Introduction

Is Landscape Design for a Site a Luxury Expense or a Mandatory Expense? This study analyzes the question of whether the legal nature of landscape design carried out for a site can be considered a “luxury” or “non-mandatory” expense, in light of presented court decisions and administrative opinions. Examinations reveal that the categorization of landscape design is not subject to a single rule; it varies depending on multiple factors such as the purpose, scope, cost of the work, its place in the main real estate project, and the legal context of the dispute (e.g., Condominium Law, Tax Law, Public Procurement Law). Decisions are shaped around different concepts such as “mandatory expense”, “beneficial expense”, “luxury expense”, and “cost element” .

1. Cases Where Landscape Design is Considered a “Mandatory Expense”

Court decisions indicate that landscape arrangement is not necessarily a luxury expense; on the contrary, under certain conditions, it can be classified as a mandatory expense. One of the clearest decisions on this matter is the decision of the 3rd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, numbered 2024/1353 E., 2025/697 K., dated 10.02.2025. In this decision, the court’s ruling that “…garden landscaping and the automatic irrigation system are mandatory expenses…” was affirmed. Similarly, the expert report cited in the decision of Konya 1st Civil Court of Commerce, numbered 2021/300 E., 2022/688 K., reveals a practical reason for this necessity: “…it has been determined that the 6,000.00 TL paid for garden and landscaping works… is among the mandatory expenses required to obtain an occupancy permit.”

This approach indicates that landscaping is not merely an aesthetic element, but can also be a necessity for a building to be completed and become legally usable. In the decision of the Istanbul Regional Court of Justice 15th Civil Chamber, numbered 2020/993 E., 2020/1624 K., it was stated that landscaped areas are “a construction manufacturing item both within and outside building areas” and “each of these manufacturing items is a cost element requiring expenditure,” thus emphasizing that landscaping is an integral part of construction.

2. Assessment of “Luxury Expense” within the Framework of the Condominium Law

The primary point of reference in disputes among co-owners is the Condominium Law. In the decision of the 18th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation numbered 2016/4929 E., 2016/8102 K. an important principle was reminded by referring to Article 43 of the Condominium Law (KMK): “if the desired innovations and additions are very costly or are considered luxurious due to the special nature of the building, or if they are not located in areas or passages that are absolutely necessary for use by all co-owners of the main property, the co-owner who does not wish to benefit from them is not obliged to contribute to the expense.”

This article indicates that participation may become optional if landscaping is considered a luxury. To determine the nature of the expense, the definition provided in the decision of the 3rd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation numbered 2017/13230 E., 2019/2267 K. is guiding: “expenses necessary to maintain the existence and value of something are considered mandatory; expenses made to increase the value and efficiency of something are beneficial; and expenses made solely for personal pleasure without any necessity are classified as luxurious.” According to this distinction, landscaping done to prevent erosion is mandatory; an arrangement that increases the aesthetic value of the site and boosts its sales potential is beneficial; and an exorbitantly costly ornamentation appealing only to the taste of a specific group can be considered luxurious. The assessment should be made based on expert examination and the specific characteristics of the concrete situation.

3. Different Legal Perspectives and Special Circumstances

The classification of landscaping expenses also varies depending on the legal basis of the dispute.

From a Tax Law Perspective: Decision No. 2019/417 E., 2023/2046 K. of the 4th Chamber of the Council of State, makes an important distinction in the context of VAT refunds. According to the decision, “…VAT incurred due to expenses that are not mandatory for the construction of a residence, such as those related to playgrounds, garden landscaping, pools, pergolas, gazebos, lawn planting, and sports areas, cannot be included in the VAT refund account.” However, the same decision states that works mandatory due to the nature of the land, such as retaining walls, can be included in the refund account. This indicates that, from a tax law perspective, landscaping is generally considered a “non-mandatory” element, but technical necessities constitute an exception. Similarly, in special rulings (e.g., the ruling dated 29.02.2012), simple landscaping and environmental arrangements are considered “repair expenses,” while constructions like retaining walls that increase the economic value of the property are stated to be subject to depreciation as “cost price.”

Compliance with Projects and Decisions: The compliance of landscaping with the existing architectural project and the decisions of the board of condominium owners is also an important criterion. In the Decision No. 2017/6075 E., 2018/7563 K. of the 20th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, the alteration of an area appearing as an amphitheater in the site plan to a hill was found to be unlawful, and a decision was made to restore it to its original state. This shows that changes made under the guise of landscaping cannot contradict the projects. A writing suggestion.

Conclusion

The answer to whether the landscaping of the site is a luxury or non-essential expense is situation-specific and cannot be tied to a definitive rule. The following criteria should be considered when making a legal assessment:

Purpose and Necessity: Is the arrangement due to a legal obligation, such as obtaining an occupancy permit? Or was it made to preserve or increase the value of the site (beneficial expense) or merely to appeal to aesthetic tastes (luxury expense)?

Place in the Project: Is the landscaping included in the approved architectural project of the main property? Works included in the project are generally considered mandatory or beneficial.

Cost: Is the expenditure proportionate to the general condition and value of the site, or can it be characterized as “very costly” within the scope of Article 43 of the Condominium Law (KMK)?

Quorum for Decision: Is the arrangement based on a decision duly made by the board of condominium owners (simple majority, qualified majority, or unanimity)?

Legal Context: Is the dispute a debt for condominium fees among owners, a request for a tax refund, or a public tender? Each context will require a different legal assessment.

Ultimately, the legal nature of a landscaping expenditure is generally determined by taking into account all the specific characteristics of the concrete case, based on technical examinations and reports prepared by experts appointed by the courts.

Why is Expert Legal Assistance Necessary?

Determining the legal nature of expenses such as landscaping, while seemingly a technical matter at first glance, is in fact a highly complex process involving various branches of law. The differing classification of the same expense across fields like Condominium Law, Tax Law, and Tender Law can lead to consequences that may result in loss of rights. Therefore, it is of great importance to seek legal support from an expert lawyer from the outset of the process.

For example, whether a landscaping expense incurred in a residential complex is considered a luxury or a mandatory expense directly affects the homeowners’ contribution obligations. Similarly, in tax law, classifying an expense as a “cost element” or a “non-mandatory expenditure” can alter refund and depreciation calculations. Proper management of such technical distinctions is only possible with the professional legal knowledge that an experienced lawyer can provide.

Particularly in Tuzla, one of Istanbul’s developing districts, such disputes frequently arise between site managements and property owners. A lawyer operating in Tuzla, by closely following local practices and judicial decisions, can best protect the rights of both site managements and individual property owners.

In conclusion, obtaining expert legal support to minimize the financial and legal risks that may arise from landscaping arrangements is indispensable for the safe and sound progression of the process.