this sounds to my ear like the two standards are not 100% parallel - this is one the biggest difference between the view camera and the flat tech cameras and the main reason why I switched system. I simply had to much trouble getting a even focused image with the 24/35 mm on the view camera.
Actually, it's pretty common to have use this sort of tilt/swing when using substantial movements with architecture (or anything else). Having standards 100% parallel will cause you to miss focus, since as you approach the perimeter of the image circle the focal plane develops some curvature. Also, the top edge of the building is substantially farther from the lens than the base, so scheimpflug is employed to pull that in, even then, the right corner was yet further away, hence the swing. Have you noticed that all the tech cameras are adding tilts to their systems (which is hilarious considering they were designed to overcome the issue of lenses being out of parallel)?
Schneider and Rodenstock both state that since smaller apertures are no longer a valid solution to solve depth of field problems as they used to be for film (due to diffraction) that tilts and swings should be employed to overcome focus issues.
I think I need to reconstruct this problem/solution and then borrow a Cambo to setup alongside to verify my argument.
Of course, I admit to being a blind follower of the view camera cult on frequent occasion. If I'm wrong, it's a lovely excuse to buy an Rm3d!
Also, as much as I complain about this Apo-S Digi 35mm... when I remove the back and see just what I'm demanding from the optics, I'm amazed I have any image at all. So Thank You Rodenstock, and Schneider too, for making really excellent glass all these years!