Information Note on Urban Transformation and Condominium Law Legislation

Right of Ownership and Quorum for Decision: Pursuant to Article 6/1 of Law No. 6306, decisions regarding the reconstruction of buildings on parcels with risky structures, the sale of shares, and the principles of distribution are made by the absolute majority of co-owners in proportion to their shares. The criterion taken into account in this process is not the actual use, but the land share in the land registry.

Relationship Between Independent Section and Land Share: Pursuant to Articles 2 and 3 of Condominium Law No. 634; an independent section is a unit determined according to the approved architectural project and to which a land share is allocated. Places registered as a single independent section (duplex) in the title deed are legally considered a single unit and a single land share, even if they have been physically divided.

Violation of Project and Zoning Sanctions: Pursuant to Article 19 of the Condominium Law, apartment owners are obliged to protect the architectural project. The division of a duplex apartment in violation of the project is subject to a construction suspension record and demolition decision pursuant to Article 32 of Zoning Law No. 3194, and to an administrative fine pursuant to Article 42. In the urban transformation process, such violations do not acquire legal status unless all owners consent in the new project and compliance with zoning legislation is ensured.

Formal Requirement: Pursuant to Article 706 of the Turkish Civil Code No. 4721, the transfer of immovable property ownership must be done in a formal manner (at the land registry). The de facto use by persons not appearing as owners in the land registry does not confer ownership rights or co-ownership status in urban transformation.

Application Note: In urban transformation, considering the de facto situation (such as a divided duplex being treated as two apartments) is only possible if the new architectural project, accepted by a simple majority (or a sharing protocol prepared by unanimous consent), is drawn in accordance with this situation and approved by the municipality. Otherwise, the sharing will be carried out proportionally to the old land shares.

1. Principle of Entitlement and Land Share

During the urban transformation process, when determining entitlement, voting rights, and the sharing principles in the new project, the de facto usage is not taken into account, but rather the land share in the land registry. Pursuant to Article 6/1 of Law No. 6306, decisions regarding implementations on parcels containing risky structures are made by a simple majority of the co-owners, proportionate to their shares.

Basis of Land Registry Record: According to the judgment of the 5th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 21.05.2024, with file number 2024/2457 E. and decision number 2024/6210 K.; the boundaries of the independent section are determined not by de facto usage, but by the architectural project approved by the municipality and registered in the land registry. In accordance with the principle of publicity in the land registry, it is assumed that the owner acquired the immovable property within the boundaries specified in the architectural project.

Indefeasibility of Land Share: In the decision of the 5th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 30.06.2025, with file number 2025/4788 E. and decision number 2025/9964 K., it was emphasized that in properties subject to condominium ownership, the correction of shares or requests for cancellation and registration of title deeds cannot be demanded on the grounds that the land shares are not proportional to the value of the independent unit.

2. Legal Status of Physically Divided Duplex Apartments

Properties registered in the land registry as a single independent unit (duplex) but actually used as two separate apartments are legally considered a single unit and a single land share in urban transformation.

Adherence to Architectural Project: According to the ruling of the 1st Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 04.07.2012, with file number 2012/4071 E. and decision number 2012/8361 K., the approved architectural project is fundamental in determining ownership. After a registration compliant with the project is made, the actual possession of another section does not constitute a ground for cancellation and registration of the title deed.

Legislation and Sanctions: According to the legislative information note, the division of a duplex apartment contrary to the project constitutes a violation of Article 19 of the Condominium Law (KMK). This situation may lead to a demolition order under Article 32 and an administrative fine under Article 42 of the Zoning Law No. 3194. The registration of these areas as two separate apartments in a new project is only possible with the consent of all owners and the drawing of a new project compliant with zoning legislation.

3. Entitlement of Persons Not Registered in the Title Deed

Persons residing in attic spaces or divided sections but not appearing as owners in the title deed records do not have direct entitlement or voting rights in the urban transformation process.

Formal Requirement: According to Article 706 of the Turkish Civil Code (TMK) and the Legislative Information Note, the transfer of immovable property ownership must be made in a formal manner (at the Land Registry Office). Actual use by persons not appearing as owners in the land registry does not grant ownership rights.

Principle of Joint Ownership: According to the Constitutional Court’s decision dated 14/9/2021, in joint ownership, each co-owner owns every part of the immovable property in proportion to their share. Who owns the actual use or structure does not prevent the entire property from being included in the risky building process and transactions from being made based on land share.

4. Judicial Review in Decision-Making and Distribution Processes

Decisions made and distributions carried out by a simple majority in urban transformation are subject to procedural safeguards protecting property rights and are open to judicial review.

Valuation and Distribution Objections: In the judgment of the 4th Chamber of the Council of State dated 14.12.2023, numbered 2023/12152 E. and 2023/7053 K., it was stated that claims of unfair distribution in the new project should be reviewed by an expert examination based on the property’s characteristics and zoning data.

Violation of Property Rights: In the Constitutional Court’s decision dated 30/6/2021 (Atanur Ekin and others), it was emphasized that urban transformation practices must meet the criteria of certainty and predictability, and that uncertain practices imposing an excessive burden on the owner would violate property rights.

5. Summary Table: Actual Situation vs. Legal Status

Secondary Sources and Additional Context

The following decisions, which are secondary sources, support the legal framework above:

Council of State, 6th Chamber (2021/2884-2023/3174 ): Confirms that in urban transformation, procedures are carried out based on shares registered through floor easement or condominium ownership in the demolished building, rather than the actual situation.

Council of State, 6th Chamber (2019/15170-2020/11080 ): Emphasizes that land share ownership is decisive in the decision-making process, regardless of the actual condition of the structure or whether one is a shareholder in the structure.

Istanbul Regional Court of Justice 2nd Civil Chamber (2017/1152-2017/1256 ): It states that individual claims of actual use or objections regarding location have limited effect against a joint decision protocol taken by legal majority.

Council of State 14th Chamber (2016/7079-2017/436 ): It states that being “a shareholder registered in the title deed” is the sole determining criterion in urban transformation decision-making and property transfer processes.

Direct Outcome

In the urban transformation process, the criteria for entitlement, voting rights, and receiving a share from the new project are not determined according to the actual use of the property or divisions made contrary to its architectural project, but exclusively according to the land share in the title deed. A property registered in the title deed as a single independent section (a dwelling with an attic floor), even if actually used as two separate apartments, gives rise to a single entitlement and a single voting right under Law No. 6306. For actual use to produce a legal consequence, it is only possible if this situation is considered in a sharing protocol to be accepted by the simple majority of all shareholders and if the new architectural project is designed as two separate units in accordance with zoning regulations.

Conceptual Framework and Terminology

Land Share: According to Article 2 of the Condominium Law (KMK) No. 634, it is the common ownership share of the land allocated to independent sections. In urban transformation, “shareholder status” and “entitlement” are defined based on this share.

Independent Section: It is a unit that is suitable for independent use according to the approved architectural project and to which a land share is allocated . Apartments with attic floors (duplexes), legally constitute a single independent section where the lower floor and the attic floor form a whole.

Actual Use: It is the manner in which the immovable property is physically used, based on possession, independently of its title deed record or architectural project. In literature, this situation is addressed at the level of “personal right” or “possession,” and is not considered equivalent to the right of ownership L

Main Approaches in Doctrine

Doctrine accepts “land share” as the basis for ownership and decision-making authority in the urban transformation process:

Land Share-Based Decision Mechanism: In accordance with Article 6/1 of Law No. 6306, decisions regarding the reconstruction of buildings and sharing principles in parcels containing risky structures are made by the simple majority of shareholders, proportional to their shares. When calculating this majority, not the actual number of apartments, but the share ratios in the title deed are taken into account.

Principle of Protection of Ownership: When condominium ownership ceases, the immovable property reverts to a co-ownership regime, and each owner becomes a shareholder in proportion to their land share. At this stage, areas that are actually shared but not independent in the title deed (such as divided parts of a duplex) do not acquire the legal status of an “independent section.”

Limited Effect of De Facto Situation: Although the law grants certain opportunities (such as eviction assistance) to individuals who actually use the building but are not owners (e.g., family members or tenants using the upper floor of a duplex as a separate apartment), this situation does not grant them “entitlement” or “decision-making authority.”

Divergences and Conflicts Between Approaches

In literature, the discrepancy between “land share” and “actual value” is seen as a fundamental area of dispute:

Land Share vs. Valuation: Some views argue that land shares are not always proportional to the actual value of the independent unit (location, view, layout), and that this situation leads to injustice in urban transformation.

Protection of De Facto Sharing: One view argues that de facto sharing (partition) in jointly owned properties cannot be entirely eliminated by urban transformation decisions, and that the property rights of minority owners should not be violated.  However, this view is not about de facto use taking precedence over the title deed, but rather about the necessity of protecting rights in terms of “location and quality” in the new project. 

Differentiation of Usage Rights: A distinction is made between the rule that the right to use common areas should be proportional to the land share and usage (elevator, stairs, etc.) in line with “necessity and equity.” However, this discussion pertains more to the management of common areas rather than the ownership of independent units.

Procedural Outcomes and Effects on Litigation Strategy

Hazardous Building Assessment: In places where condominium ownership has not been established or where there is a land share deed, the assessment of an existing building as hazardous must be carried out not by the actual user, but by the “land share owner who owns the building”.

Lawsuit for Adjustment of Land Share: If the land share of a duplex apartment is disproportionate to its actual size and value (e.g., if a very small share has been allocated), it is recommended that the owners file a lawsuit for “adjustment of the land share” before the transformation process is completed. This lawsuit directly affects the value of the independent section to be entitled after the transformation.

Notification and Eviction: Eviction notices to those who actually use the building are carried out through ownership rights. If the actual user does not have the status of an owner, they cannot intervene in the decision-making process through legal action. 

Substantive Law Consequences and Risk Areas

Violation of Zoning Regulations: The division of a duplex apartment contrary to its project and the opening of a separate entrance are considered illegal construction under Article 19 of the Condominium Law (KMK) and Article 32 of Zoning Law No. 3194. In urban transformation, this situation does not automatically grant the right to two apartments in the new project; on the contrary, it carries the risk of demolition and administrative fines.

Official Form Requirement: According to Article 706 of the Turkish Civil Code (TMK), immovable property ownership can only be transferred officially in the land registry. Regardless of how long the actual use period is, a division process not registered in the land registry does not create ownership rights.

Freedom of Contract and its Limits: Owners can prepare a sharing protocol with a simple majority. However, for this protocol to be based on the de facto situation (two apartments), it is only possible if the new zoning status and architectural project permit it.

Inferences Applicable to the Specific Case

Entitlement: The owner of the apartment with an attic floor is considered a single independent unit owner in urban transformation. Whatever the land share is, their voting power and share in the new building will be proportionate to it.

De Facto Division: The de facto division of the duplex into two does not have validity with the municipality or the land registry. To obtain two separate apartments in the new building, either the land share must be sufficient for this, or an agreement must be reached by paying a premium/price difference with the consent of other owners.

Status of Occupants: A person residing in the attic floor but whose name is not registered in the title deed (e.g., the owner’s child or a tenant) cannot sit at the table as an “entitled party” in the transformation. The rights of these individuals remain within the framework of their personal relationship with the owner (rent, usufruct loan, etc.). 

Open Questions, Exceptions, and Uncertainties

Title Allocation Documents: If the de facto use is based on a title allocation document, this document, even if it does not provide ownership registration, can provide certain personal rights and possession protection in urban transformation. 

Equity Review: The Supreme Court’s approaches suggesting that usage in proportion to land share may not always be equitable leave a discretion during the sharing phase regarding how the “location and quality” criterion (Article 6 of Law No. 6306) will be interpreted. However, this does not mean that the actual situation will override the legal status.

Conclusion and Practical Assessment

In urban transformation, the basic rule is **”superiority of title deed record and land share”**. The actual division of an apartment with an attic does not change its legal status. Entitlement is determined according to the land share. Owners who wish to preserve the de facto situation must file a lawsuit for land share adjustment before a transformation decision is made, or ensure that this situation is taken into account in the sharing protocol prepared by a simple majority. Otherwise, the sharing will be based on the old land shares, and the de facto division will not find a legal equivalent in the new project.

Why is Expert Legal Support Necessary?

A small legal error made during the urban transformation process can have serious consequences on the value of the independent unit, title ownership, and the quality of the apartment to be received in the new project. Especially for properties with an attic floor (duplex) that are registered as a single independent unit in the title deed but are actually used as two separate apartments, it is crucial to correctly assess the land share, review the common decision protocol, inspect the sharing principles, and, if necessary, file timely lawsuits for land share correction or cancellation. Furthermore, project inconsistencies, valuation reports, and agreements that may lead to loss of rights require legal examinations that demand expertise. Therefore, obtaining legal support from an experienced lawyer in the field of urban transformation from the beginning of the process provides an important guarantee against irrecoverable losses of rights.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Does a property that appears as a single duplex in the title deed but is actually used as two apartments provide the right to two independent units in urban transformation?

No. The title deed record and land share are taken as a basis. Actual use alone does not grant the right to two independent units.

2. Is ownership entitlement in urban transformation determined by land share or actual use?

Ownership entitlement and voting rights are determined according to the land share in the title deed within the scope of Law No. 6306. Actual use alone does not create a right.

3. Can a person residing in the attic but not registered as an owner in the title deed become an entitlement holder during the transformation process?

No. Individuals not registered as owners in the title deed do not have voting rights or direct entitlement in urban transformation decisions.

4. Does a duplex illegally divided into two in violation of the project automatically become two apartments in the new project?

No. For this to be possible, a new project conforming to zoning regulations must be prepared and the necessary owner consents must be obtained.

5. What are the situations where a lawsuit should be filed in urban transformation to avoid loss of rights?

In situations such as incorrect determination of land share, objection to the appraisal report, illegalities in the joint decision protocol, or unfair distribution, legal remedies can be pursued.