Can Land Shares Be Corrected Before Urban Transformation in Turkey? (2026 Updated Guide)

Yes. If the land shares allocated to independent units are not proportional to the legally relevant values of those units, an owner may seek correction under the condominium ownership rules.

Correcting the problem before urban transformation can be particularly important because the registered shares may become central once redevelopment begins. Under the current urban transformation framework, important redevelopment decisions are calculated according to ownership shares. Where unanimity cannot be achieved, the relevant new redevelopment decision may be taken by owners representing a simple majority according to their shares.

An incorrectly low share may therefore reduce an owner’s influence in the redevelopment process, while an incorrectly high share may give another owner greater voting power than the ownership structure should properly provide.

For foreign property owners, the issue should ideally be investigated before a contractor agreement, redevelopment vote or dissenting-owner share-sale procedure reaches an advanced stage.

Lawyer Fırat Fesih Kaya assists foreign property owners with land share correction, title deed disputes, redevelopment voting, valuation, contractor agreements and urban transformation disputes.

What Does “Correcting a Land Share” Mean?

Each independent unit in a condominium property is associated with a share of the underlying land.

That share appears in the property records.

A correction dispute arises where the allocated shares do not properly correspond with the relative values of the independent units under the legally applicable criteria.

The objective is not simply to give every apartment an equal percentage.

Nor is the objective automatically to make land shares proportional to square meters.

The question is whether the original allocation properly reflected the relevant proportional values of the independent units.

What Does the Condominium Ownership Law Provide?

The Condominium Ownership Law provides that land shares are allocated in proportion to the values of the independent units calculated according to characteristics such as their position and size.

Where land shares were not allocated proportionally, an apartment owner or condominium easement holder may apply to the court for their readjustment.

This provides the principal legal basis for a land-share correction claim.

However, the owner must establish that there is a genuine disproportionality. A claim cannot succeed merely because the current owner would prefer a larger share.

Square Meters Alone Do Not Determine the Correct Share

One of the most common mistakes is to compare apartment sizes and conclude that the land shares must be wrong.

For example, an owner may argue:

“My apartment is 120 square meters and the neighboring apartment is 100 square meters, so my land share must be 20 percent larger.”

That conclusion is not necessarily correct.

The relative value analysis may involve the type of independent unit, floor, physical area, heating characteristics, lighting, architectural use, location, frontage, view and other value-related characteristics existing at the legally relevant time.

A professional assessment should therefore consider the complete characteristics of the units rather than area alone.

The Relevant Historical Date Is Extremely Important

A land-share correction dispute is not simply a comparison of today’s market prices.

Judicial practice focuses on the proportional values of the independent units when the condominium ownership or condominium easement structure and the disputed shares were established.

This distinction can be decisive.

An apartment may have become more valuable decades later because the surrounding area developed dramatically.

A commercial unit may have become less attractive.

A formerly unobstructed apartment may have lost its view because another building was constructed.

Those later developments do not automatically mean that the original land-share allocation was legally incorrect.

Later Changes in Property Value Do Not Automatically Justify Correction

The Condominium Ownership Law expressly provides that a share allocated according to the statutory rules cannot be changed merely because the value of the independent unit subsequently increases or decreases.

This means a correction action is not a mechanism for continuously updating land shares according to current market prices.

The central issue is whether the original allocation was disproportionate when legally established.

This distinction prevents urban transformation from becoming an opportunity to reopen correctly allocated historical shares simply because today’s property values are different.

Why Should Owners Check Land Shares Before Urban Transformation?

Because redevelopment dramatically increases their practical importance.

An owner may have lived in a building for thirty years without ever considering the percentage recorded on the title.

Once urban transformation begins, that percentage can influence the owner’s voting strength.

The current redevelopment framework calculates the applicable simple majority according to the owners’ shares.

Therefore, an historical error that previously had little practical effect may suddenly become highly significant.

Land Share Correction Can Affect Redevelopment Voting

Suppose several owners are negotiating with competing contractors.

One group supports Contractor A.

Another supports Contractor B.

The outcome may depend on whether the necessary share-based majority has been reached.

If one apartment has a materially incorrect registered share, correcting that share could potentially affect the balance of voting power.

This is why suspected errors should be investigated before the decisive redevelopment meeting rather than after the majority has already implemented the project.

Majority Is Not Calculated by Counting Apartments

Under the current urban transformation framework, the relevant calculation is based on shares.

Ten apartments do not necessarily mean that six apartment owners automatically control the redevelopment decision.

The combined ownership shares must be examined.

A smaller number of owners may hold the applicable majority if their registered shares are sufficiently large.

This makes accurate title information essential.

Can Owners Correct Land Shares by Agreement?

Where all legally necessary parties agree and the applicable title and registration requirements can be satisfied, a consensual correction may sometimes avoid litigation.

However, land-share changes affect ownership interests.

They should therefore not be handled through an informal building-management decision or a simple spreadsheet prepared by the contractor.

The required legal and registration formalities must be followed.

Where one or more owners dispute the proposed correction, judicial proceedings may become necessary.

What If Another Owner Refuses to Correct an Obviously Disproportionate Share?

The Condominium Ownership Law expressly allows an apartment owner or condominium easement holder to seek judicial readjustment where the shares were not allocated proportionally.

Therefore, unanimous voluntary agreement is not necessarily the only route.

The claimant must still establish the legal basis for correction.

The court will not simply redistribute shares according to what appears more equitable today.

Historical proportionality must be examined.

What Evidence Is Needed?

Land-share correction cases are evidence-intensive.

The current title record is only the beginning.

Historical title and condominium documents may be required to determine when and how the shares were established.

The original architectural project can help establish the historical characteristics of each independent unit.

Floor, area, orientation, frontage and use can be relevant.

Where necessary, technical and valuation expertise may be required to reconstruct the proportional values at the legally relevant historical date.

Expert Examination Can Be Central to the Case

Because the dispute concerns proportional value, expert evidence can become particularly important.

A reliable assessment should not merely state that one apartment is currently worth more than another.

The analysis should address the characteristics of the independent units at the relevant historical time and explain whether the registered shares correspond proportionally with those values.

Courts may examine factors including the type of unit, floor, area, heating, lighting, architectural use, position, frontage and view.

A generic valuation based only on current sales prices may therefore be insufficient.

What If My Apartment Is Much Larger Than the Others?

A substantial size difference can be important evidence, but it is not automatically decisive.

The complete relative-value analysis must still be performed.

For example, a larger basement-level unit may historically have had a lower proportional value than a smaller unit with significantly better characteristics.

The correct question is therefore not simply:

“Which apartment is larger?”

It is:

“Were the registered land shares proportional to the legally relevant values of the independent units when the shares were established?”

Commercial Properties Require Particular Attention

Shops, offices and other commercial units can create complicated land-share disputes.

A relatively small commercial unit may historically have had substantial value because of its frontage, visibility, access and use.

Conversely, a large residential unit may not necessarily have had a proportionally greater value.

Foreign investors owning commercial property should therefore avoid assuming that physical area alone determines whether their share is correct.

A proper historical valuation analysis may be required.

Unauthorized Later Construction Does Not Automatically Increase the Land Share

Suppose an owner later encloses a balcony, incorporates part of a common area or enlarges the usable space.

That physical change does not automatically increase the registered land share.

A correction action should not confuse subsequent physical alterations with the original legally relevant characteristics of the independent unit.

The approved historical project and registered ownership structure should therefore be examined.

Can the Case Be Filed After the Building Is Declared Risky?

Potentially, but timing becomes increasingly important once the urban transformation process is underway.

A risky-building determination can trigger a sequence of redevelopment procedures.

Owners may meet, select a contractor and make decisions according to their registered shares.

A land-share correction dispute may then overlap with active redevelopment steps.

For this reason, owners who already suspect a disproportionate share should investigate the issue before waiting for the risky-building process to advance.

Does Filing a Land Share Correction Case Automatically Stop Redevelopment?

No automatic assumption should be made that commencing a land-share correction case freezes the entire urban transformation process.

The redevelopment framework and the civil dispute concerning the ownership shares may progress through different legal procedures.

Where a pending redevelopment transaction creates an urgent risk, the availability of appropriate interim judicial protection should be considered separately.

This is another reason early action is significantly preferable.

What If the Incorrect Shares Affect the Majority Calculation?

This can create a serious dispute.

If the redevelopment decision depends on shares that are being challenged as historically disproportionate, the owner should obtain the complete majority calculation and underlying title information.

The effect of any correction on the decision should then be analyzed.

However, merely asserting that the shares are incorrect does not automatically erase the registered ownership structure or invalidate every decision already taken.

The legal status of the shares and the timing of the redevelopment procedure matter.

What Happens If the Majority Decision Has Already Been Made?

The owner should act quickly.

The current urban transformation framework provides a specific process for communicating the majority decision and agreement conditions to owners who do not join.

The current procedure includes a 15-day period in the relevant notification process.

Where the statutory requirements are satisfied and the dissenting owner does not join the decision, the owner’s share may become subject to the statutory sale procedure.

A foreign owner should therefore not ignore a redevelopment notice while separately investigating a land-share problem.

Why Is Correction Especially Important Before a Dissenting-Owner Sale?

The statutory sale concerns the owner’s registered land share.

If the owner believes that percentage is materially incorrect, allowing the process to advance can make the dispute significantly more complicated.

The owner may need to investigate both the historical share allocation and the current statutory procedure.

Majority calculation, notification, valuation and sale documentation should all be obtained promptly.

A title-share dispute that could have been addressed before redevelopment can become much more urgent once a forced statutory sale is approaching.

Can Correcting the Share Automatically Change the Replacement Apartment?

No.

This is an important distinction.

Land share correction concerns the ownership percentage.

The replacement apartment is generally governed by the redevelopment agreement, allocation documents and approved project.

Correcting an ownership share may affect negotiations and economic calculations, but it does not automatically rewrite every contractual apartment allocation.

The two issues should be reviewed separately.

A Corrected Share May Affect Negotiating Power

Although correction does not automatically determine the new apartment, it can materially affect negotiations.

A greater legally established share can change the owner’s voting position.

It may also affect how owners negotiate the economic structure of the redevelopment.

This is why correcting a genuine historical error before signing the final contractor agreement can be strategically important.

Do Not Allow the Contractor to Decide Whether Your Share Is Correct

A contractor may review the title records and tell owners that the existing shares must simply be accepted.

That statement should not substitute for independent legal analysis.

The contractor is negotiating a commercial transaction with the owners and may have an interest in completing the redevelopment quickly.

If there is a genuine historical proportionality problem, it should be evaluated independently.

The same applies where another owner insists that a disproportionately large share is unquestionably correct merely because it has appeared on the title for many years.

Long-Standing Registration Does Not Automatically Answer the Merits

The fact that a share has remained registered for many years does not by itself establish that it was originally allocated proportionally.

However, a successful correction claim still requires concrete evidence of disproportionality.

Historical documentation and technically sound expert analysis become particularly important in older buildings.

Owners should therefore avoid both extremes: assuming that an old registration can never be challenged or assuming that age alone proves an error.

Foreign Owners Should Investigate the Issue Before Traveling to Sign

A foreign owner may receive a message stating that all owners must attend and sign the contractor agreement urgently.

If the owner already suspects that the title contains an incorrect land share, the documents should be reviewed before signing.

The owner should know the registered percentage, how the redevelopment majority is being calculated and whether the contractor’s proposed allocation relies on that percentage.

This review can often be performed before the owner travels.

A Power of Attorney Should Be Carefully Limited

Foreign owners frequently use representatives during redevelopment.

The power of attorney should be tailored to the required acts.

Obtaining title records and attending meetings are different from agreeing to a redevelopment contract or transferring property rights.

Where the land share is disputed, owners should be particularly careful about granting authority that could effectively accept the existing ownership structure or waive objections without appropriate review.

If documents have already been signed through a representative, both the signed documents and scope of authority should be examined.

The 2026 Meeting Procedure Makes Early Review More Important

The urban transformation meeting procedure was further formalized in February 2026 through amendments introducing additional meeting and notification documentation.

These procedures reinforce the importance of knowing the ownership structure before the redevelopment meeting takes place.

A foreign owner who waits until after the meeting may already be responding to a majority decision based on the registered shares.

The better approach is to investigate suspected share errors before the voting process reaches that stage.

What Documents Should Be Collected Before Starting a Correction Claim?

Owners should obtain the current title record and available historical property records.

The condominium establishment documentation should be reviewed.

The original approved architectural project may be important.

Documents showing the historical characteristics of the independent units should be preserved.

Where redevelopment has already begun, the owner should additionally obtain the risky-building documentation, meeting notices, meeting records, majority calculations, contractor proposal, reconstruction agreement and allocation schedule.

Any valuation or expert evidence should identify the relevant historical valuation date rather than focusing only on current market conditions.

2026 Practical Legal Strategy

The first priority is check the land share before the urban transformation vote. A suspicious percentage should be investigated before it begins affecting redevelopment decisions.

The second priority is determine whether there is genuine historical disproportionality. A current difference in property prices is not enough by itself.

The third priority is obtain the historical condominium and architectural documentation needed to reconstruct the original relative values.

The fourth priority is avoid using square meters as the only valuation factor. Floor, position, frontage, use, lighting, view and other relevant historical characteristics may matter.

The fifth priority is consider whether consensual correction is legally possible. Where agreement cannot be achieved, judicial correction may need to be evaluated.

The sixth priority is separate the ownership-share problem from the replacement-apartment allocation problem.

The seventh priority is calculate how the disputed share affects the current redevelopment majority.

The eighth priority is do not ignore urban transformation notices while a correction dispute is being investigated. Statutory procedures may continue.

The ninth priority is consider urgent judicial protection separately where an imminent transaction could materially prejudice the owner’s position.

The tenth priority is verify the corrected ownership structure before signing the final redevelopment and title documents.

The central principle is clear: where a genuine land-share error exists, addressing it before urban transformation is generally far safer than discovering its consequences after redevelopment voting, contractor selection or a dissenting-owner sale process has already begun.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Can land shares legally be corrected before urban transformation?

Yes. Where the shares were not allocated proportionally to the legally relevant values of the independent units, an owner or condominium easement holder may seek readjustment under the condominium ownership rules.

2. Do all owners have to agree to the correction?

Not necessarily. Where consensual correction cannot be achieved, the law permits an owner to seek judicial readjustment where the statutory conditions exist.

3. Is apartment size the main factor in correcting land shares?

It is relevant but not the only factor. The analysis can also involve the type, floor, location, architectural characteristics, frontage, lighting, view and other value-related characteristics of the independent units.

4. Are today’s market values used to determine whether the old shares were wrong?

The critical issue is generally the proportional values at the legally relevant historical time when the shares were established, rather than later market changes.

5. Can my share be increased because my apartment became more valuable over time?

Not merely for that reason. The law provides that subsequent increases or decreases in an independent unit’s value do not themselves justify changing a properly allocated land share.

6. Why should the correction be completed before urban transformation?

Because current redevelopment decisions are based on ownership shares. An incorrect share may affect voting power and become particularly important if the owner disagrees with the majority redevelopment proposal.

7. Does filing a correction case automatically stop urban transformation?

No automatic suspension should be assumed. If urgent protection is required, the availability and conditions of an appropriate interim measure should be assessed separately.

8. Can an incorrect share affect the statutory sale of a dissenting owner’s share?

Yes. The statutory procedure concerns the registered share, making an unresolved share dispute potentially significant. The owner should act promptly if a sale process begins.

9. Does correcting my land share automatically give me a larger replacement apartment?

No. The replacement apartment is a separate contractual and project-allocation issue, although the corrected share may affect negotiations and other economic aspects of redevelopment.

10. What evidence is most important in a land-share correction case?

Historical and current title records, condominium documents, original architectural plans, evidence concerning the historical characteristics of the independent units and properly prepared expert valuation evidence can be particularly important.

Legal Assistance for Land Share Correction Before Urban Transformation

A land-share error that appears insignificant while the old building remains standing can become a major property dispute once urban transformation begins.

The registered percentage can affect redevelopment voting, negotiations among owners and the legal position of an owner who rejects the majority proposal.

For that reason, suspicious land shares should ideally be investigated before the contractor is selected and before the redevelopment agreement is finalized.

Foreign owners should be particularly careful when they live abroad and receive requests to sign redevelopment documents quickly through a representative.

Fırat Fesih Kaya Law Office provides legal assistance to foreign property owners and investors dealing with land-share problems before and during urban transformation.

Lawyer Fırat Fesih Kaya assists with land share correction, title deed review, historical ownership analysis, redevelopment majority calculations, contractor agreements, apartment allocation disputes, valuation, dissenting-owner procedures and property rights arising from urban transformation.

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