19 July 2026
Turkey is in the middle of one of the largest urban renewal programmes in the world. Accelerated by the country's seismic risk and made urgent by the 2023 Kahramanmaras earthquake, the legal and administrative machinery of urban renewal under Law No. 6306 on the Transformation of Areas Under Disaster Risk is operating faster and more aggressively than at any point since the law's introduction in 2012.
For foreign nationals who own property in Turkey, whether purchased for personal use, investment, or residency purposes, this creates a set of risks that are poorly understood and insufficiently monitored. A building can be declared risky, official notifications can be delivered to a local muhtar rather than to the owner directly, a demolition process can be initiated, and a developer can begin negotiating replacement apartment terms with other owners — all while a foreign owner who is not physically present in Turkey and does not speak Turkish remains entirely unaware that any of this is happening.
This guide explains how the urban renewal process works under Turkish law, what the specific risks are for foreign property owners, the problems that frequently arise in developer negotiations, the issue of unregistered square metreage, and how Bayraktar Attorneys assists foreign clients in protecting their rights throughout this process.
Answer-first: If you own an older property in Turkey, it may already be subject to a risk assessment process under Law No. 6306. Under Turkish law, official notifications can be served through the local muhtar's office rather than directly to you, meaning you may not receive them if you are abroad. If your building is declared risky and a demolition decision is made, you can lose your property rights if you do not participate in the process actively and on time. Legal representation in Turkey is not optional in this context: it is essential.
Law No. 6306 on the Transformation of Areas Under Disaster Risk was enacted in 2012 and has been amended multiple times since. It establishes the legal basis for the risk assessment, demolition, and redevelopment of buildings that are deemed structurally unsafe, as well as the transformation of entire designated risk areas.
The law operates in two distinct contexts. The first is individual risky buildings (riskli yapi): a specific building is assessed and declared risky, and the owners of that building are then subject to the urban renewal process individually. The second is risky areas (riskli alan): an entire area is designated as a risk zone by Presidential decree, and all buildings within that area, whether or not they are individually risky, fall within the scope of the law and can be subject to demolition and redevelopment.
This second category is particularly significant for foreign property owners. A building that has been assessed as structurally sound can still be subject to demolition and redevelopment if it is located within an officially designated risky area. The designation of the area, not the structural condition of the individual building, is the trigger. This is a common source of surprise for foreign owners who assumed that a building not declared risky was safe from the urban renewal process.
Yes, in two circumstances: where the building is located within a designated risky area regardless of its own structural condition, and where the owner voluntarily requests a risk assessment and the assessment concludes that the building is risky. A licensed assessment body cannot simply declare that a building does not need a risk assessment. The law requires that the assessment be conducted and documented formally before any conclusion can be reached.
The most serious procedural risk for foreign property owners in Turkey's urban renewal process is the notification system. Turkish administrative law permits official notices relating to urban renewal proceedings — including risk assessment results, demolition decisions, and deadlines for owner decisions — to be served through the local muhtar (the elected head of the neighbourhood administrative unit) rather than directly to the property owner.
Where the property owner's address is not known or where direct notification has not been achieved, the relevant authority posts the notice at the muhtar's office and considers the notification legally complete. Once the notice is posted, the clock starts running on any deadlines attached to the notice. For a Turkish citizen living in Turkey, this system is imperfect but manageable. For a foreign national who purchased an apartment in Istanbul but lives in London or Dubai, it is a recipe for complete information failure. The legal deadlines in the urban renewal process are strict and short, and missing them can have permanent consequences.
We have represented foreign clients who first learned that their building had been declared risky, a demolition decision had been made, and the developer had already concluded agreements with two-thirds of the other owners — all after the fact, when the process was effectively complete. Reversing or renegotiating the outcome at that stage is far more difficult and costly than participating from the beginning. We advise all foreign property owners with older buildings in Turkey to authorize a Turkish attorney to monitor for any urban renewal proceedings relating to their property on an ongoing basis.
Authorize a Turkish attorney by power of attorney to receive notifications on your behalf and to act in urban renewal proceedings relating to your property. Register your correct contact address with the land registry office (tapu mudurlugu) and the relevant municipal authority, and update it whenever it changes. Ensure that someone you trust has access to any correspondence delivered to the property address in Turkey. Ask your attorney to conduct periodic checks on the status of your building in the relevant municipal systems and the Environment and Urbanization Directorate databases.
Before a building can be demolished under Law No. 6306 in the individual risky building route, it must undergo a formal risk assessment by a licensed assessment body. The risk assessment is the gateway to the entire process.
A risk assessment can be requested by any one or more of the building's co-owners, the relevant municipality or provincial administration, or the Ministry of Environment, Urbanisation and Climate Change. This means that a single co-owner of a multi-unit building can trigger the process for the entire building without the consent of the other owners. A majority vote is not required to initiate a risk assessment.
The assessment is carried out by a licensed body in accordance with the Technical Essentials for the Identification of Risky Structures set out in the Implementing Regulation under Law No. 6306. The report must be prepared in accordance with these technical standards and must document the findings in writing. A licensed body cannot simply state that a building is not risky without conducting the assessment: the process must be completed and documented formally regardless of the likely outcome.
Where a building is assessed as risky and the owner disagrees with the assessment, the owner has the right to challenge the result. The challenge must be filed within 15 days of notification of the assessment result. The challenge is examined by a technical committee, which may appoint independent experts to re-examine the building. If the challenge is successful, the risky designation is removed. If it is unsuccessful, the designation becomes final and the demolition process proceeds.
Important: The 15-day deadline for challenging a risk assessment is strict and cannot be extended. A foreign owner who is abroad and receives no direct notification will miss this window entirely. Once the deadline has passed, the risky designation becomes final and the challenge route is closed.
Once a risk assessment has been finalized and declared final, the law requires the building's owners to reach a collective decision about what to do. The default outcome under the law is demolition and reconstruction. However, owners have the option of choosing reinforcement (structural strengthening) instead, under certain conditions.
Where at least two-thirds (2/3) of the owners by share agree to demolish and reconstruct the building, that decision binds all owners, including those who voted against it or did not vote. Owners who did not agree to the majority decision can have their shares sold through a compulsory sale mechanism: their share in the land is put up for auction, and the proceeds are distributed to them. They lose their ownership and their ability to participate in the reconstruction.
This is the mechanism that creates one of the most acute risks for foreign owners who are not engaged in the process. If two-thirds of the other owners reach a decision without the foreign owner's participation, the foreign owner's share can be sold under this compulsory mechanism, and they receive only the proceeds of the auction, not a replacement apartment in the new building.
Under the Implementing Regulation (Article 8/5), where owners wish to strengthen the building rather than demolish and reconstruct it, they must complete the following steps within the period given by the relevant authority for demolition: obtain a technical report from qualified engineers confirming that structural reinforcement is technically feasible; pass a reinforcement decision by a four-fifths (4/5) majority of owners by share, in accordance with Article 19/2 of the Condominium Law (KMK); have a reinforcement project prepared and obtain a building modification permit from the relevant municipality; and complete the reinforcement works within the period specified in the permit and apply to have the risky building designation removed.
Where these steps are completed successfully, the demolition is avoided and the building's risky status is removed. Where they are not completed within the required time, the demolition process resumes.
Where demolition and reconstruction proceeds, the owners must negotiate with a developer on the terms of the new building — specifically, how the apartments in the new building will be allocated among the owners. This negotiation is where foreign owners who are not represented or not present are most vulnerable to unfavorable outcomes.
Developers negotiate individually with each owner and offer different deals to different owners. Owners who are present, engaged, legally represented, and willing to challenge the developer's initial offer tend to receive better outcomes: larger apartments, better-facing units, higher floors, or additional financial compensation. Foreign owners who are absent, unrepresented, or simply unfamiliar with the market tend to receive what is left: lower floors, north-facing or interior-facing apartments, smaller units, or the ground-floor commercial units that no one else wanted.
We regularly see situations where a foreign owner has accepted a replacement apartment on the first floor facing a side street, while Turkish-citizen owners in the same building received apartments on the fifth and sixth floors with Bosphorus views, despite comparable share sizes. The developer's initial offer to each owner is a starting point, not a final determination. In most cases, it can be challenged and improved with legal representation. However, once an owner has signed an agreement with the developer, the scope for renegotiation is severely limited.
The principle governing the allocation of new apartments in urban renewal reconstructions is proportionality: each owner's new apartment should reflect their existing share in the building and land, their existing apartment's size, floor, and location, and any applicable premium for view, floor height, or aspect. Key rights in the negotiation process include the right to have the independent valuation of your current apartment and your proposed replacement apartment conducted by a certified appraiser; the right to reject the developer's initial proposal and negotiate for better terms; the right to have the replacement apartment agreement reviewed by a lawyer before signing; and the right to seek court intervention if the developer's offer is grossly disproportionate to your share.
One of the most practically significant and frequently underestimated problems in Turkish urban renewal for foreign property owners is the discrepancy between the actual size of the apartment and its officially registered size.
Over the decades, many apartments in Turkey were expanded without formal permits. This occurred particularly during periods when informal construction was widespread and enforcement was limited, and during amnesty periods (imar affi) when unauthorized constructions were partially regularized. As a result, an apartment that measures 120 square metres in reality may appear in the land registry (tapu) and in the municipality's records as 90 square metres, because the additional 30 square metres were added without a permit and were never formally registered.
When a developer calculates the replacement apartment to be offered to each owner, the starting point is the officially registered size of the existing apartment, not its actual physical size. A developer who calculates your replacement apartment based on the 90 square metres shown in the registry, while your apartment actually measures 120 square metres, is giving you something materially smaller than an equivalent replacement. This issue is particularly common among foreign owners who purchased their apartment relying on representations about the physical size without investigating the registered size.
Important: If your apartment was extended or modified without a formal permit at any point before you purchased it, there may be a significant discrepancy between its actual size and its registered size. In urban renewal negotiations, a developer is likely to offer you a replacement apartment based on the registered size. Do not accept this without first verifying whether your apartment qualifies for any legalization or whether the discrepancy can be challenged in the context of the negotiation.
Where an unregistered extension was built during an amnesty period or can be legalized under current planning regulations, it may be possible to have the extension formally registered before the urban renewal process reaches the negotiation stage. In either case, this issue should be identified and addressed as early as possible in the urban renewal process, not after the developer's offer has already been accepted.
The urban renewal framework does not require demolition in every case. A building that has been assessed as risky can, in principle, be reinforced rather than demolished, provided the technical and legal conditions are met.
Reinforcement is only available where it is technically feasible. This requires a detailed structural performance analysis by qualified engineers, who must conclude that the building can be brought to the required seismic performance level through reinforcement measures. Buildings that are so severely structurally compromised that reinforcement cannot achieve the required performance level cannot use this route.
Where reinforcement is technically feasible, the following legal conditions must be met: a 4/5 majority of owners by share must vote in favour of reinforcement in a properly convened meeting under the Condominium Law; a reinforcement project must be prepared by licensed engineers and approved by the municipality; a building modification permit must be obtained; the reinforcement works must be completed within the permitted period; and upon completion, an application must be made to remove the risky building designation.
The Council of State (Danistay) 6th Chamber, in a 2020 decision (E.2019/8469, K.2020/1286), overturned a demolition order where the owners had met all the legal conditions for reinforcement and obtained a reinforcement permit, finding that the authorities could not force demolition when a lawful reinforcement process had been properly initiated.
The Court of Cassation's 20th Civil Chamber (E.2021/11573, K.2021/10848, 18.10.2021) confirmed that where a building can be technically reinforced and the cost of reinforcement is lower than the cost of new construction, and where no demolition decision is in place, owners have the legal right to pursue reinforcement and this right must be protected.
Cost: reinforcement typically runs at 30–40% of new construction cost, whereas demolition and reconstruction requires the full construction cost plus relocation. Time: reinforcement can often be completed in several months, whereas reconstruction takes 2–3 years including project preparation. Disruption: reinforcement is often possible without full vacation of the building, whereas reconstruction requires full vacation throughout construction. Floor area: reinforcement preserves the existing apartment sizes, whereas reconstruction may change them due to current zoning rules. Legal threshold: reinforcement requires a 4/5 majority of owners by share, whereas reconstruction requires only a 2/3 majority. State incentives: reconstruction qualifies for rental assistance, tax exemptions, and interest-support loans under Law No. 6306, whereas reinforcement is not specifically incentivized. Risk for absent owners: reinforcement is harder to proceed without a 4/5 majority, providing more natural protection; reconstruction can bind absent owners once a 2/3 majority is reached.
The process of bringing a foreign-plated vehicle into Turkey — or more relevantly here, the process of navigating urban renewal as a foreign property owner — involves a series of steps that must be taken in the right order, with the right documents, and at the right time. The financial stakes are significant. A building where the foreign owner was not engaged in the process, missed the challenge deadline, or accepted the developer's first offer without negotiation may produce an outcome that is materially worse than what that owner was legally entitled to.
The decision about whether to seek reinforcement or accept reconstruction, whether to challenge the risk assessment, and how to negotiate the replacement apartment terms is itself a strategic decision that depends on the individual's circumstances, the building's technical condition, the planning context, and the composition of the other owners. The right approach differs in every case.
At Bayraktar Attorneys, we advise foreign property owners on the correct strategy for their specific situation, guide them through the procedural sequence, represent them in owner meetings and developer negotiations, and pursue their rights before the courts and administrative authorities where necessary. If you own an older property in Turkey and are concerned about your exposure to the risks described in this guide, contact us for an assessment of your specific situation.
Yes. If your building is located within an officially designated risky area (riskli alan), it can be subject to demolition and redevelopment regardless of its own structural condition. The area designation, not the individual building's structural status, is the trigger. This is one of the most important and least understood aspects of Turkish urban renewal law for foreign property owners.
In theory, you should receive a formal notification. In practice, notifications are frequently served through the local muhtar's office, which means a foreign owner who is abroad may receive no direct communication at all. The legal deadlines start running from the point of muhtar notification regardless of whether you actually received the notice. This is why having a Turkish attorney with a power of attorney to receive notifications on your behalf is essential for foreign property owners with older buildings in Turkey.
If the two-thirds majority was achieved among the other owners without your participation, and if the procedural requirements were met, then yes, their decision can legally bind you. If the procedural requirements were not met, the decision may be challengeable. If your compulsory share sale was processed without your participation, you should seek legal advice immediately, as there may be grounds to challenge the process depending on the specific facts.
You can and should challenge the offer before signing anything. The allocation of replacement apartments must be proportionate to each owner's existing share, apartment size, location, and characteristics. A developer who systematically assigns inferior apartments to absent or unrepresented owners may be acting in bad faith. Before accepting any developer offer, have a Turkish attorney review the terms and compare them to what other owners in the same building are receiving. If the offer is grossly disproportionate, legal remedies are available, but they are far easier to pursue before you have signed the agreement than after.
Developers typically calculate replacement apartments based on the officially registered size. If your apartment has been extended without a permit and the extension is not registered, you are at risk of receiving a replacement based on the smaller registered figure. Before urban renewal negotiations proceed, we recommend investigating whether the unregistered portion can be legalized under current planning rules, and if so, initiating that process before the developer's offer is made.
You can raise the reinforcement option, but you cannot insist on it unilaterally. Reinforcement requires a four-fifths (4/5) majority of owners by share, which is a higher threshold than the two-thirds majority needed for reconstruction. If the technical conditions are met and you can build the required majority, reinforcement is a legally recognized and court-protected option.
Yes. We can act on your behalf under a power of attorney for all stages of the urban renewal process, including receiving official notifications, challenging risk assessments, participating in owner meetings, reviewing and negotiating developer offers, and, if necessary, initiating court proceedings. Given the risks of missing critical deadlines and being excluded from key negotiations when not physically present in Turkey, we strongly recommend that foreign property owners with older Turkish properties grant this power of attorney proactively rather than waiting for a problem to arise.
