What Majority Is Required for Urban Transformation Decisions in Turkey? (2026 Updated Guide)

What percentage of owners must agree to urban transformation in Turkey? Learn the 2026 simple-majority rule, ownership-share voting, contractor decisions, dissenting owner rights and statutory share-sale procedure.

For relevant redevelopment decisions concerning risky buildings under the current urban transformation framework, the key rule is generally a simple majority calculated according to the owners’ registered ownership shares when unanimous agreement cannot be reached.

This is one of the most important rules for property owners because older information available online may still refer to the former two-thirds majority system.

Under the current framework, owners should not automatically ask:

“How many apartment owners voted yes?”

The more important question is:

“What percentage of the registered ownership shares supports the decision?”

The current official guidance confirms that when unanimity cannot be achieved, relevant decisions concerning the new development replacing a risky building may be taken by the simple majority of owners according to their ownership shares.

For foreign owners, Lawyer Fırat Fesih Kaya recommends obtaining an updated title record before any vote because the registered ownership shares can determine whether the statutory majority has actually been achieved.

Is the Required Majority Still Two-Thirds?

Generally, no, not for the relevant decisions governed by the current simple-majority framework.

The legislation was amended to replace the previous two-thirds approach with a simple-majority system for relevant transformation decisions. Official explanatory materials specifically state that the former two-thirds requirement was changed in order to accelerate transformation procedures and that relevant decisions can now be made by owners representing the simple majority according to their shares.

This distinction is critical.

A property owner searching older articles may still find statements such as:

“At least two-thirds of the owners must agree.”

That information may reflect an earlier version of the law.

For a current project, the legislation and procedure applicable at the time of the decision should be checked.

What Does Simple Majority Mean?

Simple majority means more than half of the relevant ownership interest.

Official explanatory material describes the majority as 50% + 1 of the relevant ownership shares.

The critical point is that the calculation is based on shares, not simply the number of people.

For example, if owners supporting a project collectively hold more than half of the relevant registered ownership shares, the simple-majority threshold may be satisfied even if they do not represent more than half of the individual owners.

Conversely, a numerical majority of apartment owners may still fail to satisfy the requirement if their combined registered shares do not reach the required ownership-share majority.

Is It 50% of the Apartments Plus One Apartment?

No.

This is a common misunderstanding.

The urban transformation majority should not be calculated merely by counting independent units.

Suppose a building contains ten apartments. Six apartment owners support a contractor while four oppose the contractor.

It may appear that the six owners automatically have the majority.

But if the six supporting owners collectively hold only 48% of the relevant registered ownership shares, simply having six out of ten apartments does not establish the required ownership-share majority.

The title records must be examined.

Is It 50% of the Owners Plus One Owner?

Again, not necessarily.

The relevant statutory rule is based on the owners’ shares.

Therefore, the number of individuals and the percentage of ownership can produce different results.

Three owners might collectively control a majority of the ownership shares in one property, while ten other owners collectively hold the remaining minority.

The legal calculation should therefore be performed using the registered shares rather than headcount.

Why Are Ownership Shares So Important?

Because they can determine voting power.

The ownership share connected to an apartment is not merely an abstract number appearing in the title record. During urban transformation, it can directly affect whether a proposed redevelopment decision obtains the statutory majority.

Before any important owner meeting, property owners should therefore verify:

the registered owner,

the registered ownership share,

whether inheritance or title changes remain unresolved,

and whether the share information being used for the majority calculation matches the title records.

A majority calculation based on incorrect shares can create a serious dispute.

Does Every Owner Need to Agree?

No.

Unanimous agreement remains possible and can substantially reduce disputes. But the legislation does not require one dissenting owner to have an unlimited veto over a qualifying redevelopment project.

Where unanimity cannot be achieved, the current framework allows the relevant decision to be made by the simple majority according to ownership shares.

This is precisely why a minority owner should not ignore meetings or assume:

“They cannot do anything without my signature.”

That assumption can expose the owner to serious consequences.

When Can Owners Hold the Meeting?

Owners do not necessarily need to wait for physical demolition.

Current official guidance states that once the risky status of the building has become final, one owner can request a meeting concerning the new development without requiring the building to have already been demolished.

This has major practical implications.

A building may still be standing while decisions concerning its replacement project are already being made.

Foreign owners living abroad should therefore begin monitoring the redevelopment process as soon as the risky-building status becomes final.

What Majority Is Required to Hold the Meeting?

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

This means attendance itself matters.

An owner should not assume that refusing to attend automatically prevents a valid meeting.

If owners representing the required ownership-share majority participate, the process may continue.

What Majority Is Required to Make the Decision?

The relevant redevelopment decision is likewise taken by at least the simple majority according to ownership shares and recorded in signed minutes.

Accordingly, both the ownership-share calculation and the documentation of the decision are important.

The meeting record should accurately identify who participated, what shares they represented, what proposal was considered and what decision was adopted.

A contractor’s informal spreadsheet should not be accepted automatically as proof that the statutory majority exists.

What Decisions Can the Simple Majority Make?

The current framework gives the simple-majority decision significant practical effect.

Where unanimity cannot be reached, the majority can decide on relevant new applications concerning the property. Official guidance also states that transactions required for implementation—including certain subdivision, consolidation, demolition, construction, permit and licensing matters that would otherwise require complete consent—can proceed based on the statutory majority decision, subject to the remaining requirements of the transformation procedure.

The majority rule therefore concerns much more than selecting a contractor.

It can shape the entire future of the property.

Can the Majority Select the Contractor?

Contractor selection can form part of the redevelopment decision-making process.

However, reaching the required statutory majority does not mean that the selected contractor is automatically financially safe or that the proposed agreement adequately protects the owners.

Before approving a contractor, owners should examine financial capacity, previous projects, corporate status, construction experience, proposed guarantees, project timetable and contractual risk allocation.

The majority rule answers who can make the decision.

It does not answer whether the decision is commercially sensible.

Can the Majority Decide What Will Be Built?

Relevant decisions concerning the new development can be taken through the statutory majority mechanism where unanimity cannot be achieved.

Depending on the project, this can involve reconstruction and other implementation decisions concerning the parcel.

However, owners should ensure that the proposal is sufficiently detailed before voting.

A vague resolution stating only that the owners “agree to urban transformation” may not adequately protect their economic interests.

The future project, contractor and principal commercial terms should be understood before the owners commit themselves.

Can the Majority Decide Which Apartment Each Owner Will Receive?

Replacement-unit allocation should be addressed carefully in the redevelopment arrangement.

Owners should not assume that the statutory majority rule automatically answers every question concerning which apartment each owner receives.

The redevelopment contract should clearly define, where applicable, the replacement unit, floor, orientation, net and gross area, balcony, parking, storage, technical specifications and future ownership share.

Verbal promises can become extremely difficult to prove after the old building has been demolished.

Can the Majority Require Owners to Make Additional Payments?

A redevelopment agreement may require additional financial contributions from owners depending on the commercial structure of the project.

Before voting, owners should determine the amount, calculation method, payment dates and consequences of non-payment.

The contract should not give the contractor unlimited discretion to impose undefined future costs.

An owner should understand the entire economic obligation before supporting the majority decision.

What Happens If an Owner Votes Against the Majority?

Voting against the proposal does not automatically stop the project.

Where the required majority has been validly obtained, owners who do not join the decision must be notified of the majority decision and the terms of the agreement through the statutory procedure.

The dissenting owner then faces an important decision.

The owner can join the agreement in accordance with the statutory procedure, or continued disagreement may ultimately expose the owner’s share to the special sale procedure.

Ignoring the notice is therefore particularly dangerous.

How Is the Dissenting Owner Notified?

Official guidance states that the majority decision and the offer containing the agreement terms—or information identifying where that offer can be examined—must be communicated to owners who did not join the agreement.

The procedure can involve notification through a notary or announcement at the relevant local administrative office for fifteen days. Where the owner has registered the relevant electronic address with the title system, electronic communication mechanisms may also apply.

Foreign owners should therefore not rely exclusively on receiving an international paper letter.

How Long Does a Dissenting Owner Have?

The notification procedure provides a limited 15-day period for the dissenting owner to examine and accept the proposal before the statutory share-sale consequences can arise. Official explanatory materials expressly describe this 15-day response stage.

This makes prompt action essential.

A foreign owner who discovers the notice weeks later may already be facing a much more advanced procedure.

Can a Dissenting Owner Accept the Agreement With Conditions?

Current official guidance states that an owner demonstrating agreement must sign the contract prepared according to the majority decision and the documents signed by the majority without conditions or reservations within the prescribed process.

Accordingly, an owner should be cautious about assuming that a response such as:

“I accept, but only if I receive a larger apartment”

necessarily constitutes acceptance for purposes of the statutory procedure.

If changes are sought, they should be negotiated before the situation reaches the dissenting-share sale stage whenever possible.

Can the Minority Owner’s Share Be Sold?

Yes.

Where the statutory majority has validly adopted the redevelopment decision and a dissenting owner does not join following the prescribed notification process, that owner’s share can become subject to the statutory auction procedure.

This is one of the strongest consequences of the majority system.

An owner should therefore never assume that simply refusing to sign preserves the existing position indefinitely.

Does the Majority Automatically Take the Minority Owner’s Property?

No.

The process is not simply a private confiscation by the other owners.

The statutory framework establishes a regulated share-sale procedure involving the competent administration, valuation and auction mechanisms. Official guidance states that valuation and sale commissions are established for these purposes.

Therefore, the legality of the notification, valuation and sale process can be extremely important.

Who Can Buy the Dissenting Share?

At the first statutory auction, participation is limited to the owners who have reached the majority agreement.

If the share cannot be sold at that stage, the sale may subsequently be repeated under the conditions established by the legislation. Third parties can potentially participate at a later stage if they accept the majority decision and contractual framework and satisfy the applicable requirements.

This is important because a dissenting owner should not assume that an outsider can immediately purchase the share at the first sale.

How Is the Share Valued?

The dissenting owner’s share is subject to an official valuation procedure.

The competent administration establishes a valuation commission and a sale commission. The relevant value is determined through that statutory process before the auction proceeds.

The majority owners cannot simply choose an arbitrary figure and tell the dissenting owner:

“This is what your property is worth.”

The official valuation mechanism matters.

Can a Foreign Owner’s Share Be Sold?

Foreign ownership does not create an automatic exemption from the majority and dissenting-share provisions.

A foreign owner holding a registered ownership interest should therefore take owner meetings and statutory notifications seriously.

The greatest practical risk for foreign owners is often not nationality but absence.

An owner living abroad may fail to attend meetings, miss the majority decision and discover the statutory sale procedure only after it has already advanced.

Can a Foreign Owner Vote Through a Representative?

Yes, appropriate representation can be particularly useful for owners living abroad.

However, the authority granted should be carefully limited to what the owner actually intends.

Authority to attend meetings and vote does not necessarily require unlimited authority to sell the property, transfer the ownership share, mortgage the property or accept every contractor agreement.

A poorly drafted power of attorney can create risks separate from the urban transformation project itself.

What If an Owner Does Not Attend the Meeting?

Absence should not be treated as a veto.

If owners representing the required simple majority according to ownership shares participate and the statutory requirements are satisfied, the decision-making process can continue.

A foreign owner should therefore not attempt to oppose a project merely by ignoring meeting notices.

It is usually safer to participate, obtain the proposal, review the contract and formally preserve objections where necessary.

Can One Owner Stop the Project?

Not simply because that owner refuses to agree.

The purpose of the simple-majority framework is partly to prevent a transformation project from being indefinitely blocked because unanimity cannot be achieved.

Once the required majority is validly established, the legislation provides a process for dealing with owners who do not join the decision.

However, the majority must still comply with the applicable statutory procedure.

A majority does not make an unlawful process lawful.

Can a Minority Owner Challenge an Invalid Decision?

Potentially, yes.

A minority owner should examine whether the statutory majority actually existed, whether the registered shares were calculated correctly, whether the meeting was conducted and documented properly, whether the proposal was sufficiently identified, whether notification was valid and whether the statutory share-sale procedure was followed.

The appropriate remedy depends on the particular act being challenged and the stage reached.

This is why the complete project file should be reviewed rather than relying only on the contractor’s explanation.

What If the Majority Calculation Is Wrong?

An incorrect majority calculation can affect the validity of the process.

Common problems can include relying on the number of apartments rather than registered shares, using outdated ownership information, failing to account properly for inherited interests or calculating the majority on an incorrect basis.

Before a significant redevelopment decision is implemented, the title records should be compared with the meeting documentation.

This is especially important before a dissenting owner’s share is placed into the statutory sale process.

What Changed in 2026?

Procedural implementation continued to develop in 2026.

The Kentsel Dönüşüm Presidency announced that amendments published on February 4, 2026 added new forms to the implementing regulation, including a Meeting Notification Form, the related meeting-notification record and a Resale Notification Form.

These procedural developments make formal documentation increasingly important.

Owners should therefore use current procedures and forms rather than relying on documents prepared for older versions of the transformation framework.

Can Owners Change Contractors Later?

Potentially, but the legal consequences depend on what has already been signed and what stage the project has reached.

The legislation also addresses situations where a contractor fails to begin construction within the statutory conditions or construction stops because of contractor-related reasons. The current statutory text provides circumstances in which owners representing the simple majority according to their shares may decide to seek termination of the relevant agreements.

This is another reason to understand the ownership-share majority from the beginning of the project.

It can remain important even after the original contractor has been selected.

Is Majority Approval Enough to Make a Contractor Agreement Safe?

No.

A legally sufficient majority and a commercially safe contract are two completely different issues.

Before approving the redevelopment agreement, owners should review the contractor’s obligations concerning construction deadlines, permits, temporary rent, replacement units, additional payments, delay consequences, technical specifications, guarantees, title transfers, default and termination.

A contract supported by 90% of the ownership shares can still be financially dangerous if its terms are poorly drafted.

Be Careful With Upfront Title Transfers

Owners should pay particular attention to provisions requiring transfer of land shares or other property rights to the contractor before substantial construction progress has occurred.

Once valuable title rights have been transferred, recovering them can become difficult if the contractor defaults or becomes insolvent.

The voting majority should therefore consider not only whether to approve the project but also how the owners will remain protected throughout construction.

2026 Practical Legal Strategy

The first priority is check the registered ownership shares. The relevant majority is based on ownership shares rather than simply counting apartments or owners.

The second priority is use the current majority rule. For the relevant redevelopment decisions concerning risky buildings, the present framework uses a simple majority according to ownership shares when unanimity cannot be achieved.

The third priority is do not wait for demolition before participating. Once risky status is final, the redevelopment meeting can take place without requiring prior physical demolition.

The fourth priority is review the meeting documentation and majority calculation carefully.

The fifth priority is review the proposed contractor and redevelopment agreement before voting.

The sixth priority is protect replacement-property rights by clearly identifying the future unit, size, floor, orientation, parking, storage and other material characteristics.

The seventh priority is do not ignore a majority-decision notification. A dissenting owner’s share can ultimately become subject to the statutory sale procedure.

The eighth priority is monitor the 15-day response stage where the statutory notification procedure applies.

The ninth priority is use the current 2026 procedural framework and forms rather than relying on outdated documents.

The tenth priority is protect foreign owners through active monitoring and carefully drafted representation when they live outside the country.

The central principle is:

For relevant urban transformation decisions concerning risky buildings, unanimous consent is not always required. Under the current framework, where unanimity cannot be reached, the decision can generally be taken by the simple majority of owners calculated according to their registered ownership shares. A dissenting owner cannot necessarily block the project merely by refusing to sign, but the majority must still comply with the statutory decision, notification, valuation and share-sale procedures.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. What percentage is required for an urban transformation decision?

For the relevant decisions governed by the current risky-building framework, the required threshold is generally the simple majority according to registered ownership shares when unanimity cannot be reached.

2. Does simple majority mean 50% plus one?

Official explanatory material describes the threshold as 50% + 1 of the relevant ownership shares. The calculation concerns shares, not simply the number of apartments.

3. Is a two-thirds majority still required?

The previous two-thirds rule was replaced for the relevant transformation decisions by the current simple-majority system. Owners should be cautious about relying on older sources.

4. Does every apartment have one vote?

Not necessarily. The statutory majority is calculated according to registered ownership shares.

5. Must the building be demolished before the owners vote?

No. Once the risky status becomes final, owners can meet concerning the new development without waiting for physical demolition.

6. Can a foreign owner vote?

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

7. What happens if I disagree with the majority?

You should carefully review the majority decision and statutory notification. If the requirements are satisfied and you do not join the agreement, your share may ultimately become subject to the statutory sale procedure.

8. Can one owner stop the entire transformation?

Not merely by refusing to consent if the required majority has been lawfully achieved and the statutory procedure is properly followed.

9. Can the majority simply take my share?

No. A dissenting share is subject to a regulated procedure involving notification, official valuation and auction rather than an informal transfer to the majority.

10. What should I check before voting?

Check the registered ownership shares, majority calculation, meeting documents, contractor background, redevelopment agreement, replacement-unit allocation, additional payments, temporary rent, construction deadline, guarantees, title-transfer provisions and consequences of contractor default.

Protecting Your Rights in an Urban Transformation Majority Decision

The majority calculation can determine the future of an extremely valuable property. A mistake about whether the threshold is based on apartment numbers, individual owners or registered ownership shares can affect contractor selection, redevelopment terms and even the statutory sale of a dissenting owner’s share.

Foreign property owners should be particularly careful because meetings and notifications may continue while they are outside the country. Assuming that nothing can happen without a personal signature can result in important deadlines being missed.

Fırat Fesih Kaya Law Office provides legal assistance to foreign property owners and investors involved in urban transformation projects and owner disputes.

Lawyer Fırat Fesih Kaya assists foreign property owners with reviewing majority calculations, ownership shares, owner-meeting procedures, redevelopment decisions, contractor agreements, replacement-unit allocations, dissenting-owner notifications, statutory share-sale proceedings and disputes concerning the validity of urban transformation decisions.

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