I'm pretty sure this is the issue that has kept me from buying the Nikon 24mm PC-E. I know enough to know I would want the ability to reorient the movements, but I don't know enough to decide given I can't, which way I would prefer it.
Don't let that stop you! If you're mostly interested in architecture then tilt is very seldom all that useful. Too many perfectly vertical elements that need to be in focus top to bottom strewn throughout the scene. Unless you're shooting details. I changed mine myself. It's very easy to do on the 24. On the others you need a Nikon part. I always figured I could change it back if I wanted to, but haven't had the need. For the handful of times tilt helps me it's usually forward, and in the same plane as the shift. (in fact, if I could save 6 or $800 i'd happily buy a much smaller and simpler shift only lens... like the PC35 I also use from time to time)
Excellent advice from alan_b. The field curvature totally works for you, especially in rooms.
I can't bite my tongue as I usually do when people diss this lens: if your main reason for buying a shift lens is for shift stitch, then you'll most likely set up vertical, rack it all the way to one side, and then rotate for the stitched-up wider view. You'll be disappointed with the results. If like me you want a shift lens so you can, for EG, shoot at normal eye-level and shift down to see less ceiling you'll be very happy. I'm usually within the sweet range of the shift. As someone else said you may be surprised at how much image shift 5 or 6mm of offset actually produces.
And I see you're using another lens that gets little love here or at GetDPI: the 16 to 35. I like this one too, and it's my go to when the 24 won't quite get me where I want to go. (hope that doesn't brand me a numbskull and void my earlier comments... :)