Floor and Apartment Allocation Disputes in Urban Transformation Projects in Turkey (2026 Updated Guide)

Learn what property owners can do when disputes arise over floor, apartment number, orientation, size, view, parking or unit allocation in an urban transformation project in Turkey.

Floor and apartment allocation is one of the most sensitive issues in an urban transformation project. Property owners may agree to demolish their existing building on the understanding that each owner will receive a particular replacement unit. Problems begin when the new project changes or when owners disagree about which apartments they should receive.

An owner who previously occupied a high-floor front-facing apartment may discover that the proposed redevelopment agreement assigns a lower-floor unit. Another owner may receive a larger apartment, a better orientation, a more valuable view or additional parking rights. In other cases, the contractor may change an allocation after the agreement has already been signed.

For foreign property owners, these disputes can be particularly difficult because meetings, negotiations and project revisions may occur while they are outside the country.

The first principle is therefore important: ownership in the old building does not automatically answer every question concerning the exact location of the replacement apartment.

The owner’s rights must be determined by examining the existing title position, ownership shares, redevelopment decision, contractor agreement, allocation schedule, approved architectural plans and any valid subsequent amendments.

Lawyer Fırat Fesih Kaya assists foreign property owners with floor and apartment allocation disputes, replacement-unit agreements, unauthorized project changes and contractor disputes arising during redevelopment.

Does an Owner Automatically Receive the Same Floor After Redevelopment?

Not necessarily.

An owner who previously occupied the fourth floor does not automatically receive an absolute statutory right to the fourth floor of the new building merely because the old apartment was located there.

The new building may have a different architectural configuration. Floor heights, common areas, number of units, entrances, structural systems and planning requirements may change.

However, this does not mean the contractor or other owners are free to assign any apartment they choose.

If the reconstruction agreement or another binding allocation document promises the owner a specific floor or unit, that contractual entitlement becomes highly relevant.

The key distinction is between the owner’s position in the old building and the replacement property legally promised under the redevelopment arrangement.

Does the Old Apartment Number Determine the New Apartment Number?

Usually, the number alone should not be relied upon.

Apartment numbering can change completely in the new architectural project.

For example, an old apartment identified as Unit 8 may become Unit 11 in the reconstructed building even though it occupies a broadly corresponding location.

This is why redevelopment agreements should identify replacement units through more than apartment numbers.

Floor, position, orientation, net and gross area, room configuration and other characteristics can provide much stronger identification.

A binding floor plan attached to the agreement can be particularly valuable.

The Reconstruction Agreement Is Usually the Starting Point

When an allocation dispute develops, the first document to obtain is the complete reconstruction agreement.

The agreement should be reviewed for provisions concerning each owner’s replacement unit.

The relevant terms may identify the floor, unit position, area, orientation, room configuration, balcony or terrace, parking space, storage area and ownership share.

The main contract may also refer to an annex containing the detailed allocation.

Owners should obtain every annex rather than relying on a summary of the agreement.

The contractual package should answer a simple question:

What exactly was this owner promised in exchange for participating in the redevelopment?

The Apartment Allocation Schedule Can Be Critical Evidence

Many projects use a separate allocation table showing which owner will receive which replacement apartment.

This document can become one of the most important pieces of evidence in a dispute.

The schedule should be checked against the signed contractor agreement and architectural plans.

Owners should also determine whether the allocation schedule was signed, approved or expressly incorporated into the main agreement.

A spreadsheet circulated informally during negotiations is not necessarily equivalent to a binding contractual annex.

The legal status of the allocation document matters.

Floor Plans Should Be Attached to the Agreement

A written description such as “front apartment on the fifth floor” may still create uncertainty.

A marked architectural floor plan can make the allocation substantially clearer.

The plan can show exactly where the apartment is positioned relative to the street, courtyard, neighboring buildings, elevators and staircases.

This becomes particularly important where orientation and view have significant economic value.

Foreign owners should preserve the exact plan that existed when they signed the agreement.

Later project revisions should not be confused with the plan forming the basis of the original contractual allocation.

Floor Allocation Can Have Major Financial Consequences

Two apartments with the same area can have very different market values.

A higher-floor unit may have a better view, more privacy and less street noise.

A lower-floor unit may have easier access but lower market value depending on the building.

Likewise, a front-facing unit can be substantially more valuable than a rear-facing apartment.

For this reason, an allocation dispute cannot always be resolved by saying:

“Both apartments are 100 square meters.”

Area is only one component of value.

Orientation Is Part of the Allocation Dispute

Orientation can significantly affect sunlight, view, privacy, heating and cooling conditions and marketability.

If the original allocation promised a particular orientation, a change should be examined carefully.

For example, moving an owner from a front-facing unit with an open view to a rear-facing unit facing another building can cause significant economic loss even if both units have identical measurements.

The original agreement and floor plan should therefore identify orientation wherever it is commercially important.

View Can Also Affect Replacement Property Value

Some urban transformation projects involve properties where the view represents a substantial portion of the property’s value.

A contractor may attempt to treat two units as equivalent because they are located on the same floor and have similar dimensions.

However, one may have an unobstructed view while the other faces an internal courtyard.

Where the promised location is clearly documented, the difference can become relevant to contractual performance and compensation.

An independent valuation can help quantify the financial effect.

Owners Should Distinguish Allocation From Ownership Share

Apartment allocation and registered ownership share are related but different matters.

An ownership share represents the owner’s legal share in the relevant property structure.

The allocation process determines which replacement independent unit the owner is expected to receive under the redevelopment arrangement.

A dispute over whether an owner should receive the fourth-floor or sixth-floor apartment is therefore not resolved merely by confirming the owner’s percentage share.

Both the title position and contractual allocation must be examined.

How Are Redevelopment Decisions Made Under the Current Rules?

Under the current official framework, once the risky-building status has become final, a meeting regarding the new redevelopment can be called at the request of an owner without waiting for physical demolition. The meeting is held with owners representing at least a simple majority according to their registered ownership shares, and the relevant decision is likewise taken by at least that share-based simple majority.

This means that the relevant majority is based on registered ownership shares rather than simply counting apartments or individuals.

If ten owners exist, six people do not necessarily constitute the required majority if they do not collectively hold the necessary shares.

Conversely, fewer individuals may represent the required majority if their combined ownership shares exceed the statutory threshold.

Does a Majority Decision Automatically Determine Every Owner’s Apartment?

This question requires an important distinction.

The statutory majority mechanism allows qualifying redevelopment decisions to proceed even where unanimity cannot be achieved. Current official guidance states that, where unanimity is unavailable, the new application can be decided by a simple majority according to registered ownership shares.

However, that does not mean every later dispute about the contractor’s performance disappears.

If a binding agreement assigns a particular replacement apartment to an owner and the contractor subsequently attempts to deliver something materially different, the contractual documents still require examination.

The collective redevelopment decision and an individual contractor-performance dispute should therefore not automatically be treated as the same legal question.

The 2026 Meeting Procedure Makes Documentation Important

The procedural framework was further updated in 2026.

An amendment published on February 4, 2026 introduced additional documentation including a Meeting Notification Form, the related notification record, a Meeting Information Note and a Resale Notification Form.

These records can become useful where an owner argues that a floor or apartment allocation was decided without proper participation or that the proposal presented at the meeting differed from what was later implemented.

Owners should therefore obtain the complete meeting file rather than relying on informal descriptions of what allegedly happened.

What If Owners Cannot Agree on Who Gets Which Apartment?

Allocation disagreements should ideally be resolved before the contractor agreement becomes operational and before construction advances.

Owners can negotiate allocation based on existing location, value, ownership share or another agreed methodology.

Where different replacement apartments have materially different values, balancing payments or other financial adjustments may sometimes be negotiated.

The method should be objective and documented.

Allowing the contractor alone to determine the allocation after construction has progressed can create serious conflicts.

Can Owners Use a Valuation-Based Allocation System?

In appropriate projects, valuation can provide a more objective basis for allocation.

Instead of assuming that all apartments of similar size are equal, the owners can consider the economic value of the old units and the proposed replacement units.

Relevant factors may include floor, orientation, view, area, commercial potential, frontage, terrace, parking and storage.

A valuation-based mechanism can be particularly useful where the architecture of the new building makes exact one-for-one replacement impossible.

The agreed methodology should be documented before final allocation.

What If the New Building Has Fewer Apartments?

This can create a serious allocation problem.

Planning rules, design requirements or project economics may result in a new configuration that does not correspond exactly with the old building.

Owners should not wait until construction is nearly finished to address this issue.

The redevelopment proposal should explain what each owner receives and how any unavoidable differences are addressed.

If a particular owner cannot receive an equivalent replacement unit, the agreement should address the resulting economic adjustment.

What If the New Building Has More Apartments?

Additional units are often economically important because they may form part of the contractor’s consideration.

Owners should understand which units belong to existing owners and which are allocated to the contractor.

The allocation schedule should clearly distinguish these categories.

Ambiguity can create later disputes in which a contractor claims that a particularly valuable apartment belongs to its share of the project while an owner claims it was promised as a replacement unit.

Precise documentation before construction reduces this risk.

What If the Contractor Changes the Floor After Signing?

A unilateral change should not automatically be accepted.

The owner should first obtain the contractual allocation and compare it with the revised project.

The contractor should identify the legal and technical basis for the change.

If the agreement allows limited project modifications, the scope of that authority should be examined.

A clause allowing technical adjustments should not automatically be interpreted as unlimited authority to move an owner from a materially more valuable apartment to a substantially less valuable unit.

What If the Approved Architectural Project Changes?

A revised architectural project can complicate allocation.

The key questions include why the project changed, whether the change was necessary, who had authority to approve it and whether the owner accepted the resulting alteration to the replacement property.

The contract should also be checked for clauses allocating planning and permit risk.

A contractor should not necessarily be able to avoid a clearly defined replacement-unit obligation merely by pointing to a later project revision.

The private contractual consequences require separate analysis.

What If My Apartment Was Allocated to Another Owner?

This should be investigated immediately.

Obtain the original allocation schedule, revised allocation, meeting records, contractor agreement and approved project.

The owner should determine when the change occurred and who approved it.

If another owner has only been promised the same apartment contractually, the dispute may still be at an allocation stage.

If title registration has already occurred, the situation can become more complicated and current title records should be obtained without delay.

What If the Contractor Allocated My Apartment to Itself?

The same principle applies.

The contractor’s entitlement to apartments or land shares should be identified in the agreement.

The contractor should not simply redesignate an owner’s promised apartment as a contractor unit without a valid contractual basis.

Owners should compare the contractor distribution schedule with their own replacement-unit allocation.

If the documents conflict, the timing and legal status of each document become important.

What If the Promised Apartment Was Sold to a Third Party?

This can substantially increase the complexity of the dispute.

The owner should immediately determine whether title has actually been transferred or whether only a private sales agreement exists.

Current title records should be obtained.

The legal position can depend on the original owner’s contractual rights, the timing and nature of the contractor’s transaction and the legal position of the third party.

Early action is important because additional transactions can make practical resolution more difficult.

Current Rules Also Restrict Certain Contractor Unit Sales

The current statutory framework contains controls over sales of independent units allocated to contractors in qualifying redevelopment projects. The official consolidated Law No. 6306 materials provide that sales connected with contractor allocations are tied to the construction-completion level, and sales at or above the relevant completion ratio require all owners’ consent under the applicable rule.

This is another reason why owners should examine the project’s title and construction records rather than relying only on the contractor’s explanation of who owns or can sell a particular future apartment.

Can a Foreign Owner Lose Their Preferred Allocation by Missing a Meeting?

Simply being abroad does not automatically eliminate an owner’s property rights.

However, ignoring the redevelopment process can have serious consequences.

Current official guidance provides for owner meetings and share-based majority decisions. Where a valid majority decision is made, the decision and agreement terms must be communicated to owners who did not join. The current procedure provides for notification through the prescribed methods, including a fifteen-day local announcement route, with electronic communication also relevant where the required title-system information exists.

A foreign owner should therefore monitor the process rather than assuming that nothing can happen without their personal attendance.

Refusing the Allocation Does Not Automatically Stop the Project

An owner may strongly disagree with the proposed floor or apartment.

That objection does not necessarily create a unilateral veto over the entire urban transformation process.

Where the statutory requirements are satisfied, the redevelopment can proceed through the applicable share-based majority mechanism. Owners who do not join the majority decision can ultimately face the statutory land-share sale procedure after the required decision and notification stages.

For this reason, an owner should not simply refuse every document and disengage.

The better strategy is to identify precisely why the proposed allocation is legally or economically unacceptable and preserve evidence supporting that position.

Can an Owner Challenge an Unfair Allocation?

Potentially, depending on the legal basis of the complaint.

The owner should identify whether the problem concerns an invalid owner decision, incorrect ownership-share calculation, defective notification, unauthorized contractual modification, contractor breach, incorrect title registration or another legal issue.

“Unfairness” alone is too broad.

The claim should be connected to specific documents and legal rights.

This is why the agreement, allocation schedule, meeting records, approved plans and title records should be collected before choosing a remedy.

Equal Treatment Does Not Always Mean Identical Apartments

Urban transformation rarely allows every owner to receive a physically identical replacement.

Different floors, orientations and layouts may be unavoidable.

The relevant question is whether the allocation follows the binding agreement and legally valid redevelopment structure and whether significant economic differences have been addressed appropriately.

A rational allocation mechanism can account for value differences without pretending that every apartment is physically identical.

Commercial Unit Allocation Requires Special Attention

Allocation disputes involving shops, offices and other commercial properties can be considerably more valuable than ordinary residential disputes.

A ground-floor street-facing shop may be worth substantially more than an internal commercial unit with the same area.

Frontage, entrance position, pedestrian traffic, ceiling height, visibility, loading access and permitted use can affect value.

The contractor agreement should therefore identify commercial replacement units with exceptional precision.

A promise of merely “a commercial unit of equal square meters” may be inadequate.

Parking Allocation Can Become a Separate Dispute

Parking rights are increasingly important in new developments.

Owners should determine whether the agreement promises a dedicated parking space, a right to use common parking or simply access subject to building-management rules.

If specific spaces are allocated, the allocation schedule should identify them.

A valuable parking right should not disappear from the final project without investigation merely because the replacement apartment itself has been delivered.

Storage Areas and Terraces Should Also Be Documented

Storage rooms, terraces, gardens and similar areas can materially affect property value.

Their legal character should be understood.

Some may form part of the independent unit, while others may involve common areas or particular usage arrangements.

The contract and approved project should be reviewed before assuming that a promised terrace or storage area belongs exclusively to a particular owner.

What If One Owner Receives a Much More Valuable Apartment?

The reason should be established.

The difference may reflect the owner’s previous property, ownership share, additional payment or another agreed allocation principle.

Alternatively, it may reveal an allocation inconsistency.

Owners should compare the entire project distribution rather than examining only one apartment.

If necessary, professional valuation can identify whether replacement units are economically disproportionate.

Compensation Can Be Relevant When Exact Replacement Is Impossible

In some projects, restoring the precise promised allocation may no longer be practically possible.

The building may already be completed or the unit may have been transferred.

Depending on the legal circumstances, monetary remedies may therefore become relevant.

The financial difference should be calculated professionally.

Floor, view, orientation, usable area, parking and other characteristics can all affect the loss.

Simply multiplying a square-meter difference by an arbitrary figure may not accurately measure the owner’s damage.

Independent Valuation Can Strengthen an Allocation Claim

A valuation report can compare the apartment promised with the apartment allocated.

The expert can assess relevant market characteristics.

This is particularly useful where the contractor argues that two units are “equivalent.”

The report may demonstrate that a lower floor, poorer orientation or reduced frontage creates a substantial market-value difference even though the apartments have similar dimensions.

For commercial properties, valuation can be especially important.

Independent Technical Review May Also Be Necessary

A valuation addresses economic impact.

A technical review addresses what was actually designed and constructed.

The technical professional can compare contractual drawings, approved plans and physical construction.

This helps establish whether the apartment changed because of project revisions, incorrect construction or allocation decisions.

In significant disputes, legal, technical and valuation analysis may all be necessary.

Do Not Sign a Revised Allocation Without Comparing It With the Original

Owners may be asked to sign revised plans during construction.

Before signing, the new allocation should be compared directly with the original.

Check floor, orientation, area, layout, parking, storage and ownership share.

If the new apartment is materially different, the economic impact should be understood before consent is given.

A signature made under the assumption that the document is merely an administrative formality can create significant problems later.

Foreign Owners Should Review the Scope of Their Power of Attorney

A foreign owner may appoint a lawyer or another representative to participate in the redevelopment.

The power of attorney should be reviewed carefully.

Authority to attend an owner meeting is not necessarily the same as authority to accept a materially different apartment.

Likewise, authority to sign a reconstruction agreement should be distinguished from unnecessarily broad authority to sell, mortgage or transfer property.

If a representative allegedly approved a disputed allocation, the actual scope of authority should be examined.

What If the Representative Exceeded Their Authority?

The first step is to obtain the document signed by the representative and the relevant power of attorney.

The two should be compared carefully.

The legal effect depends on the authority granted and the nature of the transaction.

Owners should not rely solely on the contractor’s assertion that the representative “had power of attorney.”

The question is whether the representative had the authority required for the particular act.

Check the Title Record Before Final Handover

Before accepting the completed replacement property, owners should confirm the title position.

The independent unit, ownership share and relevant annotations should be checked.

The property physically shown to the owner should correspond with the property being legally transferred or registered.

This is particularly important where apartment numbers changed during construction.

Physical identification and legal identification must match.

Do Not Sign a Broad Release Before Resolving the Allocation Dispute

At delivery, contractors may ask owners to sign documents stating that the replacement property has been received completely and that no further claims remain.

An owner disputing the floor or apartment allocation should understand the effect of such language before signing.

The apartment should first be inspected.

Contractual documents and title records should be compared.

Where the discrepancy remains unresolved, signing an unconditional settlement or release can create avoidable legal difficulties.

What Evidence Should Property Owners Collect?

Owners should preserve the old title record, current title record, reconstruction agreement and all annexes.

They should also obtain allocation schedules, original and revised floor plans, approved architectural plans, technical specifications, owner-meeting documents, relevant 2026 meeting-notification records and any subsequent amendments.

Written communications concerning the promised apartment can also be useful.

Foreign owners should preserve emails and messages exchanged with the contractor or representative.

If value is disputed, technical and valuation reports should be considered.

2026 Practical Legal Strategy

The first priority is identify the owner’s original property position. Obtain the old title records, ownership share and information concerning the demolished unit.

The second priority is identify the exact replacement unit promised under the binding documents. Do not rely solely on apartment numbers.

The third priority is compare the agreement with the allocation schedule and architectural annexes.

The fourth priority is obtain the approved project and determine whether the original allocation remained technically possible.

The fifth priority is check whether a later allocation change was validly approved by the owner or an appropriately authorized representative.

The sixth priority is verify the owner-meeting process and share calculation. Current official guidance requires the relevant meeting and decision majority to be calculated according to registered ownership shares, and the 2026 framework introduced additional formal meeting documentation.

The seventh priority is obtain current title information before third-party rights complicate the dispute.

The eighth priority is compare economic value, not merely square meters. Floor, orientation, view, layout, parking, storage and commercial characteristics can materially change value.

The ninth priority is avoid unconditional acceptance or release documents while the allocation dispute remains unresolved.

The tenth priority is choose the remedy according to the project’s actual stage. The solution may involve enforcement of the agreed allocation, correction of documentation, acceptance of a genuinely equivalent property, financial adjustment, compensation or another appropriate contractual or property remedy.

The central principle is clear: floor and apartment allocation should not be treated as an informal decision that can be changed whenever the contractor finds it convenient. In a properly structured urban transformation project, the replacement property should be identifiable through binding documents, and any material change should be examined against those contractual rights, the approved project and the applicable redevelopment procedure.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Do I have an automatic right to receive an apartment on the same floor as my old apartment?

Not necessarily. The new building can have a different design. However, if the binding redevelopment agreement promises a particular floor, that contractual commitment can be highly significant.

2. Can the contractor change my apartment number?

Apartment numbering may change with the new project. The important question is whether the physical and legal replacement unit corresponds with the property promised in the binding documents.

3. Can the contractor move me from a front apartment to a rear apartment?

The contractor’s authority depends on the agreement and any valid subsequent modification. A material change in orientation or location can also create a significant value difference.

4. Does the owners’ majority decide which apartment everyone receives?

The current framework allows relevant redevelopment decisions to be taken through a simple majority calculated according to registered ownership shares when unanimity is unavailable. However, this does not automatically eliminate separate contractual disputes concerning a replacement unit already promised under a binding agreement.

5. What happens if I disagree with the majority’s redevelopment proposal?

The proposal and agreement terms must be communicated through the applicable statutory procedure. Continued non-participation can ultimately lead to the statutory share-sale mechanism if all requirements are satisfied.

6. Can I challenge an apartment that is less valuable than the one promised?

Potentially, depending on the agreement, allocation documents and circumstances. A professional valuation can help establish the economic difference.

7. What if another owner was given my promised apartment?

Obtain the original and revised allocation schedules and current title record immediately. The appropriate remedy can depend on whether the issue remains contractual or title registration has already occurred.

8. What if my representative approved the change while I was abroad?

The relevant document and the representative’s power of attorney should be compared. The precise scope of authority matters.

9. Can I receive compensation instead of the originally promised apartment?

Depending on the circumstances and applicable legal basis, a financial remedy may be relevant where exact performance is no longer possible or another legally appropriate solution is required. The actual value difference should be assessed rather than guessed.

10. Which documents are most important in a floor and apartment allocation dispute?

The reconstruction agreement, allocation schedule, architectural annexes, approved project, old and current title records, owner-meeting documents, later amendments, powers of attorney, handover documents and technical or valuation reports can all be important.

Legal Assistance for Floor and Apartment Allocation Disputes

A floor or apartment allocation dispute can materially change the value of the property an owner receives after urban transformation.

A replacement unit should therefore not be evaluated only by its apartment number or total square meters.

Its floor, position, orientation, view, usable area, layout, parking, storage and ownership structure can all matter.

Foreign property owners should investigate allocation problems as early as possible, particularly before title registration, unconditional handover or third-party transfers make the dispute more complicated.

Fırat Fesih Kaya Law Office provides legal assistance to foreign property owners and investors facing floor and apartment allocation disputes during urban transformation projects.

Lawyer Fırat Fesih Kaya assists property owners with replacement-unit allocation, floor and orientation disputes, reconstruction-agreement interpretation, unauthorized apartment changes, owner-meeting and majority issues, title-record analysis, technical evidence, valuation claims, compensation and contractor disputes.

Phone: +90 312 434 22 22
WhatsApp: +90 532 769 22 22
Email: info@firatfesihkaya.av.tr