A paper hung on the door: “Construction Suspension Report”. Below it, a municipal seal, and inside, words like “unlicensed,” “illegal,” “demolition.” The terrace of your attic apartment was enclosed years ago, even before you saw the house; perhaps by the contractor who built the building, or by the previous owner. You merely bought the house as it was. Now, the municipality, the prosecutor’s office, and even your neighbors are against you.

This situation is particularly common in Istanbul, in buildings with attic floors constructed in the 1990s and 2000s. The most frequently asked question is always the same: “I did not enclose the terrace; will I be subject to the zoning fine, demolition, and criminal proceedings?” In this article, we provide a step-by-step answer to this question, based on the provisions of the Zoning Law No. 3194, the Turkish Penal Code, the Condominium Law, and the Turkish Code of Obligations, as well as decisions from the Council of State, the Constitutional Court, regional administrative courts, and the Court of Cassation.

1. Introduction and Legal Framework: What Does a Construction Suspension Report Initiate?

The closure of terrace areas in independent sections with attic floors and their inclusion in the apartment, contrary to the licensed project, constitutes a violation of the license under Law No. 3194 on Zoning. With the construction suspension report issued by municipal inspection teams, the construction is sealed and the cessation of construction activity is recorded in accordance with Article 32 of the Law.

Why is this report so important?

The construction suspension report is the basis for all subsequent actions: both the municipal council’s demolition decision and the zoning fine are based on this report. Therefore, deficiencies in the report (such as the absence of measurements and a sketch, failure to indicate the building owner, or failure to specify the date of the violation) turn into the most important defense material in future lawsuits. A common example in practice is the report stating “Building owner: Undetermined” and indicating that the violation was committed “on an unspecified date”, meaning at an uncertain time. These two statements imply that the administration itself admits it does not know who committed the violation or when, and directly strengthen the new owner’s defense.

Three groups of sanctions that may be encountered after the report

• Administrative sanctions: Demolition of sections contrary to the license within the scope of Article 32 of Law No. 3194 and an administrative fine in accordance with Article 42 of the same Law. (A new penal provision was added to Article 42 by Law No. 7579 in the Official Gazette on 22.05.2026, for those supplying ready-mixed concrete to the market for use in unlicensed constructions; the Council of State’s case law regarding the recipient of the penalty to be imposed on the building owner continues to be applied as explained below.)
• Criminal sanctions: Investigation and prosecution within the scope of the crime of causing zoning pollution under Article 184 of the Turkish Penal Code No. 5237. Additionally, for interventions made after sealing, TPC Art. 203 (breaking the seal).
• Private law sanctions: Prevention of intervention in common areas in accordance with Article 19 of the Condominium Law No. 634 and demands for restoration to the original state according to its project, as well as compensation or price reduction lawsuits arising from the defective sale of the property.

The most common scenario experienced by victims

The typical scenario is this: The building has four penthouse apartments, and in all four, the terrace has been partially or completely enclosed and integrated into the living room or a bedroom. These enclosures were either made by the contractor who built the building before the sale, or by the previous owners of the apartments. The current owners purchased the property in this state, often marketed as “the apartment is X square meters”. Following a neighbor’s complaint or disputes over shares in urban transformation, the municipality arrives and draws up a report. We examine every dimension of this scenario under the following headings.

2. Will the New Owner Pay a Zoning Fine for a Violation Made During the Previous Owner’s Period?

The most fundamental principle regarding administrative sanctions is the principle of the Constitution‘s Article 38, seventh paragraph, and Article 20 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK), which guarantees the principle of the personal nature of criminal responsibility. In the settled jurisprudence of the Council of State and regional administrative courts, as well as decisions of the Constitutional Court, it is unequivocally accepted that administrative fines are also subject to this constitutional principle. In short: No one can be penalized for illegal construction carried out by another.

A. The Principle of Personal Nature of Penalties and the Interpretation of the Term “Building Owner”

The phrase “building owner”, listed among those to be fined in Article 42 of Law No. 3194, is defined in Council of State decisions not merely as the title deed owner, but as the person who personally carried out or commissioned the construction activity. Appearing as the owner in the title deed is not, by itself, a reason for punishment.

B. The Situation of the New Owner Who Subsequently Purchased the Immovable Property

In cases where the non-conformity was committed not by the current owners but by the contractor who built the building or the previous owners, an administrative fine cannot be imposed on behalf of the new owner under Article 42. The text of the law also supports this point: The phrase added to subparagraph (ç) of the second paragraph of Article 42 by Law No. 7410 (2022) explicitly states that the additional penalty based on the land value will be given to “the building owner and the building contractor responsible for the non-conformity”. There are numerous clear decisions from both the Council of State and the regional administrative courts on this matter.

If there is more than one apartment in the building in the same situation: can a collective penalty be imposed?

If the terrace has been enclosed in all four apartments with roof rooms, it is a common mistake for the municipality to impose a penalty on all owners for the entire unauthorized area with a single report and a single council decision. In the decisions of the Council of State, it is accepted that the penalty should be imposed on the person who actually built each structure and for their own part, and that a penalty calculated over the entire violation without distinguishing between shares and independent sections is unlawful. Each owner must individually demonstrate when and by whom the violation in their apartment was made.

If you also made additions after purchasing

The protection of the new owner is only for irregularities existing at the time of purchase. If, for example, after acquiring the terrace as enclosed, you expanded the enclosed area, changed the joinery, or added an extra partition, responsibility for these additional parts may rest with you. The Council of State’s approach is to separate the situation at the time of purchase from subsequent additions and to calculate the penalty only for the part made by the owner himself. Therefore, instead of saying “I didn’t touch anything” in your defense, it is necessary to document the situation as it was at the time of purchase.

C. Burden of proof and exceptional cases in the Council of State’s jurisprudence

What has been explained so far paints a strong picture in favor of the new owner; however, it is important to know that this protection does not operate automatically. In irregularities that can be made later, such as terrace enclosures, the administration tends to assume that the owner at the date of detection committed the irregularity. Refuting this assumption depends on the evidence at the owner’s disposal.

How do you prove that the violation was committed before you?

This is the core of the new owner’s defense. The following evidence can be used alone or in conjunction; the earlier it is collected, the more valuable it is:

• Title deed record and sale date: The encumbrance record and sales contract table obtained from the land registry office officially show the date you became the owner.
• Sales advertisements: Screenshots of real estate advertisements published when purchasing the house show that the terrace was enclosed at that time and that the apartment was marketed with the enclosed area. Archives of advertising websites and records of the real estate agency may be requested.
• Bank appraisal report: In apartments purchased with a housing loan, bank appraisal reports often separately note enclosed areas that are contrary to the project. This report is strong official evidence that the irregularity existed on the date of purchase.
• Aerial photographs and satellite images: Municipalities’ aerial photograph archives by year (e.g., Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality’s city map applications in Istanbul) and satellite images can show since which year the roof and terrace form has been the same.
• Previous records and municipal correspondence: If there is a previous inspection report, record, or complaint file regarding the building, it proves that the irregularity also existed at that time (e.g., the 2013 finding in the Council of State 4th Chamber’s decision numbered 2025/845 E.).
• Witness statements: Statements from the previous owner, building manager, neighbors, and real estate agent; especially in cases where the contractor enclosed the area before sale, and other apartments in the same building were delivered in the same manner.
• Determination of evidence and expert examination by the court: A technical examination revealing the age of the materials used, the joinery, and the manufacturing process can show that the non-conformity was made years ago.

3. Legal Status Regarding Demolition and Restoration Decisions

The most confusing point for new owners is this: If the administrative fine can be annulled, why can’t the demolition also be annulled? Because sealing and demolition decisions, issued pursuant to Article 32 of Law No. 3194, unlike administrative fines, are measures concerning the object (in rem), meaning they are directed at the structure itself, not the individual.

Demolition action targets the structure

Who bears the demolition cost?

What should be done within one month after the report?

According to Article 32 of Law No. 3194, the owner of the structure must obtain a license or bring the structure into conformity with the license within one month at the latest from the date of notification of the report (this period is usually written as 30 days in report forms). If nothing is done within this period, the file goes to the council, and a demolition decision is made. Furthermore, the additional fine calculated based on the land value, in accordance with subparagraph (ç) of the second paragraph of Article 42, will not be collected if the violation is rectified and the structure is brought into conformity with the legislation within one month from the notification of the penalty. The ways to utilize this period are as follows:

• Investigate the possibility of an alteration permit: If the zoning status and floor area ratio of the plot allow, a permit can be obtained by modifying the project. However, this option is limited because terrace enclosures often exceed the floor area ratio.
• Restore: Dismantle the enclosed section and convert it back to the open terrace as per the project. If this option is chosen, a written application must be submitted to the municipality and permission obtained before any work is done in the sealed area.
• Submit a written statement to the municipality: Submit a petition stating that you did not create the violation, your purchase date, and your evidence. This petition is also important to show that the administration failed to fulfill its investigation obligation in a future lawsuit filed against a fine.
• File a lawsuit: The report itself, the council’s demolition decision, and the fine decision can be subject to an annulment lawsuit in the administrative court. The lawsuit period, according to Administrative Procedure Law article 7, is generally 60 days from the date of notification.

Is the consent of the floor owners required to make it compliant with the project?

If a renovation project is required to legalize a terrace enclosure, then the Condominium Law comes into play. The General Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Supreme Court accepts that the 4/5 majority specified in Article 19/2 of the Condominium Law is only valid for minor repairs and renovations that do not require substantial project changes, and that unanimity is required for substantial renovations (YHGK, 18.01.2022 Date, File No. 2017/(20)5-1996, Decision No. 2022/5). In a case where the roof form was altered contrary to the project, it was stated that even though 148 out of 169 owners gave their consent, this was not considered sufficient, that the consent of all owners is a prerequisite for a renovation project, and that an owner who does not give consent cannot be compelled (YHGK, 22.09.2020 Date, File No. 2019/(18)20-235, Decision No. 2020/646). For general rules regarding changes in common areas, you can refer to our article can changes be made in common areas of buildings.

Making renovations in a sealed area is a separate offense (Turkish Penal Code 203)

The most common and most costly mistake made after a formal report is to carry out repairs, renovations, or demolition in a sealed area, thinking “the structure has always been this way anyway.” Removing a seal placed under the authority granted by law, or acting contrary to the rules regarding the sealed area, entails imprisonment from six months to two years and a judicial fine according to Article 203 of the Turkish Penal Code. Article 42 of Law No. 3194 explicitly stipulates that works and procedures carried out with the written permission of the administration to bring the structure into compliance with the license and project will not constitute the offense of breaking a seal. Therefore, even if it is for the purpose of rectifying non-compliance, written permission must be obtained from the municipality before performing any work in a sealed area. Otherwise, a new offense will arise, committed by you personally, due to an illegal structure that you did not even build.

4. Sanctions in Criminal and Private Law Dimensions

A. Turkish Penal Code Article 184: Can the crime of causing zoning pollution be directed at the new owner?

According to Article 184/1 of the Turkish Penal Code, a prison sentence of one to five years is stipulated for the person who builds or has built a building without obtaining a construction permit or in violation of the permit. Municipalities often report the construction suspension report to the Public Prosecutor’s Office; therefore, new owners may be called in for a statement.

In accordance with the principle of individuality of criminal liability, the material element (the act of building or having it built) and the moral element (intent) of the crime do not arise for an owner who did not personally carry out the terrace enclosure and subsequently purchased the property in that condition. The defense of the owner called for a statement should be established along the same lines as the evidence in the administrative lawsuit: the date of purchase, documents showing that the irregularity existed at that date, and information regarding who committed the irregularity.

Statute of limitations and effective repentance

• Statute of limitations for lawsuits: Since the maximum penalty for the offense under Article 184/1 of the TCK is five years imprisonment, the statute of limitations for the action, in accordance with Article 66/1-e of the TCK, is eight years. In practice, this period is calculated from the date the construction activity ceased. If the terrace was enclosed years ago, the statute of limitations might have expired even for the person who committed the act.
• Bringing into conformity: In accordance with Article 184/5 of the TCK, if a person brings a building constructed without a license or in violation of its license into conformity with the zoning plan and its license, the public prosecution case is dropped, and the conviction with all its consequences is nullified.
• Breaching a seal is evaluated separately: An owner who is not the perpetrator under TCK Article 184, if they carry out work in a sealed area after the official report, personally becomes the perpetrator under TCK Article 203.

B. Liability under the Condominium Law and for defective sales

Regarding Article 19 of the Condominium Law: Roofs and general roof terraces are, as a rule, common areas; even if a terrace is an annex to an independent section, it is included in the architectural project of the main building. Other flat owners may, within the scope of Articles 19 and 33 of the Condominium Law, for the purpose of restoring the non-compliant part to its original state, file an action for prevention of interference and restoration. Unlike an administrative fine, this lawsuit is directed against the owner of the independent section who is in actual possession of the situation. Therefore, the defense “I didn’t do it” will not be sufficient for the dismissal of the lawsuit here; however, it is possible to seek recourse from the person who caused the non-conformity for the incurred expenses and damages.

Rights arising from the sales contract: A construction suspension report, risk of demolition and fines indicate that the immovable property is legally and physically defective. In the aforementioned decision no. 2022/6682 K. of the 3rd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, it was accepted that there was a depreciation in the building, also considering that it was not registered as having a “roof attic” in the land registry. The new owner may claim a price reduction or compensation by notifying the defect to the contractor who sold them the defective property or to the previous seller, within the scope of the Turkish Code of Obligations.

• Notification of Defect: As soon as the report is served, the seller must be notified of the defect through a notary public. Delay may weaken the right to claim.
• Statute of Limitations: According to Article 244/3 of the TCO, lawsuits arising from a defective building become time-barred after five years from the transfer of ownership, or twenty years if the seller has gross negligence (e.g., intentionally concealed the defect).
• If you purchased the apartment directly from the contractor: If the seller is the contractor and you purchased the residence for personal use, Law No. 6502 on Consumer Protection applies; the statute of limitations for the residence is five years from delivery, if the defect was concealed by gross negligence or fraud, the provisions regarding the statute of limitations do not apply (TKHK Art. 12), and the competent court is the consumer court.
• Claim items: Loss of value, dismantling and restoration costs, demolition expenses incurred, and litigation costs.

5. Comparative Table of Sanctions and Responsibilities

6. Conclusion and Legal Remedies Available

Against the Building Suspension Report and Demolition Decision

If it is not possible to license the irregularity within the period specified in the report, from the perspective of the zoning plan and legislation, a demolition decision may be taken by the municipal council. If the report or the demolition decision lacks concrete measurements, has an incomplete sketch, does not specify a period, or there is an irregularity in the notification, an action for annulment and stay of execution may be filed in the competent administrative court within 60 days from the notification.

Against Administrative Fines

If an administrative fine is imposed by the municipal council in the name of the new owner under Article 42, an action for annulment must be filed in the administrative court starting from the notification of the decision, in accordance with the principle of the personal nature of penalties. In the lawsuit, the fine can be annulled by presenting evidence such as the transfer date of the immovable property, land registry records, and proof that the construction work was carried out by the contractor or the previous owner. If the report states “building owner could not be identified,” this expression is clear proof that the administration has not fulfilled its investigation obligation.

Recourse to the Contractor and Previous Owner

Due to the restriction of property rights, the risk of demolition, and the loss of area caused by the opening of the terrace resulting from zoning violations, rights arising from defects and claims for compensation can be asserted against those who transferred the immovable property. This claim should be initiated with a notification of defect without waiting for the outcome of the administrative lawsuit.

Does the situation change if the building undergoes urban transformation?

In a building to be demolished within the scope of urban transformation, the practical importance of demolition sanctions decreases; however, fines and criminal investigations proceed independently of the transformation. Furthermore, such complaints often arise as part of discussions regarding shares in the transformation: A terrace illegally incorporated into the usable area is generally not taken into account when calculating rights in the new building. For the rights of apartments with attic mezzanines in urban transformation, you can review our articles on urban transformation rights for apartments with attic mezzanines and rights of penthouse owners in urban transformation, and for the general framework of the process, you can check our urban transformation page.

If the previous owner obtained a building registration certificate from the zoning amnesty

Within the scope of temporary Article 16 of Law No. 3194, building registration certificates (YKB) could be obtained for structures built before 31.12.2017; the application period ended in 2019. If the previous owner of the apartment obtained a YKB, this document should be queried via e-Devlet. The YKB provides significant protection regarding administrative sanctions; however, its effect is limited in private law disputes between floor owners and in cases of common area occupation.

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

Construction violation report files can proceed simultaneously in three interconnected legal avenues: a demolition and fine lawsuit in administrative court, a Turkish Penal Code (TPC) Article 184 investigation at the prosecutor’s office, and lawsuits against apartment owners and the seller in the civil court of first instance. A statement given in one can be used as adverse evidence in another. For example, a careless statement in the prosecutor’s office that could imply ‘we enclosed the terrace’ can completely undermine the defense of personal liability in the administrative court.

From the perspective of a new owner, a properly structured defense utilizes the following points collectively:

• Procedural deficiencies of the report: lack of measurements and sketch, absence of a technical expert’s signature, failure to specify the deadline, and improper notification procedure.
• Personal liability for penalties: documenting the purchase date and the existence of the violation at that time.
• Distinction based on independent units: objection to penalties not itemized by collective and individual unit shares.
• Failure to determine the party responsible for demolition costs.
• Defense of not being the perpetrator and statute of limitations in a criminal investigation.
• Notification of defect and claim for recourse against the contractor and the seller.
• Protection of entitlement calculation within the urban transformation process.

In which regions are these cases concentrated?

Complaints regarding apartments with attic rooms and enclosed terraces are increasing in Istanbul, particularly in areas where intensive housing production occurred from the 1990s to the 2010s, and especially in buildings undergoing urban transformation. On the Anatolian Side, Tuzla, Pendik, Kartal, Maltepe, Ataşehir, Üsküdar, Kadıköy, Ümraniye, Sancaktepe, and Sultanbeyli; on the European Side, Küçükçekmece, Bahçelievler, Avcılar, Esenyurt, and Başakşehir; and in Kocaeli, Gebze, Çayırova, Darıca, Dilovası, Körfez, and İzmit are places where these cases are frequently observed. Since municipal council practices and the approach of administrative courts can vary from region to region, knowing the local application directly affects the outcome.

8. Frequently Asked Questions

When I bought the house, the terrace was already enclosed. Will the zoning fine be imposed on me?

As a rule, no. According to the established jurisprudence of the Council of State, zoning fines are imposed on the person who actually committed or caused the violation. If you can demonstrate with evidence such as a title deed record, sales advertisement, bank appraisal report, or aerial photograph that the violation existed before your purchase date, the penalty imposed on you may be revoked.

Is being the owner on the title deed sufficient for a penalty to be imposed?

No. The Constitutional Court and the Council of State accept that imposing a penalty directly on the title deed owner without investigating the person who committed the violation is unlawful and may also infringe upon the right to property.

If I am exempt from the fine, will I also be exempt from demolition?

No. The demolition decision is directed at the structure, not the person. Regardless of who committed the violation, the part that cannot be legally permitted is subject to demolition. The defense against demolition relies on points such as procedural deficiencies in the record and the failure to determine the party responsible for the costs.

Will I have to pay for the demolition costs?

The Council of State requires that the individuals responsible for carrying out the demolition and bearing its cost be clearly identified with evidence. Imposing demolition costs solely on the current owner without identifying the responsible parties can be grounds for annulment. You can also recover the costs you had to pay from the person who committed the violation.

Will I receive a prison sentence for enclosing a terrace?

The perpetrator of the urban pollution crime in Article 184 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK) is the person who built or had the building built. The owner who purchased the house in its existing state is not the perpetrator of this crime. However, if you make alterations in a sealed area after the official report, the crime of breaking a seal, as per TCK 203, can be committed by you personally.

I’ve been called to give a statement by the public prosecutor, what should I do?

Before going to give a statement, prepare documents showing your purchase date and that the violation existed at that time. Since your statement to the public prosecutor can also be used in the administrative court case, it is recommended to go with a lawyer.

How do I prove that the violation was made before I owned the property?

A title deed sales agreement table, screenshots of old sales advertisements, a housing loan appraisal report, municipal aerial photographs and satellite images, previously held official reports concerning the building, statements from previous owners and neighbors, as well as evidence discovery and expert reports obtained from the court can be used.

A single penalty was issued for all rooftop apartments in the building. Is this lawful?

The Council of State requires that penalties be imposed on the person who actually committed the violation in each independent section and based on their specific part. A penalty calculated collectively based on the entirety of the violation without distinction can be annulled.

What happens if I wait for the period specified in the official report?

According to the law, if a permit is not obtained or the building is not brought into compliance within a one-month period, the council makes a demolition decision. In the decision numbered 2019/17614 E. of the 6th Chamber of the Council of State, it was evaluated that the principle of personal liability cannot be applied regarding the penalty under Article 42/3 for the owner who fails to fulfill the obligation in Article 32. For this reason, a written application should at least be made to the municipality within the period, and the legal course of action should be determined.

How long is the period to file a lawsuit against a building suspension record?

According to the Administrative Procedure Law, the period for filing a lawsuit is generally 60 days from the date of notification. Since the building suspension record is deemed to have been notified when posted on the building, it should be considered that the period may start running from the date of posting.

Can neighbors file a lawsuit for me to restore the terrace to its original state?

Yes. According to Articles 19 and 33 of the Property Ownership Law (KMK), a lawsuit for the prevention of intervention and restoration to the original state is directed against the current owner who holds the de facto situation. In this lawsuit, the fact that you did not commit the violation does not prevent the lawsuit; however, you can seek recourse for your expenses and damages from the person who committed the violation.

Can I claim my damages from the contractor or the person I bought the house from?

Yes. A zoning violation makes the property defective. You can notify the seller of the defect through a notary public and demand a price reduction or compensation. The statute of limitations is five years from the transfer of ownership, and twenty years if the seller has gross negligence (Turkish Code of Obligations Article 244/3). If you bought the apartment from the contractor as a residence, the Law on the Protection of Consumers applies; if the defect was concealed with gross negligence or fraud, the statute of limitations does not apply.

Is this record important if the building is going to undergo urban transformation?

The practical importance of demolition decreases; however, the fine and criminal investigation continue independently of the transformation. Furthermore, a terrace illegally added to the usable area is generally not taken into account when calculating rights in the new building.

9. Conclusion

In conclusion, the new owner cannot be fined for zoning violations merely because they are the registered owner, due to terrace enclosures and other unauthorized additions made by the previous owner or contractor, and the new owner cannot be considered an offender under TCK 184. On the other hand, since the demolition order is directed at the structure, it also affects the new owner, and neighbors’ lawsuits for restoration are directed at the current owner. Remember that protection does not operate automatically, that the violation must be proven to have existed before the purchase date, and that the one-month period after the report should not be allowed to pass without action. Not doing work in the sealed area, preparing the evidence file early, and notifying the seller of defects are the first three steps to take in this process.

This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice for specific cases. The mentioned decisions are based on the texts in their published sources; they should be verified from UYAP or official decision databases before being used in a petition or application.