1. Regulatory Framework and Fundamental Legal Distinction 

According to the Condominium Law No. 634 (KMK), the form and limits of use of the main immovable property are subject to strict rules. In this context, there is a sharp distinction between the concepts of “polyclinic” and “doctor’s office” in terms of their legal consequences:

Condominium Law No. 634, Article 24/1: “In an independent section of the main immovable property shown as a residence, workplace, or commercial property in the registry, establishments such as hospitals, dispensaries, clinics, polyclinics, or pharmaceutical laboratories cannot be established; agreements of condominium owners contrary to this are null and void; doctor’s offices that are not of the nature of a dispensary, clinic, or polyclinic are exempt from this provision.”

Condominium Law No. 634, Article 28: “The management plan regulates the management style, the purpose and manner of use… The management plan is a contractual provision binding all condominium owners.”

Legal Outcome: The establishment of polyclinics in residences is legally prohibited, and even if condominium owners give their consent, agreements to this effect are null and void. However, private practices (doctor’s offices) can be opened in residences, provided they are not classified as polyclinics/clinics; but if there is a specific prohibition in the management plan, this prohibition binds all owners.

2. Judicial Analysis Regarding the Opening of Polyclinics in Residences 

Court decisions consider the opening of polyclinics in independent sections designated as residences as an absolute prohibition, in accordance with Article 24/1 of the Condominium Law (KMK).

Absolute Prohibition and Nullity: As emphasized in the decisions of the 4th Chamber of the Council of State (13.02.2025, E.2023/9323 – K.2025/1050) and the 20th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court (06.12.2018, E.2017/4713 – K.2018/7961); the establishment of polyclinics in places registered as residences in the title deed is directly prohibited. Any decision made or agreement entered into by condominium owners contrary to this prohibition is legally invalid (null and void).

Constitutional Conformity: The Constitutional Court (24.03.2010, E.2006/159 – K.2010/47) did not find the absolute prohibition of establishing institutions like polyclinics in residences and the exemption of private practices from this prohibition to be unconstitutional, stating that this distinction is based on a legitimate reason.

Eviction and Restoration to Original State: The 20th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court (17.01.2018, E.2017/1150 – K.2018/222) found the operation of a dental polyclinic in a residential property to be contrary to Article 24 of the Condominium Law (KMK) and upheld the decision for eviction and restoration to its original state. Similarly, the 5th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court (15.02.2023, E.2022/11583 – K.2023/1232) characterized the use of residences as dental polyclinics as a clear violation of the law.

3. Opening a Private Practice and Consent of Co-owners 

Private practices, provided they are not polyclinics, are outside the scope of the prohibition in KMK 24/1. However, this situation does not mean that a private practice can be opened under all circumstances.

Priority of the Management Plan: According to the decisions of the Supreme Court General Assembly of Law (18.05.2011, E.2011/176 – K.2011/318 ) and the 18th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court (02.11.2010, E.2010/11770 – K.2010/14395 ); unless there is a contrary provision in the management plan, doctors’ private practices can be opened without a unanimous decision of the co-owners. However, if there is a prohibition in the management plan such as “only used as a residence” or “private practices cannot be opened”, this provision is binding on all owners pursuant to KMK 28.

Unanimity Requirement: If the use of residences for other purposes is prohibited in the management plan or if a permit is required for conversion into a workplace, it is mandatory for all co-owners to make a unanimous decision for a private practice to be opened (18th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court, 27.10.2014, E.2014/16155 – K.2014/14774 ).

Administrative Licensing Processes: The 2nd Chamber of the Council of State (28.02.2023, E.2022/3857 – K.2023/784 ) found it lawful for the municipality to reject a license application for opening a private practice in a place registered as a residence in the land registry, on the grounds that there was no unanimous consent from the co-owners.

4. Determination of the Nature of the Activity 

Whether a place is a private practice or a polyclinic is of critical importance in eviction cases. The 18th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court (03.12.2013, E.2013/14791 – K.2013/17024), stated that it must be determined by an expert medical examiner whether the activity in the independent section is of a clinic/polyclinic nature, and if the activity is merely at the level of a private practice, the case should be dismissed.

5. Secondary Sources and Additional Context 

According to evaluations of secondary sources;

Even though places like doctor’s private practices or lawyer’s offices are generally not considered “workplaces” in Supreme Court practices, if there is a general prohibition in the management plan stating “cannot be used outside of its nature in the land registry,” then unanimous consent is required for these activities as well (Supreme Court General Assembly of Civil Chambers, 21.12.2005, E.2005/695 – K.2005/759 ).

The Constitutional Court (17.07.2014, 2012/1035 ), confirmed that the restrictions in Article 24 of the Condominium Law (KMK) are a regulation aimed at protecting the peace of residents, serving the public interest, and being proportionate.

When the provisions of the Regulation on Opening and Operating Workplaces and the provisions of the Condominium Law (KMK) are evaluated together, it is observed that the consent of the floor owners is also sought by administrative authorities for commercial conversions in residences (Council of State 4th Chamber, 20.11.2023, E.2023/9146 – K.2023/6399 ).

In Summary: Doctors cannot open polyclinics in residences; this prohibition is mandatory and cannot be overridden even with the consent of the co-owners. However, a private practice can be opened without seeking the consent of the co-owners, as long as there is no prohibition to the contrary in the management plan; but if there is a prohibition in the management plan, the unanimous consent of all co-owners is required.

Frequently Asked Questions

Tapuda mesken olarak kayıtlı bir dairede poliklinik açılabilir mi?

Hayır, açılamaz. 634 Sayılı Kat Mülkiyeti Kanunu’nun 24. maddesi uyarınca mesken nitelikli bağımsız bölümlerde hastane, klinik, poliklinik gibi müesseseler kurulması kesin olarak yasaklanmıştır. Bu yasak emredici nitelikte olup kat maliklerinin tamamı rıza gösterse dahi aşılamaz; aksi yöndeki sözleşmeler hukuken hükümsüzdür. Yargıtay 20. Hukuk Dairesi, mesken nitelikli taşınmazda diş polikliniği işletilmesini KMK’ya aykırı bularak tahliye ve eski hale getirme kararını onamıştır. İstanbul avukat veya Tuzla avukat olarak hizmet veren kat mülkiyeti uzmanı avukatlar, bu tür uyuşmazlıklarda yasağın kapsamını ve sonuçlarını yerinde değerlendirerek müvekkillerini korumaktadır.

Meskende muayenehane açmak için kat maliklerinin iznine ihtiyaç var mı?

Poliklinik niteliği taşımayan muayenehaneler KMK md. 24/1’deki yasak kapsamı dışındadır; ancak bu durum her koşulda serbestçe açılabileceği anlamına gelmez. Belirleyici olan yönetim planıdır. Yönetim planında “sadece mesken olarak kullanılır” veya “muayenehane açılamaz” gibi bir hüküm bulunmuyorsa, kat maliklerinin oybirliği aranmaksızın muayenehane açılabilir. Buna karşın yönetim planında aksine bir yasak mevcutsa tüm kat maliklerinin oybirliğiyle rızası zorunludur. Danıştay da, oybirliği sağlanmadan yapılan ruhsat başvurularının reddedilmesini hukuka uygun bulmaktadır.

Açılan yerin muayenehane mi yoksa poliklinik mi olduğu nasıl belirlenir? Hukuki sonuçları farklı mıdır?

Evet, hukuki sonuçları birbirinden tamamen farklıdır. Yargıtay 18. Hukuk Dairesi, bir yerin muayenehane mi yoksa klinik/poliklinik mi olduğunun uzman doktor bilirkişi aracılığıyla tespit edilmesi gerektiğini açıkça ortaya koymuştur. Faaliyet muayenehane düzeyindeyse dava reddedilir; poliklinik niteliğinde olduğu anlaşılırsa tahliye ve eski hale getirme kararı verilebilir. Bu ayrım, hem ruhsatlandırma aşamasında hem de tahliye davalarında belirleyicidir. İstanbul ve Tuzla’da faaliyet gösteren 2M Hukuk Avukatlık Ofisi, kat mülkiyeti uyuşmazlıklarında bu teknik ve hukuki değerlendirmeleri birlikte yaparak müvekkillerinin haklarını etkin biçimde savunmaktadır.

Why is Expert Legal Support Necessary?

Opening a health unit in residences is a multi-layered legal issue that requires the joint evaluation of Condominium Law (KMK) provisions, management plan conditions, administrative licensing regulations, and Supreme Court precedents. A wrong step — overlooking the fine line between a polyclinic and a private practice, or missing a detail in the management plan — can lead to severe consequences such as eviction lawsuits, administrative fines, or license revocation. The condominium law expert lawyers at 2M Hukuk Avukatlık Ofisi, which serves as Istanbul lawyers and Tuzla lawyers, offer experienced legal support in management plan reviews, co-owner board processes, municipal license applications, and eviction lawsuits. To avoid loss of rights, it is of great importance to consult with an expert lawyer at the very beginning of the process.