AI Regulation Tracker  /  Professional standards

RICS Issues the First Global Professional Standard on AI in Surveying and Valuation

The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors published a professional standard on the responsible use of AI in surveying practice. It took effect on March 9, 2026, and is mandatory for RICS members and RICS-regulated firms worldwide where AI materially affects the service. It is a professional-body standard, not government law, and it does not bind non-RICS US appraisers. But it is a clear signal, and it lines up closely with the Appraisal Foundation guidance that does reach US valuers.

By Anthony Guerriero  ·  The Leveraged Years Regulatory Research  ·  Published July 17, 2026  ·  Last updated July 17, 2026

On September 10, 2025, RICS published a professional standard on the responsible use of artificial intelligence in surveying practice, and set it to take effect on March 9, 2026. That effective date has now passed, so this is a live obligation for the profession, not a proposal. RICS describes it as the first global professional standard of its kind, and it applies across the disciplines RICS regulates, including real estate valuation, building surveying, construction, and land.

The reason it matters beyond the UK is scope. RICS is a global body. Its members and regulated firms operate in the United States, across Europe, in the Middle East, and throughout Asia Pacific. When RICS makes something mandatory for its members, it reaches every one of those markets, including US professionals who hold the RICS designation or run RICS-regulated firms.

What the standard actually requires

The standard is built around a simple idea. AI can assist the work, but the professional stays in charge of it and answerable for it. RICS puts the point plainly, stating that "Members and RICS-regulated firms maintain control of their professional work." The tools do not sign the report. The surveyor does.

The obligation is scoped to material impact. RICS does not try to regulate every keystroke. It ties the duties to situations where AI use has a material impact on the service, and it tells members to use their own judgment to decide when that threshold is met. In the standard's words, "Members and regulated firms should apply their informed professional judgement to the question of material impact in any given instance." That is a familiar move for anyone who works under principles-based standards. The body sets the principle and the professional applies it.

From there, the operational duties are concrete:

• Keep control and stay accountable. The member remains responsible for all work product. AI output has to be assessed for reliability, with professional skepticism, before it is relied on.
• Apply professional judgment. The standard treats AI as an input to judgment, not a replacement for it. The valuer still forms and owns the opinion.
• Be transparent with clients. RICS states that "Your use of AI in the delivery of surveying services is an important consideration and transparency with your clients about its use is sensible." In practice that pushes toward telling clients, in writing, where AI is used, what the options are, and how they can raise concerns or opt out.
• Govern the tools. Firms are expected to have policies for data use and AI governance, to document risk, and to run due diligence on the systems they deploy. That is where risk registers and vendor checks come in.

None of this is exotic. It is the same discipline a careful valuer already applies to a comparable, a data source, or a subcontractor. The standard just names AI as one more thing that has to pass through that discipline rather than around it.

What this is, and what it is not

I want to be precise about weight, because it is easy to misread a professional standard as either more or less than it is.

It is mandatory, but for a defined group. For RICS members and RICS-regulated firms, this is not optional and it is not guidance. It is enforceable through RICS regulation, and falling short of it is a professional conduct problem. So if you carry the RICS designation or your firm is RICS-regulated, in the US or anywhere else, this reaches you.

It is not government law. RICS is a professional body, not a legislature or a financial regulator. This standard does not create a statutory duty, and it does not bind an appraiser or valuer who is not a RICS member. A US-licensed appraiser with no RICS affiliation is governed by USPAP and state law, not by this document. That is why the tracker files it as a signal for the broad US market rather than a binding action, even though it is a hard requirement inside the RICS membership.

The honest read is that RICS has drawn the professional line first, at global scale, and other standard-setters are drawing the same line in their own systems.

The US benchmark: Appraisal Foundation AO-41

US appraisers do not have to look far for the parallel. On April 23, 2026, the Appraisal Standards Board of the Appraisal Foundation adopted Advisory Opinion 41, Use of Technology in an Appraisal or Appraisal Review Assignment. It covers automated valuation models, statistical software, and generative AI across real property, personal property, and intangible property.

The structure of AO-41 rhymes with the RICS standard, with one important difference in force. AO-41 does not create new USPAP requirements. It clarifies how the existing ones, competency, confidentiality, scope of work, and the duty not to mislead, already apply when an appraiser uses these tools. It addresses black box tools, the confidentiality risk of feeding client data into AI platforms, documenting prompts and outputs in the work file, and when disclosure of tool use is necessary so intended users are not misled. Responsibility for the analysis and the conclusions stays with the appraiser.

So the two bodies land in the same place. Keep control, protect confidentiality, document what the tool did, disclose when it matters, and own the result. RICS makes its version mandatory for members through a dedicated standard. The Appraisal Foundation delivers its version as an advisory opinion that interprets USPAP, which is the enforceable framework for US appraisers through state licensing and the compliance obligations that attach to it. Different instruments, same professional duty.

What this means for US valuers, CPAs, and advisors

If you hold the RICS designation or work in a RICS-regulated firm, treat this as live. Map where AI touches your valuation and surveying work, confirm a named professional owns and reviews every AI-assisted output, put client-facing language in place about your AI use, and make sure your firm has an AI governance policy and a risk record you could show a regulator. The effective date has passed. This is enforceable now.

If you are a US appraiser, CPA, or advisor without a RICS tie, the RICS standard is a benchmark rather than a rule for you, but AO-41 is the one to read against your own file. The direction of travel across both bodies is consistent, and it is not toward banning AI. It is toward using AI in a way you can defend: competency to judge the output, confidentiality for client data, documentation in the work file, disclosure where non-disclosure would mislead, and a human who stays accountable for the number.

For anyone serving global clients, the practical value is alignment. When your cross-border counterparties are working to the RICS standard and your US work is measured against USPAP and AO-41, building one AI governance approach that satisfies the stricter of the two is simpler than running two. The common core is the same in both, which makes that a realistic thing to build rather than a compromise.

Browse the full AI Regulation News tracker

Informational analysis for working professionals, not legal, accounting, appraisal, or audit advice. Confirm how any standard or requirement applies to your situation with qualified professionals in the relevant jurisdiction.