The first critical question to ask yourself is whether you should do anything to impose utility constraints at the individual level. Utilities come from respondents who answer conjoint questions with some degree of error. And, importantly, we don't tax any one respondent too much by asking them too many conjoint questions (so our data are sparse at the individual level). Indeed, because of these two issues, utilities at the individual level can be noisy. And, utilities can look "out of order" compared to rational assumptions about preference for ordered attributes--especially for attributes that were of little or no importance to the respondent.
But, across respondents, these errors tend to wash out. Most conjoint analysts avoid imposing constraints on the utilities in most situations. However, there are certain situations where it may be useful to impose constraints.
I'm concerned that you don't have access to the raw CBC data, as it would be better (if you need to impose utility constraints) to re-estimate the model using our automatic functionality for "simultaneous tying". Or, if you had access to the individual-level draws of HB (the multiple draws per respondent), it works well to remedy the out of order utilities at the individual draw level, then aggregate across the draws to compute new point estimates (summary utilities) for each respondent.