How Do Property Owners Make Decisions During Urban Transformation in Turkey? (2026 Updated Guide)

Learn how property owners make decisions during urban transformation in Turkey, including ownership-share voting, simple majority rules, owner meetings, contractor selection, dissenting owners, share sales and foreign owner rights.

One of the most important questions in an urban transformation project is whether every property owner must agree before redevelopment can proceed.

The answer is generally no.

Under the current framework applicable to risky buildings, if unanimous agreement cannot be reached regarding the new development, specified decisions can be taken by a simple majority of the owners calculated according to their ownership shares. The current official guidance confirms that decisions concerning the new development replacing a risky building can proceed on this ownership-share majority basis.

This is particularly important because older information found online may still refer to a two-thirds majority. Foreign owners should not automatically rely on older articles, contractor explanations or documents prepared under previous versions of the legislation.

The current system focuses on a simple majority according to ownership shares for the relevant decisions under the urban transformation framework.

Lawyer Fırat Fesih Kaya recommends checking the title records and ownership shares before any vote because the outcome is determined by registered shares rather than simply counting apartments or people.

Is Unanimous Agreement Required?

Owners can certainly reach a unanimous agreement, and this is usually the least contentious way to proceed.

However, urban transformation legislation provides a mechanism allowing redevelopment to continue when unanimity cannot be achieved.

For risky buildings, where unanimous agreement cannot be reached, decisions concerning the new development may be taken by owners representing the required simple majority according to their ownership shares.

This prevents a single owner with a relatively small ownership share from automatically blocking an otherwise legally compliant redevelopment project indefinitely.

At the same time, the majority does not have unlimited freedom. The statutory meeting, decision, notification and dissenting-share procedures must still be followed correctly.

What Does “Simple Majority” Mean?

This is one of the most misunderstood parts of the process.

Simple majority is determined according to the owners’ registered ownership shares.

It is not necessarily determined by counting apartments.

It is not necessarily determined by counting how many people attend the meeting.

And it is not automatically one vote for every owner.

Official guidance describes the applicable majority as the simple majority of owners according to their shares.

Therefore, the title deed records can directly affect voting power.

Is the Majority 50% Plus One?

The basic concept is ownership shares exceeding half of the relevant total.

Official guidance describes the majority requirement as a simple majority calculated according to the ownership shares. In official explanatory material concerning transformation procedures, this is expressed as more than half of the relevant ownership interest.

The important point is that the calculation concerns ownership shares, not merely the number of apartment owners.

For this reason, owners should verify the exact registered shares rather than attempting to calculate the result informally.

Is Voting Based on the Number of Apartments?

No.

Imagine a building with ten apartments.

Six owners supporting a project do not necessarily control the required majority merely because six is more than five.

If those six apartments collectively represent less than the required proportion of registered ownership shares, counting apartments alone can produce the wrong result.

The opposite can also occur.

A smaller number of owners may hold a sufficiently large percentage of the ownership shares to constitute the statutory majority.

Official guidance expressly confirms that the relevant majority is calculated according to ownership shares.

Why Is the Land Share So Important?

The registered land share can affect much more than the economic value of the owner’s interest after demolition.

It can also affect voting power during redevelopment.

This makes the title deed one of the most important documents in an urban transformation project.

Before an owner meeting, each owner should verify the registered share attached to the independent unit.

Foreign owners should not rely solely on statements such as:

“Every apartment has one vote.”

That statement can be misleading under the urban transformation decision-making framework.

When Can Owners Start Making Redevelopment Decisions?

Owners do not necessarily have to wait until the physical building has been demolished.

Current official guidance provides that after the building’s risky status has become final, a meeting concerning the new development can be requested by an owner without requiring that the risky building first be physically demolished.

This is extremely important in practice.

Contractor negotiations, redevelopment models and owner decisions can therefore begin while the old structure is still standing.

A foreign owner who assumes that “nothing can happen until demolition” may discover that important decisions were already taken.

Who Can Request an Owner Meeting?

According to current official guidance, after the risky status becomes final, one of the owners may request a meeting concerning the new development.

This means that the process does not necessarily require every owner to agree merely to organize the meeting.

Owners should therefore monitor communications concerning meetings as soon as the risky-building process becomes final.

How Is the Owner Meeting Conducted?

Current official guidance states that the meeting is held with owners representing at least the simple majority according to their ownership shares.

The decision is likewise taken by at least the required simple majority and should be signed and recorded in minutes.

This makes proper documentation extremely important.

The meeting record should clearly identify the owners, their shares, the proposal considered and the decision reached.

An informal conversation in a building messaging group should not be confused with properly documenting a statutory redevelopment decision.

What Can Owners Decide?

Urban transformation decisions can involve substantial economic and legal matters.

Depending on the project, owners may need to decide how the parcel will be redeveloped, whether a contractor will be selected, the commercial model of the redevelopment and the contractual conditions applicable to the project.

Official guidance confirms that where unanimity cannot be reached, the simple-majority decision can support necessary implementation steps, including matters connected with subdivision or consolidation and permissions and permits concerning demolition and construction.

The majority decision can therefore have consequences far beyond merely selecting a construction company.

How Is a Contractor Selected?

Contractor selection is often one of the most financially important decisions in the entire transformation process.

Owners should not choose a contractor solely because the company offers the largest replacement apartment or promises the shortest construction period.

The owners should investigate financial capacity, previous projects, corporate records, technical capability, proposed security, construction schedule and the actual contractual allocation of risk.

A project that looks attractive on paper may become extremely costly if construction stops halfway through.

The majority rule determines whether the owners can proceed collectively, but it does not replace commercial due diligence.

What Should Owners Compare Between Contractor Offers?

Owners should compare the entire economic package rather than one headline number.

Important issues include the size of the replacement units, floor and orientation, parking and storage, construction specifications, additional owner payments, temporary rent, completion period, delay compensation, permits, security arrangements and circumstances allowing termination.

The contractor’s financial obligations should also be examined carefully.

The cheapest or most generous-looking offer is not necessarily the safest offer.

Can the Majority Sign a Contract That Affects Everyone?

The urban transformation framework gives the statutory majority substantial power to determine the new application, but the legal consequences for agreeing and non-agreeing owners must be understood through the specific statutory process.

The current official framework expressly provides a procedure for owners who do not participate in the simple-majority decision. Their position is addressed through notification and, where the requirements are satisfied, the special share-sale procedure.

Owners should therefore avoid oversimplifying the process as:

“The majority signed, so everyone automatically signed the contract.”

The statutory mechanism is more structured than that.

What Happens to an Owner Who Votes Against the Project?

Voting against the majority does not automatically invalidate the redevelopment decision.

Where the required simple majority has been properly achieved, owners who disagree must be notified of the decision and the terms of the agreement through the statutory procedure.

If they do not accept the majority decision within the applicable process, their ownership shares may ultimately become subject to the special statutory sale mechanism.

This is one of the most serious consequences a dissenting owner can face.

How Is the Majority Decision Communicated to Dissenting Owners?

Current official guidance requires the decision and the offer containing the agreement terms, or information identifying where the offer can be reviewed, to be communicated to owners who did not participate in the majority agreement.

This can be done through a notary or through the prescribed local announcement procedure for fifteen days. Where an electronic address has been registered with the title system, electronic notification mechanisms may also apply.

The notification stage should never be treated as a formality.

A defective notification can become highly significant in a later dispute.

How Long Does a Dissenting Owner Have to Respond?

The statutory notification process provides a limited period in which the dissenting owner can review and accept the majority decision.

Official materials concerning the majority-sale procedure describe a 15-day period following the relevant notification within which the offer must be considered and accepted before the dissenting share can progress toward the statutory sale procedure.

Foreign owners should therefore treat any majority-decision notification as urgent.

Ignoring it while living abroad can create serious consequences.

What Must an Owner Do to Join the Majority Agreement?

Current official guidance states that an owner wishing to demonstrate agreement must, within the prescribed period, sign the contract prepared according to the majority decision and the relevant documents signed by the majority owners without conditions or reservations.

This is significant because an owner cannot necessarily respond:

“I accept the decision, but only if my apartment is moved to another floor and my payment is reduced.”

A conditional response may not constitute acceptance of the majority arrangement for purposes of the statutory procedure.

Can a Dissenting Owner’s Share Be Sold?

Yes, where the statutory requirements are satisfied.

The current framework provides for the shares of owners who do not join the valid simple-majority decision to be sold through the special auction procedure.

Official guidance states that the first sale is limited to the owners who have reached agreement. If the share cannot be sold at the first auction, further procedures may follow under the applicable statutory framework.

This is why dissenting owners should never ignore notices concerning the redevelopment decision.

Is the Dissenting Owner’s Share Simply Taken Away?

No.

The statutory process is a regulated sale mechanism rather than an informal transfer to the majority.

A valuation process is conducted, and official guidance provides for valuation and sale commissions within the competent administration.

The owner should therefore examine the valuation, notification and auction procedure carefully.

A disagreement with the redevelopment project should not lead the owner to assume that refusing all communications will protect the share.

Who Can Buy the Dissenting Share?

Under the current framework for risky buildings, the first auction is limited to the owners who have reached agreement.

If the share cannot be sold in the initial procedure, the sale can be repeated under the conditions provided by the legislation, including circumstances in which third parties accepting the majority decision and relevant contractual documents may participate.

Official guidance also provides conditions concerning the security deposit required from participating third parties.

The precise stage of the sale procedure should therefore be checked rather than assuming that a contractor or outsider can immediately acquire a dissenting owner’s share.

Can the Contractor Buy a Dissenting Owner’s Share?

The contractor’s ability to participate depends on the statutory stage and applicable conditions.

Official guidance indicates that the first sale is directed to the agreeing owners. Subsequent procedures can involve agreeing owners or, subject to the statutory conditions, third parties willing to comply with the majority decision and contractual framework.

Owners should therefore distinguish between what a contractor proposes privately and what the statutory sale procedure legally permits.

Can the Majority Set Any Price for the Dissenting Share?

No.

The sale process involves an official valuation mechanism.

Current guidance states that a valuation commission and a sale commission are established within the competent authority for the purpose of determining the current value and conducting the sale procedure.

The majority therefore cannot simply announce:

“Your share is worth this amount, take it or leave it.”

The statutory valuation procedure matters.

What Happens to Mortgages or Other Rights on a Sold Share?

Transformation-related share sales can involve properties subject to mortgages, attachments, usufruct rights or other registered interests.

Official explanatory material indicates that certain registered rights may continue over the sale proceeds following the statutory share sale.

This makes title review essential before the process reaches the sale stage.

An owner should know what is registered against the property before deciding whether to join or challenge the redevelopment arrangement.

Can a Foreign Owner Vote?

Foreign ownership does not automatically exclude an owner from the decision-making process.

A foreign owner who holds a registered ownership share should monitor meetings, decisions, notifications and redevelopment proposals in the same way as other owners.

The main practical difficulty is often distance.

An owner living abroad may miss meetings or notices and learn about the project only after the majority has already acted.

Foreign owners should therefore establish a reliable monitoring system once a risky-building procedure begins.

Can a Foreign Owner Participate Through a Power of Attorney?

Yes, representation can be particularly useful where the owner lives abroad.

However, the power of attorney should be drafted carefully.

Authority to attend an owner meeting and vote does not necessarily need to include unlimited authority to sell the property, transfer the land share, accept mortgages or sign any redevelopment contract proposed by a contractor.

The document should reflect what the owner actually intends the representative to do.

What If the Foreign Owner Does Not Attend the Meeting?

Not attending does not necessarily stop the meeting or prevent a decision from being taken if the statutory meeting and majority requirements are otherwise satisfied.

Current official guidance provides for meetings to proceed where owners representing the required simple majority according to their shares participate.

A foreign owner should therefore never assume:

“If I do not attend, no decision can be made.”

The safer approach is to obtain the meeting documents and actively protect the ownership position.

Can One Owner Block the Entire Project?

Generally, not merely by withholding consent.

One of the purposes of the statutory majority mechanism is to prevent a transformation project from being permanently blocked when unanimity cannot be achieved.

If the required ownership-share majority is lawfully obtained, the statutory process can continue, and the dissenting owner’s position may ultimately be addressed through the special share-sale mechanism.

However, this does not mean the majority can ignore procedural requirements.

Can a Minority Owner Challenge an Invalid Majority Decision?

Potentially, yes.

The fact that the majority rule exists does not make every document labelled a “majority decision” legally valid.

Questions can arise concerning whether the correct ownership shares were used, whether the required majority actually existed, whether the meeting and decision were properly documented, whether dissenting owners were properly notified and whether the statutory sale procedure was followed.

The exact legal remedy depends on the disputed act and procedural stage.

A minority owner should obtain the complete file rather than relying on a summary prepared by the contractor.

What If the Ownership Shares Are Incorrect?

This can become a major problem because the statutory majority is calculated according to registered shares.

If an owner believes that the title records or land-share allocations are legally incorrect, the issue should be investigated early.

Waiting until the contractor agreement has been approved and dissenting-share proceedings have begun can make the dispute significantly more complicated.

The registered title position should therefore be checked before the majority vote.

Can Owners Change Their Decision Later?

Whether and how a decision can be changed depends on what has already occurred.

There is a major difference between reconsidering a proposal before contracts are signed and attempting to reverse a project after binding agreements, permits, title transactions or construction have begun.

Owners should therefore avoid treating the initial vote casually.

The majority decision can trigger significant legal and financial consequences.

Can Owners Decide to Strengthen Instead of Rebuild?

Strengthening can potentially be considered where the technical and legal requirements are satisfied.

However, it is not enough for one owner simply to announce that demolition should be replaced by strengthening.

Technical feasibility, the required ownership decision, the strengthening project and necessary permits must be addressed within the applicable statutory framework.

Owners considering strengthening should investigate it before the demolition process becomes irreversible.

Can Owners Choose Different Replacement Apartments?

Yes, the allocation of replacement units can become part of the redevelopment negotiations and contractual arrangement.

This is one of the areas where disputes frequently arise.

Owners should not rely on verbal promises such as:

“You will receive the same apartment on the same floor.”

The redevelopment agreement should identify replacement units as precisely as possible.

Floor, orientation, net and gross area, balcony, parking, storage, land share and technical specifications should be addressed.

Does the Majority Rule Automatically Determine Which Apartment Each Owner Gets?

No.

The statutory majority mechanism enables specified redevelopment decisions to proceed, but it does not eliminate the need for a detailed contractual framework concerning the economic distribution of the new project.

The replacement-unit allocation should therefore be clearly documented.

A valid majority decision does not make vague contractor promises safe.

Can the Majority Require Additional Payments From Owners?

Redevelopment projects may involve additional owner contributions depending on the contractor agreement and financial structure.

Owners should know the amount, payment schedule and consequences of non-payment before approving the project.

A contractor agreement should not leave unlimited discretion to demand future payments.

If additional costs are possible, the method of calculating them should be defined as precisely as possible.

Temporary Rent Should Also Be Decided Clearly

Where the contractor promises temporary rent during construction, the agreement should specify the amount, payment commencement date, duration and consequences of delay.

Owners should also distinguish contractor-paid temporary rent from any public rental-assistance scheme for which they may separately qualify.

The two should not be confused.

What Security Should Owners Demand From the Contractor?

The contractor’s promise to complete the project should be supported by appropriate contractual and statutory protections.

Depending on the project, owners should examine guarantees, security mechanisms, staged title transfers, construction progress requirements and termination rights.

Current official reporting also confirms that contractor-security requirements continue to form an important part of the regulatory framework governing new construction under the transformation legislation.

Owners should not transfer economically valuable rights merely in exchange for promises that are difficult to enforce if the contractor later becomes insolvent.

Should Owners Transfer Their Land Shares to the Contractor at the Beginning?

This requires extreme caution.

An uncontrolled upfront transfer can significantly weaken the owners’ position if construction stops.

Any title transfer should be examined together with the construction schedule, contractual security and contractor obligations.

Where staged transfers are commercially and legally appropriate, the relationship between construction progress and transfer should be clearly documented.

Owners should understand precisely what is being transferred and when.

What Happens If the Contractor Becomes Insolvent?

This is one of the reasons the original decision-making stage is so important.

A financially weak contractor can leave owners with a demolished building, incomplete construction and complex litigation.

Before approving a contractor, owners should investigate financial capacity, corporate status, completed projects and existing obligations.

The redevelopment contract should address default, delay, insolvency, termination and replacement of the contractor.

Choosing the contractor is therefore not merely a voting issue. It is a major risk-management decision.

Can Owners Make Decisions Before Physical Demolition?

Yes.

This point is particularly important under the current framework.

Official guidance expressly states that once the risky status has become final, owners can meet and make decisions concerning the new development without waiting for the risky structure to be demolished first.

Foreign owners should therefore begin monitoring the redevelopment stage as soon as the risky-building determination becomes final.

Waiting for physical demolition may be too late.

What Documents Should an Owner Request Before Voting?

At minimum, the owner should obtain an updated title record, ownership-share information, proposed redevelopment terms, contractor proposal, draft agreement, proposed replacement-unit allocation and available financial and technical information concerning the project.

The meeting notice and proposed decision should also be retained.

If several contractor offers exist, compare them on the same criteria.

An informed vote requires more than knowing the contractor’s name.

2026 Practical Legal Strategy

The first priority is verify every owner’s registered ownership share. The statutory majority is calculated according to ownership shares, not simply the number of apartments.

The second priority is do not rely on outdated majority rules. Current official guidance applies the simple-majority system according to ownership shares for the relevant new-development decisions concerning risky buildings.

The third priority is participate early. Owners can begin the decision-making process after the risky status becomes final without waiting for physical demolition.

The fourth priority is document the meeting and vote properly. The ownership shares, proposal and decision should be clearly recorded.

The fifth priority is review the contractor before voting, including financial strength, previous projects, security and construction capacity.

The sixth priority is review the entire redevelopment agreement, not merely the size of the replacement apartment.

The seventh priority is take dissenting-owner notifications seriously. A valid majority decision can ultimately lead to the statutory sale of the shares of owners who do not join the agreement.

The eighth priority is monitor the 15-day response process following the prescribed notification of the majority decision and agreement terms.

The ninth priority is protect foreign owners through carefully limited representation if they cannot personally monitor meetings and notifications.

The tenth priority is treat the majority decision as a major property transaction, not an informal building-management vote.

The central principle is:

Property owners do not necessarily need unanimous consent to proceed with redevelopment of a risky building. Under the current framework, specified redevelopment decisions can be taken by a simple majority calculated according to registered ownership shares. Owners who disagree retain procedural rights, but ignoring a valid majority decision can ultimately expose a dissenting ownership share to the statutory sale procedure.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Do all owners have to agree to urban transformation?

No. Where unanimous agreement cannot be achieved, the current risky-building framework permits specified redevelopment decisions to be taken by the required simple majority according to ownership shares.

2. Is the majority calculated by counting apartments?

No. The majority is calculated according to the registered ownership shares.

3. Is the old two-thirds rule still the general rule for these decisions?

Current official guidance for risky-building redevelopment decisions applies the simple-majority rule according to ownership shares. Owners should therefore avoid relying on older materials that still describe the previous two-thirds framework.

4. Must the building be demolished before owners vote?

No. Once the risky status is final, owners can meet to decide the new application without waiting for physical demolition.

5. Can a foreign property owner vote?

Yes. Foreign ownership does not automatically exclude a registered owner from the decision-making process.

6. Can a foreign owner participate through a representative?

Yes, subject to appropriate authorization. The scope of the power of attorney should be carefully defined.

7. What happens if I vote against the project?

If the required majority is validly obtained, you should receive the majority decision and agreement terms through the statutory procedure. If you do not join the agreement, your share may ultimately become subject to the statutory sale mechanism.

8. Can one owner block the entire redevelopment?

Not merely by refusing consent if the statutory majority requirements and procedures have otherwise been satisfied.

9. Can the majority sell my share privately?

The statutory dissenting-share procedure is regulated and includes official valuation, notification and auction requirements. The majority cannot simply take or privately assign a dissenting owner’s share without following the applicable process.

10. What should I check before voting?

Check your registered ownership share, the majority calculation, contractor background, draft redevelopment agreement, replacement-unit allocation, additional payment obligations, temporary rent, completion deadline, guarantees, title-transfer provisions and consequences of contractor default.

Protecting Your Rights During Owner Decision-Making

The decision-making stage can determine the economic outcome of an urban transformation project long before construction begins. Owners may be deciding not only which contractor will build the new structure, but also the replacement units, additional payments, construction timetable, temporary rent, guarantees and allocation of significant property rights.

Foreign owners face an additional risk when they live outside the country and assume that no important decision can be taken without their personal signature. Under the current majority framework, that assumption can be costly.

Fırat Fesih Kaya Law Office provides legal assistance to foreign homeowners and investors involved in urban transformation decision-making and redevelopment disputes.

Lawyer Fırat Fesih Kaya assists foreign property owners with reviewing ownership shares and majority calculations, owner-meeting decisions, contractor proposals, redevelopment agreements, replacement-unit allocations, notification procedures, dissenting-owner rights, statutory share-sale proceedings and disputes arising from urban transformation projects.

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