Tuesday, 10 March 2026
The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) has introduced its first global professional standard governing the use of artificial intelligence in surveying practice, which came into effect on March 9, 2026. The framework applies to all RICS members and regulated firms worldwide and establishes mandatory requirements for the responsible use of AI in areas such as valuation, construction, infrastructure and land services. The move reflects the rapid integration of AI tools across the built environment sector, where automation, predictive analytics and digital modelling are increasingly influencing professional decision-making.
The standard places the professional surveyor at the centre of AI use. Surveyors must maintain sufficient knowledge of AI systems, including their limitations, potential biases and data risks. Firms are required to document whether the use of AI has a “material impact” on service delivery and justify its use through written assessments. In addition, companies must maintain internal registers of AI systems used, conduct risk evaluations prior to implementation and carry out periodic quality checks when AI generates high-volume outputs. Transparency toward clients is also a core requirement, with surveyors expected to disclose when and how AI will be used and provide clients with the option to challenge or opt out of its application where possible.
From a regulatory perspective, the framework represents a significant development in professional standards. By establishing governance procedures, documentation requirements and accountability structures, RICS is attempting to reduce the professional liability risks associated with AI-driven decision-making. Professional indemnity insurers are likely to view the new standard as an important benchmark for assessing claims and determining whether a surveyor acted with reasonable competence. In legal disputes, courts may also look to these standards as evidence of accepted professional practice.
However, the introduction of such detailed governance requirements has also raised questions about whether the framework reflects the realities of a rapidly evolving technology environment. Some observers argue that the standard may appear cautious, particularly given how quickly AI systems are improving and becoming embedded in property valuation models, asset management platforms and construction planning tools. The emphasis on extensive documentation, internal registers and written justifications for AI use could increase administrative burdens for firms, particularly smaller practices, potentially slowing innovation rather than encouraging responsible adoption.
At the same time, the profession’s conservative approach may be understandable. Surveying services often underpin financial transactions involving significant capital values, particularly in commercial real estate and infrastructure development. Inaccurate outputs, algorithmic bias or poorly understood AI models could lead to flawed valuations or project assessments, creating legal and financial consequences. In that context, the RICS framework is less about restricting innovation and more about ensuring that AI remains a tool guided by human expertise rather than replacing professional judgement.
Rather than being outdated, the standard can therefore be viewed as an early governance layer for a technology that is still evolving. It establishes accountability at a moment when many industries are struggling to define how AI should be integrated into professional workflows. As market experience grows, it is likely that future revisions will become more flexible and aligned with technological progress.
Ultimately, the new RICS AI standard reflects a broader shift across professional services: artificial intelligence may increasingly support analysis and efficiency, but responsibility for decisions remains firmly with the human professional. For the surveying industry, the challenge over the coming years will be finding the right balance between innovation, risk management and professional accountability.
Source: CIJ.World Research & Analysis Team
