Imagine an apartment building constructed in the 1990s. Only one of the apartments in the building is registered in the title deed as a “residence with a roof annex”; its land share is greater than that of the other apartments because an additional annex in the roof space was granted to this apartment in the project. The other apartments are standard floor apartments. Today, the management, along with the two adjacent buildings, is having core samples taken for urban transformation, and a preliminary protocol based on the principle of “equal apartments for everyone” is being prepared. The other owners are signing the protocol; however, the owner of the apartment with the roof annex is not signing. They are told, “You will be given an apartment of the same size as the others on the top floor.” Meanwhile, they are wondering how the issuance of a construction suspension record and a zoning fine for the building will affect the process.

This scenario illustrates a common problem encountered in urban transformation: How does the owner of an apartment with a roof annex, whose land share in the title deed is greater than others, protect their rights in the face of an imposed equal distribution? In this article, we examine the current state of Law No. 6306, the amendment to the Implementation Regulation dated 04.02.2026, the rules of simple majority and consolidation, the role of land share and roof annex in distribution, the legal remedies available to the minority owner, and the impact of a construction suspension record on the process, using Supreme Court practices and official sources.

1. Scenario and Questions to be Answered

In the above situation, there are four fundamental questions that need to be answered from the owners’ perspective:

• Binding nature: Does the preliminary protocol prepared by the management and signed by the majority bind the non-signing owners?
• Distribution criterion: Can the owner of an apartment with a roof annex, who has a larger land share in the title deed, demand more square meters or value in the new building; is the ‘equal apartment for everyone’ distribution lawful?
• Roof annex: How is the equivalent of the roof annex in the old building determined in the new building?
• Building suspension report: Does the building suspension report issued for the building and the zoning penalty adversely affect the process?

Before moving on to these questions, it is necessary to correctly read the current legislation; because urban transformation rules have changed significantly at the law level in 2023 and at the regulation level in 2026.

2. Legislation: Law No. 6306 and the 2026 Regulation Amendment

The quorum for decision in the Law No. 6306 on the Transformation of Areas Under Disaster Risk has been changed by Law No. 7471 dated 07.11.2023. Instead of the two-thirds majority required in the previous regulation, a simple majority is now sufficient. The rule in the first paragraph of Article 6 of the Law is detailed as follows in Article 15 of the Implementation Regulation of Law No. 6306, which was reorganized with the amendment published in the Official Gazette dated 04.02.2026 and numbered 33158:

From this provision, the following elements to be used in monitoring the process emerge:

• Prerequisite: A risky building must have been identified on the parcel.
• Invitation: All owners must be invited to the meeting; the invitation must be made by filling out the Annex-12 form and announcing it for fifteen days at the headman’s office or on the building door, or through a notary public.
• Quorum for the meeting: The meeting must be held with at least an absolute majority of shareholders in proportion to their shares.
• Decision quorum: The decision must be made by a simple majority proportional to shares and recorded in a signed minute.
• Notification: The proposal containing the decision and agreement terms must be notified to those who did not participate in the decision, via electronic notification, notary, or mukhtar’s announcement.

The phrase “proportional to shares” indicates that the majority will be calculated based on land share, not the number of people. An owner with a larger land share therefore has more voting weight in the decision-making mechanism than other owners. For details on how to calculate a simple majority, you can refer to our article how is a simple majority calculated in urban transformation?

3. Core Sampling, Risky Structure Determination, and Objection

The administration’s “taking core samples” is part of the process of a licensed institution determining whether the building is a risky structure. According to Law No. 6306, any of the owners can have the risky structure determination done; therefore, the consent of all owners is not required for core sampling.

• Notification: According to the regulation introduced by Law No. 7471, the report regarding the detection of a risky structure is posted on the building, owners are notified via e-Government, and it is announced at the headman’s office for fifteen days; it is deemed served on the last day of the announcement. The risky structure is also recorded in the declarations section of the land registry.
• Objection: An objection can be raised against the risky structure determination within fifteen days from the date of notification or deemed notification. The objection is examined by technical committees.
• Lawsuit: Against administrative actions established under Law No. 6306, a lawsuit can be filed in administrative courts within thirty days from the notification.

An objection to a risky structure determination is often a technical debate about whether the building is truly risky. However, for owners experiencing land share and sharing problems, what is more important is to diligently follow the procedure of meetings and decisions to be made after the determination becomes final. Regarding who can have a risky structure determination made, you can refer to our article who has a risky structure determination made?.

4. Preliminary Protocol and Simple Majority Decision Are Not the Same Thing

In practice, managements or contractors have owners sign “preliminary protocols” or “letters of intent” before the risky structure determination is completed. The legal nature of these documents differs from the simple majority decision in Law No. 6306:

Therefore, the preliminary protocol you have not signed does not bind you. However, if the total land shares of those who signed the preliminary protocol exceed a simple majority, these owners can make a decision with the same content through a duly held meeting after the identification of a risky structure. For this reason, the preliminary protocol stage is a negotiation stage for you: It is important to put forward your objections and your demand for a sharing commensurate with your land share in writing at this stage, for the future substantiation of this demand.

Calculate your voting weight

Since the land share of the penthouse apartment is higher than the others, its voting weight is also higher than that of a normal apartment. For example, in a ten-apartment building, if each normal apartment has a 9/100 land share and the penthouse apartment has a 19/100 land share, it alone represents approximately one-fifth of the total. This ratio alone is not enough to block a decision; however, it determines with how many owners’ participation a simple majority can be reached and your negotiating power. Calculating your own ratio by summing the land shares in the title deed allows you to make a realistic assessment of the process.

5. Consolidation: Merger with the Two Adjacent Buildings

The administration’s transformation planning, together with the two adjacent buildings, requires the consolidation (merger) of the parcels. The Regulation amendment dated 04.02.2026 introduced a special rule for consolidation:

This provision leads to three important consequences in your situation:

• All three buildings must be risky. If the structure in one of the parcels is not risky, a consolidation decision cannot be made based on this provision. Therefore, check whether risky building assessments have been completed for all three buildings.
• Separate majority is required for each parcel. High participation of owners in the other two buildings does not substitute for an absolute majority in your parcel. An absolute majority based on land share must also be ensured in your parcel.
• Ratios change after unification. After the unification is realized, the implementation will be decided by an absolute majority proportional to the shares in the unified parcel. At this stage, your voting weight decreases within the total of the three buildings. Therefore, it is important to secure your rights in writing within your own parcel before the unification decision.

In unified projects, issues such as the value at which each parcel participates in the new project, which independent sections are given to the owners of which building on which floors and facades, and how common areas are shared, should also be examined separately.

6. The Role of Land Share in Distribution

Law No. 6306 does not foresee a mathematical formula for how independent sections in the new building will be distributed among owners; the distribution is determined by agreement among the owners or by an absolute majority decision. However, this freedom is not limitless: The land share is the measure of both the decision-making mechanism and the right of ownership.

In urban transformation, when a building is demolished, condominium ownership ends, and the immovable property becomes land; what remains in the hands of the owners are the land shares in the title deed. Rights in the new building are also established based on these shares.

Additionally, the distribution is not solely based on square meters. Value elements of the new independent section, such as its floor, facade, view, usable area, balcony or terrace possibilities, and roof usage rights, should be evaluated together. What is important is that the total value allocated to each owner is proportional to their land share.

7. Value of an Apartment with an Attic Mezzanine and its Equivalent in the New Building

The attic mezzanine is part of the apartment

According to the Condominium Law, roofs are considered common areas unless there is a contrary provision in the contract; however, an attic mezzanine allocated to an independent section in the approved project is part of that independent section. This is also why apartments with an attic mezzanine have a larger land share: when the condominium was established, the additional area and usage possibilities provided by the mezzanine were reflected in the apartment’s value. In urban transformation, voting rights and distribution are calculated based on the land share recorded in the title deed. As we stated in our published article, the Court of Cassation accepts that title deed records, not actual use, are paramount. For details regarding the rights of attic floor owners, you can refer to our article on rights of attic floor owners in urban transformation.

Equivalent of the attic mezzanine in the new building

The law does not mandate that the attic floor from the old building must be provided exactly the same in the new building. According to the Zoned Areas Zoning Regulation, independent sections cannot be built within roof spaces; however, ancillary rooms connected to independent sections on the top floor can be built. Therefore, the equivalent of the attic floor in the new project can be provided by one of the following ways:

• Attic floor connected to the top-floor apartment (duplex use): This is the most natural equivalent of the old situation in the new building; the proposed apartment being on the top floor can provide this opportunity.
• Additional square meters: A larger apartment on a standard floor, proportional to the difference in land share.
• Terrace or roof usage right: If there is a roof terrace in the new project, the right to use this area being linked to the apartment.
• Value difference: If an equivalent in square meters or usage cannot be provided, the value difference being paid by the contractor or other owners.

Which method will be chosen depends on the zoning status of the new project and negotiation. The important thing is that the value difference brought by the attic floor is somehow compensated in the new building and that this is explicitly stated in the contract.

About the land share correction lawsuit

The Condominium Law grants condominium owners the possibility to file a lawsuit for the correction of the land share in cases where land shares are not allocated proportionally to the value of independent sections. According to Supreme Court practice reported in public sources, this lawsuit can be filed as long as the main real estate preserves its condominium ownership or construction servitude status; when the building is demolished and the condominium ownership is cancelled, the subject of the lawsuit ceases to exist. In Supreme Court practice, the value criterion is taken as the basis for determining the land share; the fact that an apartment with a roof floor has a higher land share is a result of the additional value brought by the floor, so this difference is not inherently considered an error. However, if a dispute regarding land shares is expected, an independent appraisal report strengthens the parties’ position in both negotiations and a potential lawsuit.

8. How is the Offer of “An Apartment of the Same Size from the Top Floor” Evaluated?

The management’s offer, “You will be given an apartment of the same size as others from the top floor,” contains two different elements: the same square footage (meaning the square meter equivalent of the excess land share is not being given) and top floor location (an element that increases value in some projects). When evaluating the offer, ask the following questions:

If the offer is found acceptable, all conditions must be clearly written in the notarized contract in the form of a deed and the accompanying sharing plan. Oral promises or statements contained only in a preliminary protocol will cause proof problems in the future. For ways to recourse in case of a reduction in square meters in the new building, you can refer to our article compensation if square meters decrease in urban transformation.

9. What Happens If You Don’t Agree to the Decision? Share Sale Process

Regarding property owners who do not agree to the duly taken simple majority decision, the Regulation foresees the following process:

• Fifteen days: The offer must be examined and a decision must be made within fifteen days from the notification.
• Sale: If not accepted, the land shares, not less than the current market value, are first sold by public auction to other shareholders who have reached an agreement; if the sale does not occur, they can be sold to third parties who accept to comply with the agreement.
• Pre-permit inspection: According to Article 15/4 of the Regulation, before applying for a building permit, the decision and proposal must have been duly notified to those who did not participate in the decision, and an application must have been made for the sale of shares.

Therefore, saying “we are not signing” may bring along the risk of your land share being sold at fair market value in the long run. The fair market value may be lower than the value of the apartment you would receive in the new building. This risk should be considered together with the goal of participating in the transformation by receiving your rights. For details on the matter, you can refer to our article I don’t want to participate in urban transformation.

10. Legal Remedies and Competent Jurisdiction

In urban transformation, different legal remedies are pursued depending on the nature of the dispute. This distinction is important as resorting to the wrong path can lead to a loss of time:

11. Does the Construction Suspension Record and Zoning Penalty Process Affect It?

Zoning Law No. 3194‘s Article 32 states that a construction suspension record is prepared for structures found to be built without a license or in violation of the license, the structure is sealed, and a demolition decision is made if the violation is not rectified; and according to Article 42, a zoning administrative fine is imposed.

Impact on urban transformation

• It does not prevent risky building detection. Risky building detection is based on the building’s earthquake resistance; the presence of unlicensed parts or parts in violation of the license does not prevent this detection. Law No. 6306 views violations of zoning regulations not as an obstacle to transformation, but often as one of the reasons for transformation.
• Right of ownership is determined by the title deed. Voting rights and share are calculated based on the independent section and land share in the title deed; a building cessation report does not alter this record.
• Illegal sections do not create additional rights. If there is an unlicensed floor or additional area subsequently built in the building, it is difficult to consider these sections as a “legal apartment” in the new building; the sharing is still done according to the title deed record.
• Zoning fine is personal. If there is an unpaid zoning fine, this fine is generally the debt of the person in whose name it was issued. Whether the fine has become final, to whom it was served, and its collection status should be learned from the municipality; if the immovable property has been foreclosed for collection, this situation must be resolved separately during the transformation process.

What should be done if a building cessation report is issued?

If a building cessation report is issued for the building by the municipality during the transformation process, the content of the report, which violation it pertains to, to whom it is addressed, and the recipient of the penalty should be carefully examined. An annulment lawsuit can be filed in the administrative court against the report and the demolition or fine decisions based on it. According to publicly available Council of State jurisprudence, demolition and fine decisions based on a building cessation report that lacks mandatory elements are unlawful; furthermore, directly penalizing the title deed owner even if they did not commit the violation can be debated in terms of the principle of the personal nature of penalties.

12. Step-by-Step Roadmap

13. Why is it Important to Manage the Process Correctly in These Files?

In urban transformation, the loss of rights for an owner with an excessive land share often stems not from a single major mistake, but from minor procedural deficiencies: a signed preliminary protocol, a missed fifteen-day deadline, an objection not recorded in writing, or a sharing plan not added to the contract. Once a consolidation decision is made and a sharing plan is signed, subsequent lawsuits are both lengthy and uncertain.

• Before the decision stage: calculation of voting power, reasoned notification of a sharing request appropriate to the land share, preparation of the valuation report,
• At the decision stage: oversight of meeting and decision procedures, control of consolidation conditions, timely evaluation of the offer,
• At the contract stage: securing rights with a notarized contract and sharing plan, limiting broad tolerances and alteration authorities in favor of the contractor.

Regions we serve

2M Law Office is located in Tuzla. We handle urban transformation, condominium ownership, and zoning disputes, tracking cases in the Istanbul Anatolian Courthouse, Istanbul administrative courts, provincial units of the Urban Transformation Directorate, and the courthouses of Gebze and Kocaeli. On the Anatolian Side, we work on owner files in Tuzla, Pendik, Kartal, Maltepe, Ataşehir, Kadıköy, Üsküdar, Ümraniye, and Sancaktepe; on the European Side, in Bakırköy, Beşiktaş, Küçükçekmece, and Esenyurt; and in Kocaeli, in Gebze, Darıca, Çayırova, and İzmit.