

Can foreign investors sell property during urban transformation in Turkey? Learn when a property can be sold, risky-building title issues, demolition, dissenting-owner share sales, redevelopment agreements and buyer risks.
In principle, the fact that a property has entered urban transformation does not automatically create a general prohibition preventing a foreign owner from selling it.
However, the answer can change depending on the exact stage of the transformation process.
A property may only be undergoing a risky-building assessment.
The building may already have been officially determined to be risky.
Evacuation and demolition may be approaching.
The building may already have been demolished.
Owners may have approved a redevelopment agreement.
The seller may have joined the majority decision.
Alternatively, the seller may be a dissenting owner whose share has entered the statutory sale procedure.
Each situation requires a different legal analysis.
For this reason, the correct question is not simply:
“Can I sell property during urban transformation?”
The more important question is:
“What is the current legal status of my ownership interest, and has any restriction arisen that prevents an ordinary voluntary transfer?”
Lawyer Fırat Fesih Kaya assists foreign property owners and investors with sales, title deed reviews, risky-building procedures, redevelopment agreements, statutory share-sale procedures and other property transactions arising during urban transformation.
A risky-building determination should not automatically be understood as a complete prohibition on every property transaction.
Urban transformation can continue while ownership changes.
This means that a foreign investor may potentially sell a property after the building has entered the transformation process.
However, the buyer generally enters the legal and practical situation attached to the property at the time of acquisition.
The seller should therefore disclose the transformation status accurately.
Before selling, the foreign investor should establish exactly where the property stands in the process.
There may be a major difference between selling immediately after a risky-building determination and attempting to sell after the investor has rejected a majority redevelopment decision and the statutory sale procedure concerning the share has begun.
The title record should therefore be checked immediately before marketing and again before completion.
Potentially, yes.
The existence of risky-building status does not by itself mean that every voluntary transfer becomes legally impossible.
However, risky-building status is highly material information for a prospective buyer.
The buyer needs to understand that the building may proceed toward evacuation and demolition.
The buyer may therefore be acquiring much more than an ordinary apartment.
The transaction can effectively involve an ownership position in a redevelopment project.
A foreign investor selling such a property should not market it as an ordinary apartment while concealing an advanced urban transformation process.
The title records, risky-building status, official notices and current redevelopment stage should be examined and communicated accurately.
Failure to disclose material information can create serious disputes after the transaction.
Potentially, depending on the title status and whether a specific statutory restriction has arisen.
But the economic nature of the transaction changes significantly.
If evacuation and demolition are imminent, the buyer may have very limited opportunity to occupy or rent the existing apartment.
The buyer should therefore understand that the physical unit may disappear shortly after acquisition.
The seller should identify whether the risky-building determination is final, whether evacuation and demolition notices have been issued and whether a demolition timetable exists.
The buyer should also receive information about owner decisions and any redevelopment agreement.
A buyer who believes that the property will remain usable for several years may calculate the purchase price very differently from a buyer who knows that demolition is imminent.
A sale may still potentially be possible, but the transaction is no longer economically equivalent to selling the former apartment.
After demolition, the seller’s position should be examined through the current title structure, land share and redevelopment rights.
The seller may also have contractual rights relating to a future replacement unit.
The sale documentation should therefore identify exactly what is being transferred.
Before demolition, buyers naturally focus on the apartment.
After demolition, the registered ownership share in the land becomes particularly important.
The buyer should know the exact share being acquired and how it relates to the redevelopment project.
If the land share is disputed, that issue should be identified before the sale.
Potentially, but the agreement must be reviewed first.
A redevelopment agreement may create important rights and obligations relating to the property.
The seller may have agreed to pay construction contributions.
The contractor may owe temporary rent.
A particular replacement apartment may have been allocated.
The seller may also have granted contractual rights or powers affecting future title transactions.
The sale should therefore not be completed without examining how the redevelopment agreement treats a change of ownership.
This should never be assumed without reviewing the contract and structuring the transaction properly.
The sale documentation should address the relationship between the property transfer and existing redevelopment rights and obligations.
Questions may include whether the buyer assumes future payment obligations, whether rights against the contractor are transferred and whether accrued claims remain with the seller.
These issues can become significant sources of litigation if left unclear.
Suppose the seller signs a redevelopment agreement and is allocated a future apartment.
Before construction is completed, the seller transfers the underlying property interest to another investor.
The parties should not simply assume that the economic rights connected with the future unit are automatically clear.
The title structure, redevelopment agreement and sale documentation should be reviewed together.
The purchase contract should identify what redevelopment rights are intended to pass to the buyer.
The redevelopment agreement may require the contractor to pay temporary rent during construction.
If the property is sold, the parties should determine who is entitled to future payments.
They should also determine what happens to unpaid amounts that accrued before the sale.
Accrued claims and future contractual rights should not be confused.
The same problem arises if the contractor is already late.
The seller may have an existing claim for delay-related losses.
The buyer may acquire the property while the delay continues.
The parties should determine which claims remain with the seller and which rights are transferred to the buyer.
A properly drafted transaction should avoid leaving this issue uncertain.
Suppose the redevelopment agreement requires each owner to pay a substantial contribution.
Part of the payment may already be due.
Additional installments may become payable after the sale.
The transaction documents should clearly allocate responsibility for existing and future obligations.
A buyer should not discover after completion that substantial redevelopment debt already exists.
This requires particularly careful analysis.
A dissenting owner is an owner who has not participated in the applicable majority redevelopment decision.
Before the statutory share-sale procedure reaches the stage at which a transfer restriction is entered in the title records, the legal position may differ.
However, current urban transformation legislation also regulates transfers to third parties while the statutory majority process is underway.
A buyer entering such a transaction should understand that the majority redevelopment decision can continue to affect the share.
Urban transformation law is designed to prevent a simple change of ownership from indefinitely defeating the redevelopment process.
A foreign investor should therefore not assume that selling a disputed share to another person automatically resets the project or gives the new owner a fresh veto.
The legal effect of the existing majority decision should be investigated before transfer.
This is one of the most important points.
Where the required majority has applied for the statutory sale of a dissenting owner’s share and the competent authority considers the sale application appropriate, a notation is requested in the title record.
That notation states, in substance, that the share is subject to sale under the urban transformation legislation and cannot be sold or subjected to another transaction requiring transfer.
At that stage, an ordinary voluntary sale can therefore be blocked.
Urban transformation procedures can develop quickly.
A title record obtained a month earlier may no longer reflect the current situation.
A statutory sale-related notation may have been entered.
A mortgage or attachment may have arisen.
Other restrictions may affect transferability.
The title should therefore be checked again immediately before completion.
Foreign owners should be especially careful about this point.
The special share-sale mechanism does not necessarily require the building to have already been physically demolished.
Current rules permit the statutory sale process to proceed without waiting for demolition where the applicable conditions have been satisfied.
An owner should therefore not assume that the apartment remains freely transferable merely because the building is still standing.
Where the required majority decision has been taken and the dissenting owner does not accept the notified decision and agreement conditions within the applicable procedure, the share can become subject to statutory sale.
The competent authority determines the process according to the urban transformation legislation.
The first sale is directed toward the owners participating in the majority decision.
If the share cannot be sold through that stage, subsequent sales can potentially involve third parties under the conditions provided by the current framework.
Potentially, at the relevant stage of the statutory process.
Under the current framework, where the share cannot be sold through the initial procedure and the required conditions are satisfied, third parties may participate in a subsequent sale.
However, a third-party buyer is not simply purchasing an unrestricted share.
The buyer must accept the majority decision and the contractual structure adopted in accordance with that decision and satisfy the applicable procedural requirements.
This is fundamentally different from an ordinary property purchase.
Foreign acquisition rules, the nature and location of the property and the specific statutory sale conditions must all be considered.
A foreign investor should therefore conduct both ordinary foreign-buyer property due diligence and urban transformation due diligence before participating in such a transaction.
The investor should understand the redevelopment agreement before acquiring the share.
No.
A change of ownership should not be assumed to cancel the risky-building determination or restart the urban transformation process from the beginning.
The new owner generally enters a property already affected by the existing transformation process.
This is a major issue that should be disclosed to buyers.
The answer depends on the specific decision, procedural stage, timing and the buyer’s legal interest.
Purchasing property during urban transformation should not be treated as creating entirely new objection periods for every earlier administrative action.
A buyer should investigate existing deadlines before acquisition.
Not automatically.
A seller should not assume that transferring the property automatically eliminates every contractual obligation already created.
The effect of sale on the redevelopment agreement depends on the agreement, applicable law and the rights that have already arisen.
Contract review is therefore necessary before transfer.
Whether a contractor has any legally effective right affecting transfer depends on the title record, redevelopment agreement and legal structure of the project.
A contractor’s informal statement that an owner “cannot sell” should not be accepted without investigation.
Conversely, the absence of an obvious contractor objection does not prove that the title is freely transferable.
The official title position should be checked.
Urban transformation does not make existing title encumbrances disappear automatically.
A mortgage may affect the sale.
An attachment may affect the transaction.
Other registered rights may remain relevant after demolition.
A foreign investor should therefore obtain a complete title review rather than checking only the risky-building status.
Potentially, depending on the title and contractual structure.
After demolition and during reconstruction, the seller may hold a land share or rights in a newly established condominium easement structure.
The exact subject of the transaction must be identified.
The buyer should understand whether a specific future unit has already been registered or whether the transaction still concerns an underlying land share linked to contractual allocation rights.
The economic value of the property may change dramatically throughout transformation.
A share before contractor selection can be highly uncertain.
A property with an approved project and permit may be easier to value.
A registered replacement unit in a substantially completed building may carry a very different market price.
Foreign investors should therefore value the property according to its current redevelopment stage.
This depends on whether the replacement independent unit has legally come into existence within the title structure and what rights currently exist.
A contractual promise of a future apartment should not automatically be treated as identical to a registered independent unit.
The seller and buyer should identify precisely what is being transferred at the time of sale.
This is a critical due diligence issue.
Some redevelopment structures involve title transfers or contractual commitments in favor of the contractor.
The seller may therefore no longer control the same ownership position that existed before the redevelopment agreement.
The current title record and all contractor-related documentation should be reviewed.
A foreign investor may wish to sell without returning personally.
Representation through a properly drafted power of attorney may be possible depending on the transaction.
However, the power should contain the authority actually required for the intended sale.
Existing urban transformation agreements and title restrictions should be reviewed before the representative attempts the transaction.
A foreign seller may already have a lawyer or contractor involved in the redevelopment.
The incoming buyer should nevertheless conduct independent due diligence.
The buyer is acquiring the risks of an active transformation process.
These can include additional construction costs, contractor delay, a smaller replacement apartment, planning changes, land-share disputes and ongoing litigation.
A separate issue arises where the foreign investor originally acquired the property as part of a citizenship investment.
If the applicable three-year holding restriction remains active, an ordinary voluntary sale should not be approached as a standard urban transformation sale.
The citizenship-related restriction must be considered independently.
Urban transformation does not automatically cancel the investor’s citizenship-related holding obligations.
Before considering sale, determine the acquisition date and whether the applicable three-year period has expired.
If it remains active, the effect of a proposed voluntary transfer should be reviewed before any sale agreement or title transaction is completed.
A risky-building determination should not automatically be treated as permission to disregard the citizenship-related restriction.
If the citizenship-related restriction has lawfully expired, that particular restriction may no longer prevent an ordinary sale.
However, the urban transformation process can still create separate transfer restrictions.
For example, a dissenting-owner statutory sale notation may independently affect the title.
Both systems should therefore be checked.
Before marketing the property, the seller should assemble the current title record, risky-building documents, demolition notices where applicable, owner-meeting decisions, redevelopment agreement, contractor documents, replacement-unit allocation, construction permit information and evidence of any payments made or due.
If litigation exists, the seller should also understand its current status.
The objective is to know exactly what legal position is being offered to the buyer.
An ordinary short-form property sale arrangement may be inadequate where the property is already undergoing transformation.
The transaction documents may need to address the redevelopment agreement, future replacement property, additional construction payments, contractor rent, delay claims, accrued debts, pending litigation and the allocation of rights before and after completion.
Clear drafting can prevent substantial post-sale disputes.
The first priority is obtain a current title record and determine whether any notation or restriction currently prevents an ordinary voluntary transfer.
The second priority is identify the exact urban transformation stage: risky-building assessment, final determination, demolition, majority decision, statutory share-sale procedure, reconstruction or registration of the new building.
The third priority is if the seller is a dissenting owner, determine whether a statutory sale application has already been made and whether a transfer restriction has been entered in the title records.
The fourth priority is review the redevelopment agreement before selling and determine which rights, debts and future obligations are intended to pass to the buyer.
The fifth priority is identify precisely what is being sold: an existing independent unit, a land share, a registered replacement unit or an ownership interest accompanied by contractual rights to a future unit.
The sixth priority is separate accrued claims from future rights, particularly temporary rent, delay compensation and contractor obligations.
The seventh priority is disclose the risky-building, demolition and redevelopment status accurately so that the buyer understands the legal and economic position being acquired.
The eighth priority is repeat the title investigation immediately before completion because the urban transformation process can generate new restrictions during the marketing period.
The ninth priority is if the property was acquired for citizenship purposes, check whether the three-year holding restriction remains active before agreeing to a voluntary sale.
The tenth priority is do not assume that selling the property cancels the urban transformation process or automatically terminates existing redevelopment obligations.
The central principle is clear: a foreign investor can potentially sell property while urban transformation is underway, but the ability to complete an ordinary voluntary sale depends on the precise stage of the process and the current title record. Once a dissenting owner’s share has entered the statutory sale process and the relevant restriction is recorded, ordinary transfer can be prevented. Every proposed sale should therefore begin with a current title and redevelopment-status review.
Potentially, yes. Risky-building status does not by itself create a universal prohibition on every voluntary sale. The current title and procedural stage must nevertheless be checked.
Potentially, yes, subject to the current title position and any applicable restriction. The buyer should be informed of the risky-building and demolition status.
Potentially. The transaction may then concern the current land-share and redevelopment position rather than the former physical apartment. The exact subject of the sale must be identified.
No. A change of ownership should not be assumed to cancel the existing transformation process.
This depends on the stage of the statutory procedure. Once the statutory share-sale application is accepted and the relevant restriction is entered in the title records, the share cannot be subjected to an ordinary sale or similar transfer transaction while that restriction applies.
Yes. Current rules expressly allow the statutory share-sale process to proceed without requiring prior physical demolition.
The agreement must be reviewed together with the sale transaction. Rights and obligations concerning the replacement unit, payments, contractor rent and other claims should be clearly allocated between seller and buyer.
Potentially, depending on the title and contractual structure. The parties must identify whether the transaction concerns a land share, registered independent unit or rights connected with a future replacement property.
Urban transformation does not automatically remove the citizenship-related three-year holding restriction. If that period remains active, a proposed voluntary sale requires separate citizenship-related analysis.
The seller should obtain a current title record, verify the transformation stage, identify any statutory sale restriction, review the redevelopment agreement and determine exactly which property and contractual rights will transfer to the buyer.
Selling property during urban transformation is not the same as selling an ordinary completed apartment.
The building may be scheduled for demolition.
The physical apartment may already have disappeared.
The owners may already have selected a contractor.
A replacement apartment may have been allocated.
Additional construction payments may be outstanding.
The seller may have accrued claims for temporary rent or construction delay.
A dissenting-owner statutory sale procedure may also have created a restriction affecting transfer.
For foreign investors, the transaction should therefore begin with a legal review of the current title and redevelopment position.
Fırat Fesih Kaya Law Office provides legal assistance to foreign individuals and investors selling or purchasing properties affected by urban transformation.
Lawyer Fırat Fesih Kaya assists with title deed investigations, risky-building procedures, demolition-stage property sales, redevelopment agreements, statutory share-sale procedures, replacement-property rights, contractor disputes and property transactions during reconstruction.
Phone: +90 312 434 22 22
WhatsApp: +90 532 769 22 22
Email: info@firatfesihkaya.av.tr