1. Majority Decision Required for Elevator Construction

When judicial decisions are examined, the majority decision required for the construction of an elevator in a building is shaped around two fundamental views, depending on whether the process requires “architectural project modification” and its nature as a “facility in common areas”:

Unanimity Requirement: According to the established jurisprudence of the 5th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, if an elevator is not included in the architectural project of the main immovable property, the construction of an elevator requires a “renovation project”. For such fundamental architectural changes and modification of the project, all floor owners must make a decision with unanimity (Yargıtay 5. HD, 23.05.2022, E. 2022/4077, K. 2022/9125 ). Similarly, it has been emphasized that structural additions such as stairs or elevators that are contrary to the architectural project and require a renovation project must be decided with unanimity (Yargıtay 5. HD, 08.01.2024, E. 2023/9688, K. 2024/52 ; Yargıtay 5. HD, 11.10.2023, E. 2023/3152, K. 2023/8793 ). Furthermore, unanimity is also required for changes that affect the static structure or dedicate a common area for a specific owner’s personal use (Yargıtay 5. HD, 21.05.2025, E. 2025/2290, K. 2025/8049 ; Danıştay 6. Daire, 05.02.2024, E. 2021/1296, K. 2024/545 ).

Four-Fifths (4/5) Majority Requirement: In some decisions, it has been stated that for construction, repair, and installations to be made in common areas, according to Article 19/2 of the Condominium Law (KMK) No. 634, the written consent of four-fifths (4/5) of the flat owners may be sufficient (Supreme Court General Assembly of Law, 31.05.2022, App. No. 2019/363, Dec. No. 2022/786 ). The 5th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court has stated that the general rule for installations and modifications to be made in common areas is a 4/5 majority, but this modification should not create a substantial change in the architectural project (Supreme Court 5th Civil Chamber, 30.04.2025, App. No. 2025/2103, Dec. No. 2025/6581 ; Supreme Court 5th Civil Chamber, 16.01.2024, App. No. 2023/3517, Dec. No. 2024/499 ).

2. Legal Grounds

Decisions regarding elevator construction and changes in common areas are fundamentally based on the following legal regulations:

Condominium Law (KMK) No. 634, Article 19: Regulates the flat owners’ obligation to preserve the architectural integrity of the main property and the 4/5 written consent requirement for construction/installations in common areas.

KMK Article 42: Regulates “innovations and additions” to be made in common areas and the sharing of their expenses. Elevator construction is considered a permanent innovation in the main building under this article (Supreme Court 5th Civil Chamber, 10.03.2021, App. No. 2020/11771, Dec. No. 2021/3111 ).

Condominium Law (KMK) Article 33: It regulates the “judge’s intervention” in cases where an agreement cannot be reached by the board of condominium owners. This article is invoked when there is an elevator shaft in the architectural project but an agreement cannot be reached regarding its construction (Supreme Court of Appeals, 5th Civil Chamber, 07.05.2024, E. 2024/1557, K. 2024/5537 ).

Turkish Civil Code (TMK) Article 692: According to the provisions of co-ownership, it regulates the requirement for unanimous consent for changing the purpose for which the property is designated or for undertaking major construction works (Council of State, 6th Chamber, 05.02.2024, E. 2021/1296, K. 2024/545 ).

3. Special Cases and Exceptions

Existence of an Elevator in the Architectural Project: If there is already an elevator shaft in the building’s approved architectural project and the elevator void is ready, in case the condominium owners cannot reach an agreement, a judge’s intervention can be requested. In this case, the court may decide on the implementation of the project and the sharing of expenses in proportion to the land shares (Supreme Court of Appeals, 5th Civil Chamber, 07.05.2024, E. 2024/1557, K. 2024/5537 ).

Disabled Access: If there are disabled condominium owners in the building, the construction of an elevator can be established by evaluating it within the scope of KMK Article 42/2 and 3, and by sharing the expenses according to the rate of benefit (Supreme Court of Appeals, 5th Civil Chamber, 11.05.2023, E. 2022/13818, K. 2023/4718 ).

Renovation Project and Municipal Approval: Even if a majority is secured, for an operation contrary to the architectural project to be valid, there must be a renovation project approved by the municipality. Municipal approval alone is not sufficient; written consent (unanimity) of all owners is required (Supreme Court 5th Civil Chamber, 08.02.2021, E. 2020/9573, K. 2021/1107 ).

4. Secondary Sources and Administrative Regulations

Secondary sources provide additional context regarding the obligation to install elevators and technical processes:

Zoning Regulations: According to Article 45 of the Type Zoning Regulation for Planned Areas, it is mandatory to install elevators in buildings with 4 or more stories. In 3-story buildings, it is mandatory to provide space for an elevator (Council of State 8th Chamber, 24.03.2021, E. 2016/1772, K. 2021/1800 ; Istanbul 15th Civil Court of Commerce, 13.04.2023, E. 2022/68, K. 2023/360 ).

Cooperatives: Although elevator renovation or construction works in cooperative sites can be decided by “majority vote” at the general assembly, these decisions must not conflict with the non-transferable powers under Article 42 of the Cooperatives Law (Istanbul 15th Civil Court of Commerce, 13.04.2023, E. 2022/68, K. 2023/360 ).

Nature of an Integral Part: After being installed in the building, elevators become an “integral part” (complementary component) of the building according to Article 684 of the Turkish Civil Code and acquire the status of a common area (Istanbul 11th Civil Court of Commerce, 03.02.2021, E. 2019/312, K. 2021/68 ).

Ministry of Environment and Urbanization Opinion: Approval of Flat Owners in Elevator Construction (25.11.2021)

Background of the Document and the Question Asked

This opinion letter was drafted by the Ministry of Environment and Urbanization, General Directorate of Local Governments, upon a request from a municipality dated 08.07.2021. The municipality posed the following question: When an elevator is to be installed in an existing building that has an elevator shaft in its architectural application project, should the consent of the absolute majority or the unanimous consent of the flat owners be sought, in accordance with Article 42 of the Condominium Law No. 634?

Content of Condominium Law Article 42

The Ministry first conveys the relevant legal regulation. According to Article 42 of the Condominium Law, flat owners cannot make changes to common areas on their own. Innovations and additions aimed at making common areas more usable, comfortable, or efficient can only be implemented with a decision taken by the majority of flat owners in terms of both number and land share.

The second paragraph of the article, added in 2005, introduces a special regulation for disabled flat owners. Accordingly, in cases where project modifications are necessary for the lives of disabled individuals, these modifications are decided by a majority of votes (number of owners and land share) at a meeting held by the flat owners within a maximum of three months. If a meeting cannot be held or the renovation request is rejected, the disabled flat owner can carry out the construction alone by obtaining an approved project change or sketch from the relevant authorities, accompanied by a commission report certifying that it does not jeopardize building safety. The expenses for these procedures are covered by those who benefit from the innovation, in proportion to their benefit.

Precedent Decision of the Supreme Court

To reinforce its view, the Ministry relies on the decision of the 18th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court dated 26.09.2002, numbered 2002/7092 E. and 2002/8738 K. The following determinations were made in this decision:

In the approved architectural project of a five-story building, an elevator shaft was left, but an elevator was not initially built as the zoning regulation at that time did not mandate elevators in five-story buildings. Years later, the board of flat owners decided by a majority vote to construct an elevator; however, the court deemed this decision invalid on the grounds that it was not based on the majority of votes (number of owners and land share) as stipulated in Article 42 of the Condominium Law (KMK).

However, the Supreme Court evaluated the matter from a different perspective. The Chamber, determining that the elevator was foreseen in the project and its location indicated, ruled that the subsequent construction of this facility could not be evaluated within the scope of Article 42 of the Condominium Law (KMK). This is because the said article applies to innovations and additions not foreseen in the project. However, the implementation of a facility already included in the project carries a completely different legal nature.

Ministry’s Legal Assessment and Conclusion

The Ministry, by considering legal regulations and judicial decisions together, reaches the following conclusion:

In the first case, that is, if an elevator location was foreseen in the building’s approved architectural project but was not constructed during the building process, the subsequent installation of this elevator falls outside the scope of Article 42 of the Condominium Law (KMK). Every independent section owner has the right to demand the exact implementation of the architectural project. Therefore, in this situation, neither unanimity nor a 4/5 majority is required; each owner can request the full implementation of the project and will be obliged to contribute to the construction costs when the elevator is built.

In the second case, that is, although an elevator location was not foreseen in the project, if there is a disabled condominium owner in the building, the second paragraph of Article 42 of the KMK comes into play. A decision made by a majority of owners by number and land share is sufficient; if a majority cannot be achieved, the disabled condominium owner can resort to administrative channels.

Practical Significance

This view clearly distinguishes two situations that are often confused in practice. In buildings where an elevator location is specified in the project, each owner can demand the installation of this facility without even needing a decision from the board of condominium owners; whereas in buildings where an elevator is not foreseen in the project, the majority requirements and procedure of Article 42 of the KMK must be followed. Legal initiatives taken without correctly identifying this distinction can lead to serious loss of rights, and it is therefore recommended that the process be conducted with the assistance of a condominium law expert.

Apartmana asansör yaptırmak için oybirliği mi, yoksa 4/5 çoğunluk mu yeterlidir?

Bu sorunun yanıtı, binanın mevcut mimari projesine bağlıdır. Eğer onaylı projede asansör yeri bulunmuyorsa, yapı bir tadilat projesi gerektirdiğinden tüm kat maliklerinin oybirliğiyle karar alması zorunludur. Buna karşın asansör yapımı ortak alan tesisi niteliği taşıyorsa ve mimari projede esaslı bir değişiklik yaratmıyorsa, 634 sayılı Kat Mülkiyeti Kanunu’nun 19/2. maddesi uyarınca kat maliklerinin beşte dördünün (4/5) yazılı rızası yeterli sayılabilmektedir. Hangi koşulun geçerli olduğunu doğru tespit edebilmek için bir İstanbul avukatı veya Tuzla avukatı ile görüşmeniz hak kaybını önler.

Kat malikleri anlaşamıyorsa asansör yapımı için mahkemeye başvurulabilir mi?

Evet. Binanın onaylı mimari projesinde asansör yeri mevcut olmakla birlikte kat malikleri yapım konusunda uzlaşı sağlayamamışsa, Kat Mülkiyeti Kanunu’nun 33. maddesi kapsamında hakimin müdahalesi talep edilebilir. Mahkeme, projenin uygulanmasına ve giderlerin arsa payı oranında paylaşılmasına hükmedebilmektedir. Bu sürecin doğru yönetilmesi ve dilekçenin usule uygun hazırlanması için alanında deneyimli bir avukatlık ofisinden destek alınması büyük önem taşır.

Binada engelli kat maliki varsa asansör yapımı daha mı kolay kararlaştırılır?

Evet, bu durum özel bir istisna oluşturmaktadır. Binada engelli kat malikinin bulunması halinde asansör yapımı, Kat Mülkiyeti Kanunu’nun 42/2 ve 42/3. maddeleri çerçevesinde değerlendirilerek faydalanma oranına göre gider paylaşımı yapılmak suretiyle gerçekleştirilebilmektedir. Yargıtay 5. Hukuk Dairesi bu yönde emsal kararlar vermiştir. Söz konusu istisnadan yararlanılabilmesi için hukuki sürecin bir kat mülkiyeti avukatı eşliğinde yürütülmesi önerilmektedir.

Why Is Expert Legal Support Necessary?

The process of installing an elevator in an apartment building, contrary to its superficial appearance, is a complex area that requires evaluating multiple legal layers together. A decision made by the board of condominium owners with an incorrect majority can be deemed invalid; even if municipal approval has been obtained, an elevator installed without the written consent of all owners can subsequently lead to legal disputes.

As 2M Law Firm, our team operating in Istanbul and Tuzla provides comprehensive legal consultancy to our clients in the fields of condominium law, apartment management disputes, and land registry and zoning law. We are with you at every stage, from determining the majority required for an elevator construction decision to managing court processes.

If you are looking for a lawyer in Tuzla or Istanbul, you can contact our legal team experienced in condominium and apartment law matters.

2M Law Firm | Istanbul – Tuzla