Tenant Work and Alteration Request
Prepare a proposed tenant alteration for owner review with a clear scope, location, timing, and known building interfaces. See how to route the request and why work must wait for explicit authorization.
Every employee gets a seat — priced per employee in Communications & Intranet, quoted with this template ready.
Rolled out to every employee at AutoZone (125,000), PetSmart (50,000+), A.S. Watson and Raley's (20,000) — and at larger retailers we are not permitted to name.
Built for: Commercial real estate · Office property management · Higher education facilities · Healthcare facilities
Overview
The Tenant Work and Alteration Request page is a service-oriented intranet example for preparing a proposed change to a leased or occupied space. Its opening distinguishes planned tenant work from an existing building fault, then prompts the requester to describe the work, exact area, timing, delivery contact when appropriate, possible building interfaces, and any available drawing or written scope. A routing table names illustrative review roles, while explicitly leaving the actual review path to the locally authorized process.
Use the page when a tenant is planning work such as adding a partition, changing a doorway, or installing a fixture and needs to assemble context before requesting owner review. The worked example shows how to describe a partition and doorway proposal without treating it as submitted, approved, or technically assessed. The ordered handoff explains that the requester routes the proposal, responds to review questions, and waits for explicit authorization before work begins.
Do not use this page to report a leak, failed light, or other existing fault; direct those issues to the established local fault process. It is also not a technical assessment, permit guide, approval form, or substitute for the owner’s authorization procedure. Before publishing, replace the fictional Northbank Centre context with verified local routing and help information, confirm review roles, and keep the page updated when responsibilities or workflows change.
Standards & compliance context
- Treat the page as routing guidance, not as a determination of permits, building-code compliance, technical suitability, or project authorization.
- Have the locally authorized owner confirm which reviews and conditions apply to each proposal; the illustrative routing map does not establish those requirements.
- Preserve the distinction between proposed work and existing faults so readers use the correct local operational process.
- Use clear headings, descriptive link labels, keyboard-accessible navigation, and sufficient contrast to support WCAG 2.1 AA accessibility.
- Publish only verified local contacts and request destinations, and review the page when the workflow or responsible roles change.
General regulatory context for orientation only — verify current requirements with counsel or the relevant agency before relying on this template for compliance.
What's inside this template
Route a proposed tenant alteration for review
This opening identifies the page as guidance for planned changes and clarifies that the Northbank Centre example is fictional.
-
Northbank Centre is a fictional example. Use this page to prepare a tenant change for owner review—not to report an existing fault. Describe the proposed work and its building interfaces before routing it through the locally authorized request channel.
Choose the right route
Use this distinction to send proposed work to alteration review and existing faults to the local repair process.
-
Start with what is happening now. A change is being proposed Use the tenant alteration review process for planned changes to a leased or occupied space, such as a new partition, doorway change, or fixture installation. Describe the intended work and exact area. Include known effects on shared spaces or building services. A building fault already exists A leak, failed light, or other existing fault is a repair or fault-reporting matter, not a proposed alteration. Use the established local building-fault route. Report the observed condition through the local fault process. Do not treat an alteration request as a repair report. You need help routing a proposal Ask the property-management role responsible for tenant work to identify the applicable local request route and the appropriate review handoff. Share the proposal area and a short description. Use verified local help contacts when available.
Prepare a reviewable scope
These details give local reviewers context to identify questions without implying that the proposal has been technically assessed.
-
Give reviewers enough context to identify the right questions. Before routing a proposal, capture: Work scope: what is proposed to be added, removed, relocated, or changed. Exact area: building, floor, room or suite, and the affected boundary where known. Timing: the requested start window and any relevant occupancy or access constraints. Delivery contact: the contractor or designer contact route, when known and appropriate to share through the authorized channel. Building interfaces: known or possible effects on shared walls, ceilings, building services, access routes, or occupied neighboring areas. Supporting scope information: a drawing or written description that helps explain the proposal, if available. These details help reviewers decide what information or review may be needed. They do not determine technical suitability or replace the locally approved review process.
Who may need to review
This illustrative map shows why a proposal’s location, interfaces, and timing can matter while leaving the actual review path to the authorized local process.
-
Illustrative routing map only. The authorized local process determines which reviews apply. Proposal detail Why it may matter Likely review role Work location and scope Establishes which space and proposed change are under review. Property management Shared walls, ceilings, or neighboring areas Helps identify interfaces with shared or occupied space. Affected-space representative Known or possible building-service changes Helps identify whether a building-services review may be relevant. Building-services owner Requested timing and access needs Helps reviewers understand potential coordination with occupancy and building operations. Property management and affected-space representative
Worked example: partition and doorway proposal
The fictional example demonstrates the level of scope detail that can help explain a planned change without suggesting submission or approval.
-
At fictional Northbank Centre, a tenant proposes adding a partition and moving a doorway. A useful request would identify the suite and room, describe which partition and doorway are changing, note the adjacent shared area, state the requested timing, and include a drawing or written scope description if the requester has one. If the requester knows of possible building-service interfaces, they should note them for review rather than assume they are unaffected. This is a coordination example only; it is not submitted, approved, or technically assessed. By contrast, a ceiling leak already present is a building fault: route it through the established local fault-reporting process rather than this alteration review.
Understand the authorized-start handoff
These steps distinguish preparing and routing a request from receiving explicit authorization to begin work.
-
A request starts review; it does not authorize work. Assemble the proposal Describe the scope, location, requested timing, known interfaces, and available supporting information. Route it through the authorized channel Use the locally approved tenant-work request route. If the route is unclear, ask the property-management role responsible for tenant work. Respond to review questions Provide clarification and information requested through the applicable local review process. Wait for explicit authorization Do not treat a sent request, discussion, or review in progress as approval. Work may begin only after explicit owner authorization and any applicable conditions are communicated through the authorized local process.
Ownership and updates
This section identifies the example content owner, the workflow changes that should trigger a review, and the need to use verified local help routes.
-
Content owner: Project and Property Operations. The owner maintains the routing guidance and correction path. Review it when the request workflow, building interfaces, or local review responsibilities change. For a proposal-specific routing question, use the verified property-management help route available in your organization. The local process and its authorized owners determine applicable reviews, authorization conditions, and the correct building-fault destination. This page does not establish those requirements.
How to use this template
- Replace the fictional Northbank Centre example with verified local tenant-work guidance, the approved request route, and the appropriate help path.
- Confirm the content owner, local review responsibilities, building-fault destination, and exact authorization language with the responsible property-management role.
- Ask the requester to describe the work and precise location, requested timing, known interfaces, and available supporting scope information.
- Route the proposal through the locally authorized channel and provide clarification requested through that process.
- Wait for explicit owner authorization and communicated conditions before starting work, and update the page when its workflow or review responsibilities change.
Best practices
- Keep proposed alterations separate from repairs by directing existing faults to the established local fault-reporting route.
- Ask requesters to identify the building, floor, room or suite, and affected boundary so reviewers can locate the proposal.
- Have requesters describe what will be added, removed, relocated, or changed instead of relying on a broad label such as renovation.
- Record known or possible effects on shared walls, ceilings, building services, access routes, and occupied neighboring areas without declaring them technically suitable.
- Request drawings or a written scope description when available, but do not make the template imply that supporting documents have been assessed.
- Label illustrative routing roles clearly and confirm the actual reviewers and authorized channel for each local process.
- State plainly that a request, discussion, or review in progress is not permission to begin work.
- Keep the content owner and review trigger visible so staff know who maintains the guidance when the local workflow changes.
What this template typically catches
Issues teams running this template most often surface in practice:
Common use cases
Frequently asked questions
What kinds of requests belong on this tenant alteration page?
Use it to prepare a planned change to a leased or occupied space, such as adding a partition, changing a doorway, or installing a fixture. Include the exact area and describe what will be added, removed, relocated, or changed. Existing problems such as a leak or failed light belong in the local building-fault process, not an alteration request.
How often should this page be reviewed or updated?
The example identifies Project and Property Operations as the content owner. Review the guidance when the local request workflow, building interfaces, or review responsibilities change. It does not set a fixed calendar cadence; use your organization’s content-review practice if one exists.
Who prepares and reviews a tenant alteration proposal?
The tenant or requester assembles the scope and routes it through the locally authorized tenant-work channel. Property management can help identify that route if it is unclear. Depending on the proposal, affected-space representatives or building-services owners may need to review it; the local process determines who actually participates.
Does submitting the request mean work is approved?
No. A sent request, informal discussion, or review in progress is not authorization to begin. Wait for explicit owner authorization and for any applicable conditions to be communicated through the authorized local process. This page does not define the approval authority or establish project-specific conditions.
Does this template establish building-code or permit requirements?
No. It helps organize information for local review but does not determine technical suitability, permits, code obligations, or which reviews apply. Confirm applicable requirements with the authorized local owner and qualified professionals through your organization’s process. Do not infer approval or regulatory compliance from completing the page’s scope checklist.
What details make a proposal easier to review?
Describe the work, exact building and room or suite, requested timing, and known or possible effects on shared areas or building services. Include a drawing or written scope description if available, and provide a contractor or designer contact route only when known and appropriate to share through the authorized channel. Flag unknown interfaces rather than assuming they are unaffected.
Can we customize this page for our buildings and request process?
Yes. Replace the Northbank Centre fictional example with verified local guidance, then add the approved tenant-work route and help path. Confirm local review roles, scope requirements, authorization language, and fault-reporting destination with the responsible owners before publishing. Do not present the illustrative routing map as a confirmed approval workflow.
Does the page submit requests or connect to a review system?
No submission form or live workflow is shown in the supplied page structure. The page directs readers to use an authorized local channel, which must be supplied and verified by the organization. Do not imply that reading the page creates a request, notifies reviewers, or records an approval.
Why use this template instead of an ad-hoc email?
The page prompts requesters to capture scope, location, timing, supporting information, and possible building interfaces before routing a proposal. It also distinguishes planned work from existing faults and makes clear that submission is not authorization. An email may still be the local channel, but use the approved route and retain its required information and handoff.
Related templates
Go deeper on the topic
-
A modern intranet is a specific surface — typically the home-base destination where employees get company news, find policies, and access key apps. A digital...
Ready to use this template?
Every employee gets a seat. Request pricing for Communications & Intranet and we quote into a workspace with Tenant Work and Alteration Request ready.
Rolled out to every employee at AutoZone (125,000), PetSmart (50,000+), A.S. Watson and Raley's (20,000) — and at larger retailers we are not permitted to name.
