Can a Contractor Change the Apartment Allocation Without the Owner’s Consent? (2026 Updated Guide)

Can an urban transformation contractor change your promised apartment, floor, orientation or unit without consent? Learn the rights of property owners, contractual protections, evidence and legal remedies in 2026.

A contractor cannot simply assume that an apartment allocated to a property owner can be replaced with another unit whenever this becomes commercially convenient. Whether a change is legally permissible depends primarily on the reconstruction agreement, its annexes, the approved architectural project, the allocation schedule, subsequent valid amendments and the circumstances that caused the proposed change.

This issue is particularly important in urban transformation projects because two apartments in the same new building may have significantly different values even when their square-meter figures appear similar.

A contractor may attempt to move an owner from a higher floor to a lower floor, from a front-facing unit to a rear-facing unit, from a corner apartment to an interior apartment or from a unit with a valuable view to one without it. The contractor may also change the apartment’s size, room configuration, parking allocation or storage rights.

For foreign owners, the change may occur while they are outside the country and may only become apparent when the project is close to completion.

The central legal question is therefore not whether the contractor has offered another apartment.

The question is whether the contractor had a valid legal and contractual basis to change the replacement property that the owner was entitled to receive.

Lawyer Fırat Fesih Kaya assists foreign property owners with unauthorized apartment-allocation changes, contractor agreements, replacement-unit disputes and compensation claims arising from urban transformation projects.

The Reconstruction Agreement Is the Starting Point

The first document to examine is the signed reconstruction agreement.

If the agreement clearly identifies the replacement apartment, that description can form an important part of the contractor’s performance obligation.

The agreement may specify the floor, location within the building, net and gross area, orientation, room configuration, balcony, terrace, parking space, storage area and ownership share.

Sometimes these details are contained in a separate allocation schedule or architectural annex.

All contractual documents should therefore be reviewed together.

The more precisely the replacement unit was identified, the more difficult it may be for the contractor to characterize a materially different apartment as identical contractual performance.

A Contractor’s General Project-Modification Clause Is Not Necessarily Unlimited

Many construction agreements contain provisions allowing the contractor to make changes required by technical, architectural or administrative circumstances.

Such clauses should be read carefully.

Authority to make necessary technical adjustments should not automatically be treated as unrestricted authority to redistribute apartments among owners.

For example, moving an internal wall slightly may be very different from moving an owner from a high-floor front-facing apartment to a lower-floor rear-facing unit.

The scope of the contractual modification clause and the economic significance of the change should therefore be considered together.

Consent Becomes Particularly Important for Material Changes

Not every technical adjustment has the same legal significance.

A minor change required during construction may have little effect on the owner’s property.

A material change can alter the identity or economic value of the replacement property.

Examples can include changing the floor, substantially reducing usable area, changing orientation, removing a terrace, eliminating dedicated parking, changing a commercial unit’s frontage or substituting an entirely different independent unit.

Where the original agreement does not authorize such a change, the contractor’s ability to impose it without the owner’s agreement can be disputed.

Does the Contractor Need Written Consent?

Whether a particular modification requires a specific written form depends on the underlying agreement, the nature of the transaction and the documents involved.

As a practical matter, however, material apartment-allocation changes should be documented clearly.

Owners should be cautious about alleged verbal approvals.

If a contractor claims that an owner agreed to a materially different replacement apartment, the owner should ask:

What document contains the consent?

When was it signed?

What apartment was identified?

Did the document clearly explain the change?

Was it signed personally or through a representative?

Did it actually amend the earlier allocation?

These questions can become decisive in a later dispute.

Can the Contractor Change the Apartment Because the Architectural Project Changed?

A revised architectural project can create a genuine practical problem, but it does not automatically eliminate the owner’s contractual rights.

The reason for the project change should first be established.

The change may have resulted from planning requirements, structural necessities, permit conditions or another legitimate technical reason.

Alternatively, it may have resulted from the contractor redesigning the project to increase commercial value or improve the units allocated to the contractor.

The contract should determine how project-change risk was allocated between the parties.

Administrative approval of a revised architectural plan and private contractual entitlement are related but separate issues.

Approved Plans Do Not Automatically Rewrite the Private Agreement

A construction project may receive administrative approval in a revised form.

That does not necessarily mean that every owner has automatically accepted every private contractual consequence of that revision.

Suppose an owner was promised a high-floor front-facing apartment.

The contractor later obtains approval for a modified architectural project and attempts to assign that owner a substantially less valuable apartment.

The existence of the approved project is relevant, but the contractor agreement must still be examined to determine whether the contractor had authority to alter the owner’s allocation and how the resulting value difference should be addressed.

Can the Owners’ Majority Change an Individual Apartment Allocation?

This requires a careful distinction between collective redevelopment decisions and individual contractual rights.

Under the current framework for qualifying redevelopment after a risky-building determination, where unanimity cannot be achieved, the new redevelopment application can proceed through a simple majority calculated according to registered ownership shares. The official guidance also confirms that the relevant meeting and decision are share-based rather than determined simply by counting owners.

That statutory mechanism allows the redevelopment process to move forward despite disagreement.

It does not automatically mean that a contractor can disregard every specific replacement-unit obligation contained in an executed agreement.

Whether a collective decision validly affects a particular allocation must therefore be examined separately from whether the contractor later performed its individual contractual obligations.

A Majority Decision Is Not a Blank Authorization for the Contractor

This distinction is especially important.

The owners may validly decide to proceed with a particular redevelopment proposal through the applicable majority mechanism. But once the contractual structure establishes which property an owner is to receive, a later contractor decision to substitute a materially different unit can create a separate performance dispute.

The contractor should therefore identify the legal basis for the change.

Simply saying that “the majority approved the project” may not be enough to establish that an individual owner agreed to every subsequent alteration.

The 2026 Meeting Procedure Makes the Documentary Record More Important

The urban transformation procedure was further formalized in 2026.

The February 2026 regulatory changes introduced additional documents including a Meeting Notification Form, the corresponding notification record, a Meeting Information Note and a Resale Notification Form.

These records can become relevant when the contractor argues that a changed redevelopment arrangement was presented to and approved by the owners.

An owner facing an allocation dispute should therefore obtain the actual meeting documents, decision records and agreement terms rather than accepting a general statement that the change was collectively approved.

What If the Owner Did Not Attend the Meeting?

Absence from an owner meeting does not necessarily prevent the redevelopment process from continuing.

Current official guidance provides that, once the risky-building determination is final, a meeting regarding the new application can take place without waiting for physical demolition. The meeting and decision are based on the required simple majority according to ownership shares.

However, nonattendance should not automatically be interpreted as personal consent to every later change affecting a replacement apartment.

The owner should investigate exactly what was decided, what was communicated afterward and whether the disputed allocation formed part of the decision.

What If the Owner Was Abroad?

Foreign residence does not give the contractor additional authority to change an owner’s apartment.

At the same time, living abroad does not stop the statutory redevelopment process.

This makes active monitoring particularly important.

Foreign owners should obtain meeting documents, revised plans and contractor proposals as soon as they become available.

If representation is required, the scope of the power of attorney should be drafted carefully.

What If a Representative Consented to the Change?

This can become one of the most important issues in a dispute involving a foreign owner.

The contractor may argue that the owner’s lawyer, relative or another representative approved the revised apartment.

The first step is to obtain the exact document allegedly signed.

The second is to examine the power of attorney or other authority held by the representative.

Authority to attend an owner meeting does not automatically answer whether the representative had authority to modify a valuable contractual entitlement.

Likewise, authority to obtain documents or negotiate with the contractor may differ from authority to accept a different replacement property.

The exact scope of authority matters.

A Relative Is Not Automatically Authorized to Change the Apartment

Foreign owners sometimes leave property matters informally with relatives.

This can create confusion.

A family relationship alone should not be assumed to provide legal authority to amend the owner’s redevelopment agreement.

If the contractor relies on consent allegedly given by a relative, the legal authority for that consent should be identified.

The same principle applies to tenants, building managers and informal local representatives.

What If the Owner Signed a Revised Floor Plan?

A signed revised plan can be significant.

But the entire document and surrounding circumstances should still be examined.

Does the plan clearly show the new apartment?

Does it identify the owner?

Was the original allocation materially changed?

Was the document intended to amend the contract?

Was it signed together with an amendment agreement?

An owner should not assume that every signature automatically has the same legal effect.

Conversely, an owner should not ignore a signed document merely because it was described informally as a technical drawing.

What If the Contractor Changed Only the Apartment Number?

A change in apartment number does not necessarily mean that the owner received a different property.

Numbering often changes between preliminary and final projects.

The correct approach is to identify the physical and legal unit.

If the new unit occupies the same promised position, has the same floor, orientation, dimensions and relevant characteristics, a numerical change alone may not create a substantial dispute.

This is why replacement apartments should be identified through multiple characteristics rather than apartment numbers alone.

Changing the Floor Can Be a Material Modification

Moving an owner from one floor to another can materially affect property value.

Suppose an owner was promised a seventh-floor apartment with an open view but the contractor offers a third-floor apartment.

Even if both units are 110 square meters, their market values may differ significantly.

The owner should compare the original allocation plan with the approved project and completed building.

Where necessary, an independent valuation can quantify the economic difference.

Changing Orientation Can Also Be Material

A front-facing apartment and a rear-facing apartment may have very different market characteristics.

Sunlight, view, privacy, noise and desirability can all change.

If orientation was specifically promised, the contractor should not assume that equal square meters automatically mean equivalent performance.

A professional valuation may become important where the contractor proposes financial compensation rather than restoring the original allocation.

What If the Replacement Apartment Is Smaller?

A changed allocation frequently creates a second dispute concerning size.

The owner should determine whether the original agreement promised net area, gross area or both.

The proposed replacement should then be professionally measured using the same methodology.

A contractor should not compare the gross area of the replacement apartment with the net area of the originally promised unit.

The comparison must be technically consistent.

What If the Layout Is Different?

Room configuration can materially affect an apartment’s usability.

A three-bedroom apartment may not be equivalent to a two-bedroom apartment simply because their total areas are similar.

The same applies to balconies, terraces, kitchens and bathrooms.

Where the agreement incorporated a particular floor plan or room arrangement, the changed unit should be compared against that contractual specification.

Parking and Storage Cannot Simply Be Ignored

The replacement property may include important associated rights.

The original agreement may provide for a parking space, storage room or other designated facility.

If the contractor changes the apartment and simultaneously removes those rights, the owner’s total economic loss can be substantially greater.

All promised characteristics should therefore be considered together.

Commercial Units Require Even Greater Precision

For commercial property, changing the allocation can have severe consequences.

A street-facing shop cannot automatically be replaced with an internal commercial unit merely because both have the same square-meter figure.

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

A contractor agreement involving commercial property should therefore define the replacement unit in exceptional detail.

What If the Contractor Gives the Promised Apartment to Another Owner?

Immediate investigation is advisable.

The owner should obtain the original allocation schedule, any revised schedule, the approved project and current title records.

The timing of the change should be established.

Was the other owner merely promised the apartment?

Has a revised contract been signed?

Has title already been registered?

The available remedies can become more complicated once property rights have been registered or additional third-party rights have arisen.

What If the Contractor Gives the Apartment to Itself?

The contractor’s own allocation should be established from the redevelopment agreement.

The contractor may be entitled to particular units as consideration for construction.

However, an apartment previously and validly allocated to an owner should not simply be reclassified as a contractor unit without examining the contractual basis for that change.

The owner and contractor allocation schedules should therefore be compared.

What If the Contractor Sold the Promised Apartment?

This can create a more urgent dispute.

The owner should determine whether the apartment has actually been transferred to a third party or merely made subject to a private sales arrangement.

Current title information is essential.

The applicable urban transformation framework also contains restrictions connecting certain contractor-unit sales to verified construction progress, reflecting the broader principle that contractor dispositions are regulated within qualifying projects.

Where the promised replacement unit has been sold or transferred, legal analysis should not be delayed.

Can the Owner Refuse the Substitute Apartment?

An owner does not have to treat a materially different property as contractually identical merely because the contractor describes it as equivalent.

However, refusing the apartment should be handled carefully.

The owner should identify the contractual basis for the objection and preserve it in writing.

The dispute should also be distinguished from refusal to participate in the broader redevelopment arrangement.

Under the current statutory framework, owners who do not join a valid majority decision can ultimately face the statutory land-share sale process after the required decision and notification stages.

Therefore, a targeted objection to unauthorized contractor performance is generally more precise than simply disengaging from the entire redevelopment process.

Can the Owner Demand the Originally Promised Apartment?

Depending on the circumstances, proper performance may be one of the remedies that should be examined.

Whether this remains practically possible depends on the stage of the project.

If the apartment still exists and has not been transferred to another person, the position may differ from a project where title has already been registered in another person’s name.

The owner should therefore investigate early.

Delay can allow the legal and factual situation to become more complicated.

Can the Owner Accept an Equivalent Apartment Instead?

Potentially.

A negotiated replacement can be an efficient solution if it genuinely protects the owner’s economic position.

But equivalence should be evaluated objectively.

Floor, orientation, view, net usable area, layout, parking, storage and market value should be compared.

For commercial properties, frontage and accessibility may be decisive.

The owner should understand the value difference before accepting a settlement.

Can the Owner Claim Compensation?

Depending on the contract and circumstances, financial remedies may be relevant where the contractor delivers a materially different property or where exact performance is no longer possible.

The loss should be assessed properly.

The difference should not necessarily be calculated by square meters alone.

A lower floor, inferior view or reduced commercial frontage may create substantial value loss even where the unit areas are nearly identical.

An independent valuation can provide evidence of that difference.

Can the Owner Request a Price Adjustment?

Some owners are required to make additional payments under the reconstruction agreement.

If the contractor proposes a materially less valuable replacement property, the effect on those payment obligations should be examined.

Owners should not automatically stop payments without understanding the contractual consequences.

At the same time, disputed final payments should not be made blindly merely because the contractor demands them as a condition for handover.

The contractor’s performance and the owner’s remaining payment obligations should be analyzed together.

Do Not Sign an Unconditional Handover Record Too Quickly

The handover document can become extremely important.

A contractor may ask the owner to confirm that the apartment has been received completely and in accordance with the agreement.

If the apartment allocation is disputed, the owner should understand the consequences before signing broad acceptance, settlement or waiver language.

The apartment should first be compared with the binding allocation.

Any discrepancy should be documented.

What If the Owner Already Took the Keys?

Taking possession does not automatically answer every legal question.

The signed documents and circumstances should be examined.

Was there a broad release?

Did the owner expressly reserve rights?

Was the change known at the time?

Was possession accepted because the owner urgently needed accommodation?

Was a later adjustment promised?

These facts can matter when determining the available remedy.

Obtain an Independent Valuation Before Accepting Compensation

If the contractor offers money in exchange for accepting a different apartment, the owner should determine the actual value difference first.

The promised and substitute units should be compared using relevant market factors.

A professional valuation can examine floor, orientation, view, usable area, parking, storage and layout.

For commercial properties, frontage, access and visibility should also be considered.

Without valuation evidence, an owner may accept compensation that is substantially below the real economic loss.

Technical Evidence May Be Necessary as Well

A valuation report answers the financial question.

A technical report can answer what changed physically.

The expert can compare the contractual floor plan, approved architectural project and completed building.

This may establish whether the original apartment still exists, whether dimensions changed and whether the substitute unit corresponds with the approved plans.

Significant disputes often require both technical and valuation evidence.

Evidence the Owner Should Collect

The owner should obtain the complete reconstruction agreement and every annex, including the original apartment-allocation schedule and floor plans.

The approved architectural project and any revised project should also be collected.

Current and historical title records may become important where another person has received the promised apartment.

Meeting documents, subsequent amendments, powers of attorney and contractor correspondence should be preserved.

Photographs, measurements and valuation reports can document the physical and financial differences.

Foreign owners should maintain these documents digitally so they can respond quickly while abroad.

2026 Practical Legal Strategy

The first priority is identify the apartment legally promised to the owner. Review the agreement, allocation schedule, floor plan and technical specifications.

The second priority is identify exactly what the contractor changed. Separate apartment-number changes from material changes involving floor, orientation, size, layout or value.

The third priority is review the approved architectural project and all revisions. Determine whether the original apartment still exists and why the project changed.

The fourth priority is check whether the owner actually consented. Obtain every amendment or revised allocation allegedly signed.

The fifth priority is review the representative’s authority if consent was allegedly given through a power of attorney.

The sixth priority is distinguish majority redevelopment decisions from the contractor’s individual performance obligations. Current official guidance confirms that the relevant redevelopment decision can proceed through the statutory simple-majority mechanism based on registered ownership shares where unanimity is unavailable. That does not automatically resolve every later contractual dispute about which apartment the contractor must deliver.

The seventh priority is obtain current title information immediately if the promised apartment has been allocated or transferred to another person.

The eighth priority is obtain technical and valuation evidence before accepting a substitute unit or financial settlement.

The ninth priority is avoid unconditional handover and waiver documents while the dispute remains unresolved.

The tenth priority is choose the remedy according to the actual project stage, including proper performance where feasible, an objectively equivalent replacement, financial adjustment, compensation or another legally available contractual or property remedy.

The central principle is straightforward: a contractor’s ability to make technical changes to an urban transformation project should not automatically be treated as unlimited authority to replace an owner’s contractually allocated apartment with a materially different property. The agreement, approved project, owner’s consent and economic consequences of the change must be examined together.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Can the contractor change my apartment without asking me?

Not automatically. The answer depends on the reconstruction agreement, project documents, scope of any modification clause and whether the proposed change materially affects the replacement property.

2. Can the contractor change only the apartment number?

A numbering change may be harmless if the physical and legal unit remains the same. The unit should be identified through its floor, location, orientation, area and other characteristics rather than its number alone.

3. Can the contractor move me to another floor?

If a particular floor was contractually promised, moving the owner to another floor can create a performance dispute, particularly where the change materially affects value.

4. Can the contractor change a front-facing apartment to a rear-facing apartment?

Such a change can be significant. Orientation, view and location within the building can materially affect market value even where the apartments have identical areas.

5. Can the majority of owners approve a different apartment for me?

The current statutory framework permits qualifying redevelopment decisions to be taken by the required simple majority according to registered ownership shares. However, this does not automatically resolve every separate contractual question concerning a replacement unit already promised to an owner.

6. What if my representative approved the change?

The document and the representative’s authority should be reviewed. Authority to attend meetings does not automatically answer whether the representative had authority to modify a valuable replacement-property entitlement.

7. Can I demand the apartment originally promised?

Depending on the contract and current project status, proper performance may be one remedy to examine. The position becomes more complicated if the apartment has already been transferred to another person.

8. Can I claim compensation for a less valuable replacement apartment?

Potentially, depending on the contractual and factual circumstances. An independent valuation can help determine the economic difference.

9. Should I sign the handover document if the apartment is different?

The proposed document should be reviewed carefully before broad acceptance or waiver language is signed. The discrepancy should be documented and the contractual allocation verified first.

10. What documents are most important?

The reconstruction agreement, allocation schedule, architectural annexes, approved and revised projects, meeting records, amendments, power of attorney where applicable, title records, handover documents and independent technical or valuation reports can all be important.

Legal Assistance for Unauthorized Apartment Allocation Changes

A replacement apartment is not defined only by its square meters.

Floor, orientation, view, layout, parking, storage, commercial position and location within the building can materially affect its value.

For this reason, foreign property owners should not automatically accept a contractor’s statement that a substitute apartment is “equivalent.”

The original contractual allocation should be compared with the approved project, any later amendments and the property actually offered.

Where the promised apartment has already been allocated or transferred to another person, immediate title investigation becomes particularly important.

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

Lawyer Fırat Fesih Kaya assists property owners with contractor-agreement review, apartment allocation disputes, floor and orientation changes, unauthorized project modifications, powers of attorney, title-record analysis, replacement-unit claims, technical evidence, valuation disputes and compensation claims.

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