A children’s park not included in the approved municipal project and built very close to your home creates both an architectural project violation and a noise-related neighborhood law problem. Legal remedies are available for these two issues, separately and together.
A children’s park not included in the approved architectural project constitutes an intervention in the common area that violates the project. For its removal, an action for prevention of intervention and restoration to the previous state (Civil Court of Peace), a request for judicial intervention to stop the noise, and, in parallel, municipal/zoning inspection and administrative complaints under noise regulations can be used together. If the park is based on a decision of the board of floor owners, cancellation of the decision can also be requested.
1. Construction in Violation of the Approved Architectural Project and the Legal Status of the Children’s Park
Pursuant to Article 19 of the Condominium Law (KMK) No. 634, condominium owners are obliged to meticulously preserve the architectural integrity of the main property. Building a structure not foreseen in the approved architectural project (such as a children’s park, playground, nursery, etc.) in a common area designated as a green space or for another use is, as a rule, contrary to this obligation.
Four-fifths (4/5) written consent is required for a structure/facility in a common area
According to Article 19/2 of the Condominium Law (KMK), each of the condominium owners cannot carry out construction, repair, or installation in common areas unless there is the written consent of four-fifths (4/5) of all condominium owners; the same rule applies to actions that would cause changes to the exterior facade and architectural structure. If the management plan has raised this ratio to unanimity, the consent of all owners is required.
However, obtaining this consent alone is not sufficient. In the established practice of the Supreme Court, for the installation made:
not being contrary to zoning regulations and the approved project,
not being of a disturbing nature to other condominium owners and not obstructing the use of the independent section
conditions are also sought. Therefore, the defense of “the necessary majority was gathered” does not alone eliminate the non-compliance with zoning regulations and the extent of the disturbance.
Site management decision cannot alter the municipality-approved plan
The decision of the condominium owners’ board or the site management cannot alter the municipality-approved settlement plan or the architectural project attached to the license. The fact that a structure not included in the project was “built with a management decision” does not make it legally compliant.
Case Law Note: The legal principles in this article are based on the established practice of the Supreme Court on the subject. Before using a precedent decision in specific lawsuits/petitions, it is mandatory to confirm the relevant decision via UYAP with its principal-decision number and date. For example; decisions such as Supreme Court 5th Civil Chamber 2024/5555 E., 2025/367 K., 13.01.2025 regarding the removal of use contrary to the project and management plan and restoration to the previous state support this principle.
2. Evaluation of Noise Pollution and Neighbor Law
Noise problems encountered on the premises are evaluated within the framework of the obligation “not to disturb each other” as per Article 18 of the Condominium Law (KMK). Condominium owners (and tenants) are obliged to comply with rules of good faith and not to disturb their neighbors when using their independent sections and common areas. A breach of this obligation forms the basis for a request for prevention of interference.
Not every sound is “legal noise”
In the practice of the Court of Cassation, the measure of disturbance is determined by objective criteria; it is not sufficient to rely solely on witness statements, and when necessary, expert assessment/measurement is conducted. It is required that the sound be continuous and exceed a certain threshold and tolerance limit. While ordinary play sounds of children are considered within tolerance limits, excessive and continuous noise is a reason for intervention.
The Court May Order Technical Measures Instead of a Prohibition
The Court of Cassation finds general and abstract prohibitions like “no noise can be made” unenforceable. Instead, if the noise exceeds the tolerance limit, sound insulation / noise reduction measures (such as insulation, buffer distance, regulation of usage hours, etc.) may be ordered. The provisions of the “Regulation on the Protection of Buildings Against Noise” and the “Regulation on the Assessment and Management of Environmental Noise” are also taken into account for evaluation regarding building and environmental noise.
3. Legal Process to be Followed and Application Authorities
| Path | Basis | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Action for prevention of interference / restoration to previous state in Civil Court of Peace | CMAL Suppl. Art. 1 (jurisdiction), Art. 18–19 | Removal of parking contrary to the project and prevention of noise |
| Annulment of the decision of the Board of Apartment Owners | CMAL Art. 33 | If parking is based on a board/management decision |
| Municipality / zoning inspection application | Zoning Law No. 3194 Art. 32 and Art. 42 | Demolition and administrative fine for structure without license/outside project |
| Administrative noise complaint | Environmental legislation, Misdemeanor Law Art. 36 | Measurable environmental noise and disturbance of peace |
a) Civil Court of Peace – prevention of interference and restoration to original state
Lawsuits requesting the prevention of improper use of common areas contrary to the project and intervention are heard in the Civil Court of Peace where the immovable property is located, in accordance with Article 1 of the Annex to the Condominium Law. The flat owner can always request that the structure built contrary to the approved architectural project be restored to its original state. The court determines the non-conformity and the extent of the disturbance by obtaining the land registry record, management plan, and architectural project, and by conducting an on-site inspection (discovery-expert examination).
b) Annulment of the decision of the board of flat owners (Condominium Law Art. 33)
If the parking is based on a decision of the board of flat owners, its annulment can be requested in accordance with Article 33 of the Condominium Law, on the grounds that the decision is contrary to law, the management plan, or the rule of honesty. Each flat owner can file this lawsuit individually; the competent and authorized court is again the Civil Court of Peace where the main immovable property is located.
c) Municipal and administrative process (Zoning Law)
Structures not included in the building permit and its attached architectural project are considered unlicensed/contrary to the project application according to Article 32 of Zoning Law no. 3194. By applying to the relevant municipality, the detection, sealing/demolition of the structure, and the application of an administrative fine according to Article 42 can be requested. If the municipality fails to take action, the administrative judicial process comes into play.
d) Administrative noise complaint
For measurable environmental noise, a complaint can be made to the municipal police, law enforcement, and the Provincial Directorate of Environment, Urbanization and Climate Change; an administrative fine can be requested under Article 36 of the Misdemeanor Law for disturbing peace and quiet. This method can be pursued in parallel with the judicial process and produces evidence (reports, measurements).
Conclusion and Recommendation
A children’s playground located very close to your home and not included in the municipality-approved project constitutes a violation of the architectural project. You can apply to the Civil Court of Peace for the removal of this structure (reinstatement) and the prevention of noise (prevention of intervention); in parallel, you can request the initiation of proceedings under the Zoning Law with the municipality. Non-compliance with the time rule set by the site management and ongoing noise gives rise to the right to request judicial intervention in accordance with Article 18 of the Condominium Law (KMK). The most prudent way is to compile title deed–management plan–approved project–municipal correspondences and noise evidence (records, measurements, witnesses) with the assistance of a lawyer before filing a lawsuit.
Why is Expert Legal Support Necessary?
Common area disputes that violate the project are a technical field requiring the joint evaluation of the relationship between architectural project–management plan–zoning legislation, the distinction between 4/5 consent and unanimity, and objective expert measurement in cases of noise. Choosing the wrong court, insufficient evidence, or missing preclusive deadlines can lead to the dismissal of the case on its merits.
2M Law Office, in Istanbul’s Anatolian Side (Tuzla, Pendik, Kartal, Maltepe) and the Kocaeli corridor (Gebze, Darıca, Çayırova), provides legal support to its clients in the fields of condominium law and urban transformation law; in preventing intervention, reinstatement, annulment of board decisions, and the execution of zoning processes. A Tuzla condominium lawyer or a Gebze real estate lawyer manages the process confidently by determining the correct strategy from the outset.
For detailed information and appointments: 2mhukuk.com/iletisim
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Which court should be applied to for a children’s playground not included in the project?
Lawsuits for the prevention of interventions contrary to the project in common areas and for restoration are filed in the Civil Court of Peace (Sulh Hukuk Mahkemesi) located where the property is situated, in accordance with Article 1 of the Condominium Law (KMK) Annex. If the site management has made a decision, can it have the park built?
A management decision cannot alter the settlement plan approved by the municipality and the architectural project appended to the license. Furthermore, as a rule, for a structure/facility in a common area, the written consent of 4/5 of the co-owners (or unanimity if the management plan so stipulates) is required; even with this consent, the dimension of non-compliance with zoning regulations and nuisance is evaluated separately. Are children’s play sounds also considered noise?
The ordinary sounds of children playing are considered within the limits of tolerance. For noise to be a legal cause for intervention, it must be continuous, exceed the limits of tolerance, and the measurement thresholds in the regulations; this is usually determined by expert measurement. Can the court completely remove the park, or will it only mandate precautions?
If non-compliance with the project is determined, a decision for restoration (removal) can be made. Regarding noise, instead of an abstract prohibition, the court may also order technical measures such as sound insulation, buffer distance, or regulation of usage hours. An expert review determines which will be applied in the specific case. What is the difference between applying to the municipality and filing a lawsuit?
The municipal/zoning process is administrative in nature and provides for demolition and administrative fines for unlicensed structures; whereas a Civil Court of Peace (Sulh Hukuk) lawsuit results in the prevention of intervention and restoration under private law. The two paths can be pursued in parallel and reinforce each other.
UYAP Verification Warning: The legal regulations and principles regarding the Court of Cassation’s practice contained in this content are for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice or an attorney-client relationship. The timeliness and accuracy of precedent decisions to be applied to a specific case must be confirmed through UYAP / official jurisprudence sources. Each dispute should be evaluated within its own specific circumstances.
Related article: Can changes be made to common areas of a building? · Official legislation: mevzuat.gov.tr (Condominium Law no. 634, Zoning Law no. 3194).
