are executed. The long-lead item identification triggers procurement planning during design, ensuring that critical-path items are ordered with adequate lead time. The permitting pathway identified during feasibility becomes the permitting strategy that the team executes during design and plan check.

Budget Evolution

The cost estimate evolves as the design progresses and information increases. During feasibility (Phase 1A), the ROM estimate has a range of plus or minus 20%. By the end of schematic design, with constructability input from Phase 1B, the range narrows to plus or minus 15%. By the end of design development, with subcontractor input on major trade packages, the range narrows to plus or minus 10%. At the completion of construction documents, the GMP is established - a contractual commitment by the construction manager to deliver the project at a defined price, with a defined scope, under a defined contract.

This progressive refinement is the core benefit of the CMAR approach. The owner never faces a single moment of "opening the bid envelope" and discovering that the project costs 40% more than expected. Instead, the cost evolves continuously, transparently, with the owner and architect aware of the implications of every design decision as it's made. For a deeper understanding of why CMAR delivers better cost outcomes on complex projects, see our guide on the benefits of early construction manager involvement.

Continuity of Knowledge

There's a practical reason why the team that conducts the feasibility analysis should be the team that builds the project: continuity of knowledge. The feasibility team walks the site, evaluates the geology, assesses the access, identifies the risks. That knowledge lives in the team - in their understanding of the specific conditions, the specific constraints, the specific risk factors. When a different contractor is brought in for construction, that knowledge must be transferred through documents. Documents convey data but not judgment. They convey what was found but not what was considered and rejected. They convey the conclusion but not the context.

On complex residential projects, the loss of contextual knowledge between feasibility and construction is a common source of problems. The contractor who bids the project doesn't know why certain design decisions were made, doesn't understand the site constraints that shaped the grading plan, doesn't appreciate the utility infrastructure limitations that drove the schedule. The CM at Risk model eliminates this knowledge transfer gap by keeping the same team involved from feasibility through construction completion.

Frequently Asked Questions

How much does a feasibility study cost for a custom home in Los Angeles?

A comprehensive construction-informed feasibility analysis typically costs between $15,000 and $25,000, depending on the complexity of the site and the scope of the analysis. This covers the site assessment, regulatory research, preliminary cost estimate, risk register, and the written report. Third-party investigations (such as a preliminary geotechnical assessment, if one doesn't already exist) may add to this cost. For context, this represents approximately 0.2-0.8% of total project cost on most custom residential projects in the $3M-$15M range.

How long does a feasibility analysis take?

The feasibility report is typically delivered within 3 to 4 weeks of engagement. This includes a site visit, regulatory research through ZIMAS and other agency databases, preliminary cost development, risk assessment, and report preparation. If third-party investigations are included, the timeline may extend to 6-8 weeks.

Do I need a feasibility study if I already have an architect?

Yes - and the architect will likely welcome the information. Architects design to the program (what you want) and the code (what's allowed). A feasibility analysis adds the construction dimension: what it costs to build on this specific site, what the long-lead items are, and what risks exist in the site conditions. This information makes the architect's job easier, not harder, because it provides guardrails that prevent the design from evolving in a direction that the budget can't support. The most effective project teams involve the construction manager and the architect together from the earliest stages.

What's the difference between a feasibility study and a cost estimate?

A cost estimate answers one question: "How much will this cost?" A feasibility analysis answers a broader set of questions: "Should this project proceed? What does it cost? How long will it take? What are the significant risks? What long-lead items need early action? What regulatory constraints will affect the design?" The cost estimate is one component of the feasibility analysis, but the analysis also evaluates site conditions, logistics, permitting pathway, utilities, environmental requirements, and risk - all of which affect the overall project viability, not just the price.

Can a feasibility study tell me if my lot is buildable?

Yes. The feasibility analysis evaluates the physical, regulatory, and financial buildability of the lot. Physical buildability assesses whether the site conditions support construction. Regulatory buildability assesses whether zoning and code requirements allow the intended use. Financial buildability assesses whether the total project cost makes sense relative to the owner's budget and the finished property value. A lot can be physically buildable and financially impractical, or regulatorily buildable and physically very expensive. The feasibility analysis evaluates all three dimensions.

When should I get a feasibility study - before or after I buy the property?

Before, if possible. The feasibility analysis is most valuable when it can inform the purchase decision - allowing the buyer to factor construction costs into the acquisition price, negotiate conditions, or decide not to proceed. If you've already purchased the property, the analysis is still valuable as the foundation for informed design and budget development. But the "proceed / do not proceed" recommendation carries more weight when you still have the option to walk away.

What happens if the feasibility study says I shouldn't build?

You've saved yourself the cost of learning that lesson later. The feasibility fee of $15,000-$25,000 is a fraction of the architectural fees ($150,000-$300,000), engineering fees ($50,000-$100,000), and carrying costs you would have incurred before reaching the same conclusion through the conventional process. The "do not proceed" recommendation may be accompanied by conditions - perhaps the project is feasible at a smaller scale, with a different design approach, or with a different budget. The analysis provides the information to evaluate alternatives, not just a binary answer.

Does the feasibility report replace the geotechnical investigation?

No. The feasibility report may include a preliminary geotechnical assessment or a review of available geotechnical information (neighboring soil reports, geological maps, LADBS records), but it does not replace the full soils investigation required for the building permit. The feasibility-stage evaluation provides enough information to estimate foundation costs within a useful range and identify major risk factors. The full investigation is conducted during the pre-construction phase and provides the data required for the foundation design and the grading permit.

How is a construction-informed feasibility study different from what a permit expediter provides?

A permit expediter evaluates the regulatory pathway - zoning, overlays, code requirements, and permitting timeline. This is valuable information, and a good permit expediter is an important member of the project team. But a permit expediter's analysis doesn't include construction cost assessment, site logistics evaluation, geotechnical analysis, utility infrastructure assessment, or risk quantification. These are the elements that determine whether the project is financially viable, not just whether it's regulatorily possible. Construction-informed feasibility includes the regulatory analysis and adds the construction dimension that determines actual cost, timeline, and risk.

Can you do a feasibility study on a fire-damaged property?

Yes, and for fire-damaged properties - particularly those in PGRAZ zones - the feasibility analysis is essential. It evaluates the rebuild cost vs. insurance coverage, identifies PGRAZ requirements and their cost and timeline implications, assesses utility infrastructure status (fire-damaged utility connections may require full replacement), and provides the financial data needed for the rebuild-vs.-sell decision. On fire-damaged hillside properties, the geotechnical conditions may have changed due to the fire (soil destabilization from heat, loss of root structure, altered drainage patterns), making feasibility analysis more important, not less.

What information do I need to provide for a feasibility study?

At minimum: the property address (so we can pull ZIMAS data and assess site conditions), any existing surveys or reports (topographic survey, geotechnical reports, prior engineering), the preliminary design concept or program (number of bedrooms, approximate square footage, specific requirements like pool, ADU, etc.), and the budget range. If you're evaluating a purchase, the purchase price and intended use. If you've experienced a fire loss, the insurance policy summary showing dwelling coverage, ALE limits, and other relevant coverage. The more information available at the start, the more specific the feasibility findings.

How does the feasibility study affect my project timeline?

The feasibility analysis adds 3-4 weeks to the front end of the project. But it routinely saves months on the back end by identifying issues that would otherwise cause delays during permitting or construction. A transformer requirement identified during feasibility can be processed concurrently with design, saving 12-18 months of idle time. A grading volume identified during feasibility can be optimized in the design, saving 6-8 weeks of hauling. A discretionary approval trigger identified during feasibility can be planned into the permitting strategy, avoiding the surprise of discovering it during plan check. The net effect of feasibility on the overall project timeline is almost always positive.

Is the cost of the feasibility study applied to construction if I proceed?

Yes. For clients who engage BCG for construction following the feasibility analysis, the feasibility fee is credited toward the construction management fee. The feasibility analysis is designed as the first phase of a continuous engagement, not a standalone transaction.

What's included in the preliminary cost assessment?

The preliminary cost assessment provides a Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) estimate broken down by major cost category: site work (grading, export, shoring, retaining walls, utilities), foundation, structural shell, MEP systems, interior finishes, general conditions, and soft costs (design, engineering, permitting, insurance). Each category includes a cost range with identified assumptions and qualifications. The assessment also includes a contingency recommendation based on the risk profile and a preliminary total project cost range that the owner can use for budget planning and financing.

Do I need a feasibility study for a renovation, or just new construction?

Feasibility analysis is valuable for any project with significant cost uncertainty - and renovations often have more uncertainty than new construction. With new construction, you start with a clean site and known conditions. With a renovation, you're working with an existing structure whose concealed conditions (foundation, framing, plumbing, electrical, drainage) won't be fully known until the building is opened up. The feasibility analysis for a renovation includes invasive testing at critical locations to reduce uncertainty, evaluation of code upgrade triggers (the 50% rule, seismic requirements), and a realistic assessment of whether the renovation scope is compatible with the existing structure - or whether the project is actually a teardown candidate.

How We Help

Benson Construction Group provides construction-informed feasibility analysis as Phase 1A of our CMAR engagement. The analysis is conducted by Jeff Benson, drawing on 24 years of construction management experience including 17 years managing complex residential projects valued at $350M+ across Pacific Palisades, Bel Air, Beverly Hills, Brentwood, Malibu, and the greater Westside.

The feasibility analysis evaluates your specific site and project across nine categories: site conditions and logistics, geotechnical and foundation assessment, grading and earthwork, permitting and agency pathway, utility assessment, environmental and compliance screening, preliminary cost assessment, long-lead identification, and risk assessment. The deliverable is a 15-20 page report with a preliminary cost estimate, risk register, timeline assessment, and a clear proceed / proceed with conditions / do not proceed recommendation.

If you're evaluating a property purchase, planning a new construction project, considering a fire rebuild, or questioning whether your current design aligns with your budget, the feasibility analysis provides the construction-informed data required to make a confident decision.

Contact: jeff@bensonconstructiongroup.com

Web: bensonconstructiongroup.com

This page provides general information about residential construction feasibility in Los Angeles and is not intended as legal, engineering, or financial advice. Specific projects require evaluation by licensed professionals. All cost figures reflect 2025-2026 market conditions and are subject to change based on market forces, material costs, and regulatory requirements.

Benson Construction Group serves Los Angeles County including Pacific Palisades, Bel Air, Beverly Hills, Brentwood, Malibu, Hollywood Hills, Encino, Tarzana, and the greater Westside.

© 2026 Benson Construction Group. All rights reserved.
California Contractors License #XXXXXX