Recently, we completed a lease for a client in a small San Francisco building.  The transaction was negotiated to provide our client with a tenant improvement allowance, and the right to manage their construction.  Because the client is a design firm, this approach suited them well.  They understand design and construction and can leverage relationships to mitigate cost.  The ownership of this building is not an institution, its management team lacks the sophistication you would otherwise see with professionals working for larger institutional owners.  The lease provided the landlord with the right to approve the plans prior to construction, but it notably lacked a specific mechanism for communicating such approval.  Our client provided detailed plans.  They received a few minor comments/questions to which they responded promptly.  Otherwise, the landlord agreed to the project schedule and let them commence their construction – implicit approval.  During the construction, the client invited the management team to attend weekly meetings, to walk the space and generally sought to keep them informed (under no obligation to do so).  Despite a few bumps along the way (the building had non-compliance in a few areas and a small amount of hazmat was discovered), the project was successfully completed.  However, after moving into the space, the landlord sent a letter stating numerous elements of the construction had been completed without its approval, and the space must be restored at the end of the lease term (an undertaking which would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars).  Naturally, our client was concerned.  Thankfully, they sent us the letter and asked for our guidance.