Buying a new apartment often means inheriting unresolved issues from the building’s past. One of the most common of these issues is the sign that the ground floor shop has progressively expanded onto the facade over the years. Sometimes the sign extends up to the window level of the apartment above, sometimes it forms a large protrusion beneath the balcony, and sometimes its light, burning at night, illuminates the bedroom.

In this article, we will examine step by step what legal tools you have as a condominium owner against this situation, what criteria the Court of Cassation uses in its decisions, and what outcome the court will lead you to.

1. General Principles and Limits of the Right to Display a Workplace Sign

In the precedents of the Court of Cassation, the hanging of signs on the building facade for promotional and advertising purposes by independent sections classified as workplaces is generally accepted. However, this right is not absolute and unlimited; it is bound by specific legal frameworks and limitations.

In the decisions of the 18th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 19.06.2014, with File No. 2014/5927, Decision No. 2014/10979; of the 20th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 11.12.2017, with File No. 2017/8767, Decision No. 2017/10335, and dated 09.04.2018, with File No. 2017/2898, Decision No. 2018/2763; and likewise, in the decisions of the 18th Civil Chamber dated 29.06.2004, with File No. 2004/3650, Decision No. 2004/5470, and dated 07.03.2011, with File No. 2011/1690, Decision No. 2011/3004, the principle has been laid down as follows:

Similarly, in the decision of the 18th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals dated 28.11.2011, with file number E. 2011/8538 and decision number K. 2011/12044, it was determined that the relevant floor owner does not need to obtain permission from other floor owners to hang an advertising signboard on the exterior wall of an independent unit designated as a workplace, provided that it does not exceed the ceiling slab boundaries of that independent unit, restrict the rights of other independent unit owners, or cause them discomfort.

Three conditions required for a signboard to be considered lawful

• No prohibition: There should be no provision prohibiting the hanging of a signboard in the management plan or in the decision of the board of floor owners.
• No exceeding boundaries: The signboard must not exceed the exterior facade and ceiling-slab boundaries of the independent unit it belongs to.
• Proportionality: It should not be of exaggerated dimensions, should not disrupt the architectural aesthetics of the building, and should not cause discomfort to other independent unit owners.

Hanging a signboard on one’s own facade and renting the facade for advertising are not the same thing

This is the most confusing point in practice. It is possible for the business owner to display a sign promoting their own business on the facade of their independent section under the aforementioned conditions, and no additional permit is required. In contrast, renting out the exterior wall, roof, or terrace of the main building for advertising purposes to third parties is an entirely different procedure and requires the unanimous consent of all co-owners in accordance with Article 45 of the Condominium Law. For details on this distinction, you can review our article titled renting out the building’s exterior wall, roof, or terrace for advertising purposes. Our article addressing the issue from the perspective of the business owner is titled is the consent of co-owners required for a business to place a sign on the building facade?

2. Binding Nature of the Management Plan and Decisions of the Co-owners’ Board

In buildings subject to condominium ownership, the management plan serves as a binding contract for all co-owners. Therefore, the first document to be examined in the file is not the title deed, but the management plan.

In the decision of the 5th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 20.11.2023, numbered E. 2023/7716, K. 2023/11200, it was stated that the management plan is contractual in nature between the parties; it binds the owners at the time the condominium ownership was established in the main property, and all owners who subsequently acquired independent sections in the main property. This determination has a twofold consequence for new owners: the prohibitions in the management plan also protect you, and the freedoms therein also bind you.

In the decision of the 20th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 09.11.2017, numbered E. 2017/4287, K. 2017/9250, it was stated that in disputes arising from condominium ownership, the management plan should be applied first and that the management plan binds all co-owners, and it was decided to remove promotional signs placed contrary to the purpose of use and restrictions in the management plan. In the case subject to the decision, it was ruled that two promotional signs with a unit area of 1.68 m² on the balconies facing the road and a sign measuring 15×30 cm next to the main entrance door of the apartment should be removed.

In contrast, in the decision of the 20th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 09.10.2017, numbered E. 2017/4508, K. 2017/7407, it was emphasized that if there is no prohibition in the management plan, identifying signs belonging to workplaces can be hung, according to the rules of equity stipulated in Article 33 of the Condominium Law, provided they do not disturb the aesthetics.

If there is no prohibition in the management plan, can a prohibition be introduced later?

The board of co-owners has the authority to make decisions regarding the use of common areas and can make regulatory decisions on matters such as sign size, location, and lighting hours. However, amending the management plan itself requires the vote of four-fifths of all co-owners in accordance with Article 28 of the Condominium Law. Therefore, in practice, two approaches are followed: depending on the nature of the case, either a lawsuit is filed based on the existing management plan, or a board decision is made to impose size and location limits on the sign. For the general framework of changes to be made in common areas, you can refer to our article Can changes be made in common areas of buildings?.

3. Exceeding Exterior Facade Limits, Interference with Common Areas, and Non-compliance with Architectural Project

If a sign displayed by a workplace extends beyond the exterior facade and slab limits of the independent section it belongs to, encroaches on common areas, or is constructed contrary to the architectural project, removal of the interference and restoration to its former state can be requested. For a new owner, the strongest arguments are gathered under this heading.

Extension onto the facade or parapet of the upper floor

In the decision of the 11th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court dated 30.04.2012, with file no. E. 2011/1463, K. 2012/7018, it was stated that the defendant could only hang their sign in a way that does not exceed the exterior facade of the independent section it belongs to. In the case, it was determined by the expert committee that the sign was placed above the parapet belonging to the plaintiff’s workplace because the defendant’s workplace was located in a position not visible from the outside; therefore, the lawsuit was accepted on the grounds that the billboard constituted an interference with the plaintiff’s facade, the interference was prevented, and the billboard was decided to be removed from its hanging location.

This decision also invalidates a commonly heard defense in practice: “My workplace is not visible, I have to place the sign higher” does not legalize exceeding the boundary.

Mounting Under the Window and Facade Encroachment

In the decision of the 18th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 07.12.2015, with file no. E. 2015/3856 and decision no. K. 2015/17942, the plaintiff requested the prevention of interference and restoration to the former state, stating that the defendant had hung a sign in a way that would disrupt the building’s architecture and infringe upon the rights of other co-owners. The court ruled to prevent the intervention, as it was understood that the sign in question was not within the exterior facade boundaries of the independent section it belonged to and was mounted under the window of the independent section on the upper floor.

Another example demonstrating that even a minor transgression can have consequences is the decision of the 20th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 09.10.2017, with file no. E. 2017/4508 and decision no. K. 2017/7407; in this case, the court ruled to prevent the 47 cm intervention determined by the expert report.

Preservation of Architectural State: Condominium Law Article 19

Pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 19 of Law No. 634, co-owners are obliged to diligently preserve the maintenance, architectural state, aesthetic appeal, and soundness of the main immovable property. The second paragraph stipulates that none of the co-owners may undertake construction, repairs, and installations, or apply exterior whitewash or paint of a different color in the common areas of the main immovable property without the written consent of four-fifths of all co-owners. You can access the text of the law via the Legislation Information System.

In the decisions of the 5th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 16.01.2024, E. 2023/11329, K. 2024/518, and dated 20.11.2023, E. 2023/7716, K. 2023/11200, it was emphasized that each floor owner is obliged to protect the architectural condition and beauty of the main immovable property, that the contrary could not be proven, and that the intervention made was against the property rights of the floor owners in common areas, thus the acceptance of the lawsuit was deemed appropriate. In the same decisions, it was stated that such infringements are unlawful unless there is an approved architectural modification project or the consent of the floor owners with the necessary quorum in the main immovable property.

Protrusions and large billboards contrary to the project

In the case subject to the decision of the 20th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 24.10.2017, E. 2017/4310, K. 2017/8331, the plaintiff claimed that the billboard above the shop created a protrusion 4.5 m wide and 1.5 m deep, and that the defendant expanded it without obtaining permission from the property owner and apartment management, requesting that the structure contrary to the project be restored to its original state. The court ruled that the billboard, built contrary to the project, beneath the balcony, at the location of the ground floor shop’s ceiling and the first-floor residence, should be removed within 7 days and made compliant with the project; the Court of Cassation upheld the verdict on the grounds that deviations from the project were identified and a decision was made for restoration to the original state.

Intervention in common areas

In the decision of the 5th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 20.12.2021, with file no. E. 2021/12021 and decision no. K. 2021/15504, regarding the dispute of hanging a sign in common areas without the permission of the condominium owners, it was stated that there was no error in deciding to determine interventions contrary to the project and to restore uses contrary to the management plan and title deed to their former state, considering Article 19 of the Condominium Law. Also, in the decision of the 18th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 10.04.2014, with file no. E. 2013/17476 and decision no. K. 2014/6737, it was confirmed that a lawsuit could be filed with the request to remove the sign and prevent the encroachment, on the grounds that the workplace sign encroached upon the garden, which is a common area.

Municipal Announcement and Advertisement Regulations: A Second Layer of Control

Independent of condominium law, each municipality’s announcement, advertisement, and promotion regulations introduce separate rules regarding the sign’s size, location, lighting, and use above the ground floor. If the sign is unlicensed or non-compliant with size regulations, an application to the municipality is an administrative route that runs parallel to legal action and often yields faster results. Since practices differ in the districts of Istanbul and Kocaeli, the regulations of the district where the case was opened should also be examined separately.

4. Neighborhood Law, Duty Not to Disturb, and Exceeding the Limit of Tolerance

Even if the sign remains within the boundaries of the independent section, if it causes you disturbance, the matter is not considered closed. According to Article 18 of the Condominium Law and the principles of neighborhood law, owners of independent sections are obliged not to disturb each other.

In the decision of the 18th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals dated 16.04.2009, E. 2009/3582, K. 2009/4199, it was stated that according to the first paragraph of Article 18 of Law No. 634, homeowners are mutually obliged to comply with the rules of good faith when using their independent sections, annexes, and common areas, especially not to disturb each other and not to infringe upon each other’s rights.

Light disturbance

In the decision of the 18th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals dated 28.11.2011, E. 2011/8538, K. 2011/12044, it was stated that deciding to reject the case, when it should have been accepted, was not deemed correct, because the advertising billboard exceeded the ceiling slab boundaries of the defendant’s independent section, and especially since it was understood that the light from the billboard could cause disturbance to the plaintiff at night. This decision is important because it shows that light disturbance was accepted as a standalone cause of action.

Obstruction of view and natural light

If a sign obstructs the view and natural light, the boundaries of neighborhood law are considered to have been exceeded. In the decision of the 7th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals dated 03.06.2026, E. 2025/4851, K. 2026/2922, it was determined that the sign obstructing the plaintiff’s view and natural light exceeded the boundaries of neighborhood law and tolerance. The striking aspect is the form of the solution: instead of ordering the complete removal of the sign, the court decided that it should be reduced to dimensions of 2×3.5 meters and maintained, and the dispute resolved in this manner.

In the decision of the 4th Civil Chamber of the Denizli Regional Court of Justice dated 18.07.2025, with file no. E. 2025/1561 and decision no. K. 2025/1277, it was stated that the judge must consider the specific characteristics of each concrete case, the condition and nature of the immovable property, and local customs, determine the limits of tolerance that neighbors are obliged to show to each other and resolve conflicts of interest in a manner most appropriate to the particular case.

In the case subject to the decision of the Ankara 5th Civil Court of Commerce dated 14.01.2025, with file no. E. 2021/591 and decision no. K. 2025/36, the apartment residents stated that they experienced problems with the management due to the excessive size of the sign, that the appearance of the building was damaged due to the large number and size of the signs, and that they requested the business owner to remove the signs. Such witness statements can directly affect the course of the dispute.

“The sign was already there when I bought it” defense

New owners often encounter this defense. However, demands for the prevention of interference arising from condominium ownership and neighborhood law are, as a rule, directed at an ongoing illegality. The existence of a prohibition in the management plan or a deviation from the project during the previous owner’s period does not legalize the sign. As we will see in the next section, the right to sue is directly linked to the status of a condominium owner.

5. Legal Remedy, Right to Sue, and Court Decision-Making Procedure

A. Right to file a lawsuit (active legitimacy)

A person who acquires the status of a condominium owner in the immovable property can directly file a lawsuit requesting the prevention of interference, the removal of architectural project non-conformities, and restoration to the previous state. In the decision of the 18th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 09.02.2010, with file no. E. 2009/13879 and decision no. K. 2010/1697, it was stated that such a lawsuit can be filed by the condominium owner of the main immovable property or by a manager explicitly authorized by the board of condominium owners to file a lawsuit.

In the same Chamber’s decision dated 16.04.2009, with file no. E. 2009/3582 and decision no. K. 2009/4199, it was determined that individuals residing in independent sections, if affected by the resulting negative circumstances, also have the right and authority to sue, just like condominium owners. Therefore, if you have rented out the apartment, it is accepted that your tenant can also make the disturbance subject to a lawsuit.

The court of jurisdiction in disputes arising from condominium ownership is the civil court of peace; the competent court is the court where the main immovable property is located. The request, in practice, is established as “prevention of interference and restoration to the previous state”; if the conditions are met, compensation may also be claimed.

B. Solution path to be followed by the court (Condominium Law Article 33 and expert examination)

In cases of disturbance and boundary overruns caused by a sign, if there is no absolute prohibition in the management plan, the court, instead of directly ordering the complete removal of the sign, produces an equitable solution that considers the balance of rights of the parties. This is the point that most often surprises the plaintiff: even if the request is “remove it”, the result is often in the form of “let it be reduced and placed at that point”.

In the decisions of the 18th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 19.06.2014, E. 2014/5927, K. 2014/10979 and dated 07.03.2011, E. 2011/1690, K. 2011/3004, it was stated that, instead of determining an appropriate place for the sign identifying the defendant’s workplace to be hung, without exceeding the defendant’s external facade property boundaries, by means of an expert examination, linking it to a scaled sketch, and making a decision in line with the report to be obtained, in accordance with the rules of equity stipulated in Article 33 of the Condominium Law, the conditions stipulated in the management plan, and the principles above, thereby remedying the disturbance caused to the plaintiff, the decision to completely remove the sign was not deemed correct.

The same method was adopted in the decision of the 20th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 09.04.2018, E. 2017/2898, K. 2018/2763; it was emphasized that in the event that there is no decision by the board of condominium owners or a provision in the management plan that would prevent the hanging of a sign related to the main immovable property, the appropriate place should be determined by an expert examination according to the rules of equity in Article 33 of the Condominium Law (KMK), linked to a scaled sketch, and a decision should be made based on an additional report.

This method was further detailed in the decision of the 18th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 29.06.2004, with file no. E. 2004/3650, K. 2004/5470: According to the rules of equity in Article 33 of the Condominium Law (KMK), it should be determined by expert examination whether more than one advertising panel or sign is necessary for the promotion of the workplace, and if so, their number, dimensions, and suitable locations for display should be specified and marked on a scaled sketch; the dispute should be resolved by deciding that although the existing panels are removed, the newly determined panels, specifying their type and dimensions, should be hung in the place shown on the sketch.

Also, in the decision of the 18th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 27.01.2016, with file no. E. 2015/22343, K. 2016/1326, in a lawsuit filed to prevent interference and restore the previous state due to facade coverings that interfered and caused distress to the plaintiff, it was evaluated that the defendant dismantled the interfering parts and reduced them to reasonable dimensions.

How should the request be formulated?

The above line of jurisprudence directly affects the drafting of the lawsuit petition. If only “the sign should be removed” is requested and no other claim is established, the plaintiff may not achieve the desired outcome when the court turns to an equitable solution. The preferred method in practice is to make a staged request: primarily, the prevention of interference and restoration to the previous state, and if the court does not rule in this direction, the resolution of the dispute by reducing the size of the sign, changing its location, and limiting its illumination hours. If there is an explicit prohibition in the management plan, in this case, a request for complete removal can be advocated much more strongly.

6. Step-by-Step Roadmap: What Should the New Owner Do?

The question of who will bear the costs of renovation, painting, and repair carried out on the building facade due to the sign is also a separate matter of discussion. On this matter, you can review our articles on roof repair, renovation, and exterior facade insulation costs and the obligation of ground floor shops to contribute to common expenses.

7. Summary Table: Situation, Legal Basis, and Possible Outcome

8. Why is it Important to Conduct the Process Correctly in These Cases?

Signage disputes are seemingly minor but have permanent consequences. The decision made determines the building’s facade for years; an incorrectly filed claim or insufficient evidence collected can effectively eliminate the possibility of re-litigating the same issue.

Critical points for the aggrieved owner

• The presence or absence of a prohibition in the management plan determines the outcome of the lawsuit from the outset.
• A claim of boundary trespass will remain weak during the expert appraisal phase unless it is based on measurements and a sketch.
• Disruption to light and view is an independent cause for action, even if the sign is within its own facade boundary.
• If a phased claim is not established, a favorable outcome may not be achieved before a court seeking an equitable solution.

Defense strategies for the business owner

• Demonstrating the absence of a prohibition in the management plan and board decisions.
• Illustrating with a sketch that the sign remains within the facade and slab boundaries of its own independent section.
• Supporting with an expert appraisal that its size is reasonable and does not disrupt the building’s aesthetics.
• Requesting the determination of an appropriate location and size within the framework of Article 33 of the Condominium Law (KMK) instead of complete removal.

Regional concentration: districts where commercial ground floors are common

Signboard disputes are significantly increasing in areas with a high concentration of mixed-use buildings where ground floors are commercial premises. On the Anatolian Side of Istanbul, in the districts of Tuzla, Pendik, Kartal, Maltepe, Ataşehir, Ümraniye, Üsküdar, Sancaktepe, and Sultanbeyli; and on the Kocaeli side, in the districts of Gebze, Çayırova, Darıca, Dilovası, İzmit, Körfez, and Başiskele, the ground floors of apartments on the streets have largely been converted into workplaces. In these regions, both the building density and the differences in municipalities’ advertisement and signage regulations can lead to different outcomes for the same phenomenon.

9. Frequently Asked Questions

Does the downstairs shop need to get my permission to hang a sign?

No. According to the decision of the 18th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, dated 28.11.2011, E. 2011/8538, K. 2011/12044, if the sign does not exceed the ceiling slab boundaries of its independent section, does not restrict the rights of other owners, and does not cause disturbance, additional permission is not required. The necessity for permission arises when the boundary is exceeded or when there is interference with a common area.

What can I do if the sign is placed below my apartment window?

This is a case where the exterior facade boundary is clearly exceeded. In the decision of the 18th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, dated 07.12.2015, E. 2015/3856, K. 2015/17942, it was ruled to prevent interference for a sign mounted below the window of the independent section on the upper floor. You can file a lawsuit for the prevention of interference and restoration to the previous state in the civil court of peace.

The light from the sign is disturbing at night; can this alone be a valid reason for a lawsuit?

Yes. The Court of Cassation accepted that the light of an advertising panel can cause disturbance at night as an independent justification and considered the rejection of the case as a reason for reversal. In this case, the court usually decides not to remove the sign entirely, but rather to limit the lighting or the size.

How much of a protrusion justifies a lawsuit?

There is no minimum measurement in the law. In the case file subject to the decision of the 20th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, dated 09.10.2017, E. 2017/4508, K. 2017/7407, it was ruled to prevent an interference of 47 cm, as determined by an expert report. What is decisive is that the protrusion is demonstrably measurable through an expert examination.

Will the court order the complete removal of the sign?

If there is an explicit prohibition in the management plan or a decision by the board of flat owners, a decision for complete removal can be made. If there is no such prohibition, the court, according to the rules of equity in Article 33 of the Condominium Law (KMK), resolves the dispute by determining the appropriate location, number, and size with an expert examination and a scaled sketch; the direct complete removal of the sign is considered a ground for reversal by the Supreme Court.

I just bought the apartment; the sign was put up during the previous owner’s period. Can I still file a lawsuit?

Yes. The right to sue is tied to the status of being a flat owner, and the management plan also binds owners who subsequently acquire independent sections. The old date of the sign does not legalize an ongoing trespass or non-compliance with the project.

My apartment is occupied by a tenant; can my tenant file a lawsuit?

In the decision of the 18th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court dated 16.04.2009, with file number E. 2009/3582 and decision number K. 2009/4199, it was stated that persons residing in independent sections, if affected by the negative consequences that occur, have the right and authority to sue, just like flat owners.

Can the apartment manager file a lawsuit on my behalf?

The manager can only file a lawsuit if explicitly authorized to do so by the board of flat owners. If there is no authorization decision, the lawsuit must be filed by the flat owner.

In which court should the lawsuit be filed?

In disputes arising from condominium ownership, the competent court is the civil court of peace (sulh hukuk mahkemesi), and the authorized court is the court of the place where the main immovable property is located.

Will it be sufficient to complain to the municipality?

If there is a violation of the municipality’s advertising and signage regulations, an administrative application can yield quick results; however, the municipality’s decision does not automatically resolve property and neighbor disputes arising from condominium ownership. The two approaches can be pursued in parallel.

Can I claim compensation due to the sign?

In addition to the request for prevention of interference (injunction), if the conditions are met, compensation can also be claimed by proving the items of damage. However, in practice, the main focus of these cases is more on the removal of the interference and restoration to the previous state rather than compensation.

Can I object to the management that wants to rent the building’s facade to an advertising company?

Yes. Renting out the exterior wall, roof, or terrace of the main building for advertising purposes is a different process from a business hanging its own sign and requires the unanimous consent of all condominium owners. For details, you can refer to our relevant article.

Information: This article is for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice regarding a specific dispute. The outcome of each case varies according to the management plan, approved architectural project, and the actual position of the sign. It is recommended to obtain confirmation from relevant sources for the current status of the court decisions mentioned in the article.