Can the Majority Force a Property Owner to Accept Urban Transformation in Turkey? (2026 Updated Guide)

Can other property owners force you to accept urban transformation in Turkey? Learn the simple-majority rule, dissenting owner rights, contractor agreements, 15-day notice, share sales and legal remedies in 2026.

A property owner cannot ordinarily be forced to personally sign a redevelopment contract simply because the other owners want the project. However, refusing to sign does not necessarily give that owner the power to stop the urban transformation process.

This distinction is extremely important.

Under the current framework applicable to risky buildings, if all owners cannot reach unanimous agreement concerning the new development, the relevant decision may be taken by the simple majority of owners calculated according to their registered ownership shares. Once a valid majority decision has been taken, owners who do not join it become subject to a specific statutory notification and share-sale procedure.

Therefore, the majority generally cannot physically force a dissenting owner to sign the contractor agreement. But if the statutory conditions are satisfied, the dissenting owner’s refusal may ultimately result in the owner’s land share being sold through the special urban transformation procedure.

For foreign property owners, Lawyer Fırat Fesih Kaya recommends treating any majority decision or dissenting-owner notice as urgent. Ignoring the process because you have not personally signed the contractor agreement can place a valuable property interest at risk.

Does Every Property Owner Have to Agree?

No.

Unanimity is possible and often preferable, but it is not always required for the relevant redevelopment decisions under the current urban transformation framework.

Where unanimity cannot be achieved, the new development replacing a risky building can be decided by the simple majority of owners according to their ownership shares. The same majority decision can support specified implementation measures required for the new development.

This means that a single owner cannot necessarily block the project indefinitely merely by saying:

“I do not agree, so nothing can happen.”

The owner’s disagreement remains legally important, but the legislation provides a mechanism for the project to continue.

What Does Simple Majority Mean?

The majority is based on registered ownership shares, not merely the number of apartment owners.

This distinction can completely change the result of a vote.

Imagine that a building has ten apartments. Six owners support a contractor and four owners oppose the proposal. It might appear that the supporting owners automatically have the majority.

That is not necessarily correct.

The ownership shares recorded for those six apartments must be calculated. If their combined shares do not constitute the required simple majority, merely having more individual owners is insufficient.

Official guidance confirms that the calculation is based on the owners’ shares.

Is the Old Two-Thirds Rule Still Applicable?

Property owners should be very cautious with older online materials.

The current framework uses the simple-majority standard for the relevant new-development decisions described in the current official guidance. This means older explanations referring generally to a two-thirds threshold may no longer reflect the rule applicable to a current risky-building redevelopment decision.

For a project proceeding in 2026, the current legislation and implementing procedure should be checked rather than relying on an old article, contractor presentation or previous building-management document.

Can the Majority Force You to Sign the Contractor Agreement?

The better way to understand the process is that the majority does not simply take your hand and compel you to sign a private contract.

Instead, once a valid simple-majority decision has been made, the dissenting owner must be informed of the decision and agreement terms through the prescribed procedure.

The owner then has an opportunity to join the arrangement.

If the owner does not accept the proposal within the applicable statutory process, the consequence can be much more serious than merely being labelled a dissenting owner: the owner’s land share can become subject to the statutory sale procedure.

Therefore:

You may be able to refuse to sign the contract, but you may not be able to preserve your ownership share indefinitely while simultaneously preventing implementation of a valid majority decision.

When Can Owners Make the Majority Decision?

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

Under current official guidance, once the risky-building status becomes final, one of the owners may request a meeting concerning the new development. Physical demolition of the building is not a prerequisite for holding that meeting.

This is particularly important for foreign owners.

A foreign owner living abroad may think:

“The building is still standing, so no important redevelopment decision can have been made yet.”

That assumption can be wrong.

Important decisions concerning the replacement project may already be underway after the risky status becomes final.

Can the Majority Choose the Contractor Without You?

If the applicable majority requirements are satisfied, the majority can make relevant decisions concerning the new development even though a minority owner disagrees.

Contractor selection can therefore become part of a majority-supported redevelopment arrangement.

However, the existence of a majority does not automatically make every contractor agreement lawful, commercially reasonable or safe.

Owners should separately examine the contractor’s financial capacity, project history, proposed guarantees, construction timetable, replacement-unit allocation, temporary rent obligations, additional payments and default provisions.

A valid majority vote does not turn a bad contract into a good contract.

Can the Majority Decide What Will Replace the Old Building?

The statutory majority mechanism can support decisions concerning the new application to be carried out on the property.

Current official guidance also explains that specified implementation measures—including transactions connected with subdivision or consolidation and permissions and permits concerning demolition and construction—can proceed based on the statutory majority decision where the legal conditions are satisfied.

The economic consequences can therefore be substantial.

A dissenting owner should review the actual project rather than opposing or accepting the proposal without understanding what will be built.

Can One Owner Stop the Entire Project?

Generally, not merely by refusing to agree.

The majority mechanism exists precisely because requiring absolute unanimity could allow a single dissenting owner to prevent implementation indefinitely.

Where the statutory majority has been properly obtained, the process can continue and the dissenting owner’s position can ultimately be addressed through the special share-sale mechanism.

However, this does not mean the majority has unlimited power.

The required majority, meeting, documentation, notification, valuation and sale procedures must still be respected.

What Happens After the Majority Makes a Decision?

The dissenting owner must be informed of the majority decision and the agreement terms.

Current official guidance provides that the decision and the offer containing the agreement terms, or information identifying where the offer can be reviewed, must be communicated through the prescribed procedure. Notification may take place through a notary or through announcement at the relevant local administrative office for fifteen days. Electronic communication can also become relevant where the appropriate electronic address has been registered with the title system.

This notification is not something a dissenting owner should ignore.

It can trigger the next stage of the statutory procedure.

How Long Does the Dissenting Owner Have to Respond?

The current procedure includes a limited response period.

Official guidance explains that if the dissenting owner does not examine or accept the offer within the prescribed period following notification, the owner’s land share may proceed toward the statutory auction process.

The relevant notification documentation should therefore be reviewed immediately.

Foreign owners should be especially careful because being outside the country does not make statutory deadlines disappear.

What If the Owner Wants to Accept Only Part of the Agreement?

This can be problematic.

Current official guidance states that an owner who wishes to demonstrate agreement must sign the contract prepared in accordance with the majority decision and the documents signed by the majority owners without conditions or reservations within the prescribed process.

An owner therefore should not assume that saying:

“I accept the project, but only if I receive another apartment.”

automatically protects the ownership share from the consequences of non-agreement.

If important changes are required, they should preferably be negotiated before the process reaches the statutory dissenting-share stage.

Can the Majority Sell the Dissenting Owner’s Share?

The majority cannot simply privately transfer another owner’s property.

However, after the statutory requirements have been satisfied, the dissenting owner’s land share can be subjected to the special auction procedure under the urban transformation framework.

Current official guidance provides that if the dissenting owner fails to accept the majority decision following the prescribed notification, the land share becomes subject to auction. The request for sale is submitted by the owners who formed the simple-majority decision to the competent authority with the required documentation.

This is the main reason why refusing to sign should not be confused with having an unlimited veto.

Does the Majority Decide the Sale Price?

No.

The other owners cannot simply decide among themselves that the dissenting owner’s share is worth an arbitrary amount.

The statutory sale process includes an official valuation mechanism.

The competent administrative procedure determines the relevant current value before the auction process is conducted.

A dissenting owner who believes the valuation or procedure is defective should therefore examine the official documents rather than relying only on statements from the contractor or majority owners.

Who Can Buy the Dissenting Owner’s Share?

At the first sale, participation is restricted to the owners who have joined the majority agreement.

Current official guidance states that persons outside the agreeing ownership group cannot participate in the first auction. If the share cannot be sold at the first auction, the sale can subsequently be repeated under the applicable rules. At later stages, qualifying third parties may participate if they accept the majority decision and contractual framework and satisfy the required conditions.

This means a contractor or unrelated outsider cannot simply appear at the beginning of the process and automatically acquire the dissenting owner’s share.

Can a Contractor Buy the Share?

Potentially at a later stage if the contractor qualifies as a third party under the applicable procedure and satisfies the statutory conditions.

Current official guidance provides that qualifying third parties seeking to participate must accept the majority decision and relevant contractual documents in writing and deposit the required cash security before participating.

The exact sale stage therefore matters.

A contractor’s statement that it can “take the dissenting owner’s share” should never be accepted without examining the statutory procedure.

Does Refusing the Contractor Agreement Mean You Lose Your Property Immediately?

No.

There is an important sequence.

A valid majority decision must exist.

The dissenting owner must be notified in accordance with the statutory procedure.

The prescribed response process must run.

A sale request must then be made where the conditions are satisfied.

The competent authority must handle the statutory sale procedure.

Only after the sale and registration process is completed does ownership pass to the purchaser.

Therefore, refusal does not cause immediate loss of ownership.

But ignoring the process can ultimately lead to that result.

Can a Foreign Owner’s Share Also Be Sold?

Yes. Foreign ownership does not by itself create an exemption from the statutory majority and dissenting-share procedure.

A foreign owner with a registered share should therefore monitor the transformation process just as carefully as any other owner.

The practical risk can actually be greater when the owner lives abroad.

Meetings may take place, the majority may approve a project and statutory notifications may proceed while the owner is outside the country.

What If the Foreign Owner Never Received a Personal Letter Abroad?

Do not assume that the procedure is automatically invalid.

The current framework contains specific statutory methods for communicating majority decisions to dissenting owners. These include notarial procedures, local announcement and, where applicable, electronic communication associated with the title records.

The correct question is therefore not simply:

“Did I receive an international letter?”

The correct question is:

“Was the legally required notification procedure completed?”

That requires examination of the official file.

Can a Foreign Owner Participate Through a Power of Attorney?

Yes.

For owners living abroad, representation can be particularly important because meetings and deadlines may continue without their physical presence.

However, the authority granted should be drafted carefully.

Authority to attend an owner meeting and vote should not automatically become unlimited authority to sell the property, transfer the land share, mortgage the property, waive claims or sign any redevelopment contract presented by a contractor.

The scope should reflect the owner’s actual intentions.

What If the Majority Calculation Is Wrong?

Then the legality of the majority decision may need to be examined.

Possible problems include using the number of apartments instead of registered ownership shares, relying on outdated title information, incorrectly calculating inherited interests or treating an insufficient percentage as a valid majority.

The current official framework expressly bases the majority on ownership shares.

Before accepting that “the majority has already decided,” obtain the title records and independently verify the calculation.

Can a Majority Decision Be Challenged?

Potentially, depending on the defect and the specific stage of the process.

The existence of a statutory majority rule does not mean every purported majority decision is automatically valid.

Disputes can arise concerning the ownership-share calculation, meeting procedure, decision documentation, notification, valuation and statutory share sale.

The appropriate legal remedy depends on exactly which act is disputed.

An owner should therefore identify the precise defect rather than merely stating general opposition to urban transformation.

Can the Owner Challenge the Share Sale?

Where the statutory sale procedure is allegedly defective, legal review may potentially be available depending on the particular administrative act, procedural stage and applicable deadline.

Possible issues may include defective notification, incorrect valuation procedure, lack of the required majority, incorrect ownership information or failure to comply with statutory sale requirements.

Timing is extremely important.

Once the share has been sold and registered to another person, the dispute can become considerably more complicated.

Does Filing a Lawsuit Automatically Stop the Sale?

An owner should never assume that merely filing a lawsuit automatically suspends implementation of the disputed administrative process.

Where urgent protection is necessary, the availability and requirements of interim judicial protection should be examined separately.

This becomes particularly important where an auction or registration is approaching.

The existence of a pending case and the existence of an enforceable judicial order preventing implementation are not necessarily the same thing.

Can the Majority Force an Owner to Accept a Bad Contractor?

The majority mechanism can allow the redevelopment project to proceed, but that does not mean the minority owner should ignore serious defects in the proposed agreement.

A contractor agreement should be examined for replacement-unit allocation, construction deadline, temporary rent, additional owner contributions, technical specifications, guarantees, title transfers, delay consequences, contractor default and termination.

The owner should distinguish:

“I simply do not want urban transformation”

from:

“The majority process or contractor agreement contains a specific legal defect that affects my rights.”

The second position is generally much more useful when evaluating legal remedies.

Can the Majority Give the Dissenting Owner a Worse Apartment?

Replacement-unit allocation is a particularly sensitive issue.

The majority rule should not be treated as permission for arbitrary treatment.

The redevelopment agreement and allocation system should be examined carefully where a dissenting owner claims that the project unfairly changes floor, orientation, size, commercial position or other economically significant characteristics.

Owners should preserve evidence concerning the old apartment before demolition and obtain the full proposed allocation plan.

Can the Majority Change the Owner’s Land Share?

A land share recorded in the title system should not be treated as something that the other owners can casually rewrite through an informal vote.

Land-share and title issues involve separate property-law requirements.

Before demolition, obtain an updated title record and verify the existing registered share.

If the future project proposes a different allocation, understand exactly how and when the new title structure will be established.

Can the Majority Require Additional Payments?

The redevelopment contract may contain owner contribution obligations depending on the project’s financial structure.

However, owners should understand the amount and calculation method before joining the agreement.

The contractor should not be given undefined authority to demand unlimited future payments.

A dissenting owner facing pressure to sign should review the complete economic package rather than focusing only on the threat of the statutory share-sale procedure.

Can the Majority Force an Owner to Transfer Title to the Contractor?

This issue requires particular caution.

The statutory majority mechanism and contractual title-transfer obligations should not be treated as identical concepts.

If the proposed redevelopment agreement requires owners to transfer land shares or other title rights to the contractor, the timing, security and legal consequences of those transfers should be reviewed carefully.

An owner should not make an uncontrolled title transfer merely because the contractor says:

“Everyone else has signed.”

What If the Contractor Becomes Insolvent?

The risk can be severe.

If the old building has already been demolished and valuable property rights have been transferred to a financially weak contractor, owners may face incomplete construction and lengthy disputes.

Before joining a majority agreement, owners should therefore investigate the contractor and examine contractual security.

Majority approval does not eliminate contractor insolvency risk.

What Changed Procedurally in 2026?

The implementation framework continued to develop in 2026.

The Kentsel Dönüşüm Presidency announced that amendments published on February 4, 2026 introduced additional official forms, including a Meeting Notification Form, the associated meeting-notification record, a Meeting Information Note and a Resale Notification Form.

This reinforces the importance of using current procedural documents.

Owners should not assume that forms or practices used several years earlier remain sufficient for a 2026 project.

Can the Majority Proceed Before the Building Is Demolished?

Yes.

Once the building’s risky status has become final, owners can begin the statutory decision-making process concerning the new development without waiting for physical demolition.

This is one of the most important points for foreign owners.

Waiting until the demolition date to review the redevelopment project can mean waiting too long.

What Should You Do If You Receive a Majority Decision Notice?

Do not ignore it.

First, obtain the complete majority decision.

Second, obtain the proposed contractor agreement and every document you are expected to sign.

Third, verify the ownership-share calculation.

Fourth, confirm how and when the meeting occurred.

Fifth, determine when the notice was legally served.

Sixth, identify the response deadline.

Seventh, review the replacement property you would receive.

Eighth, calculate any additional financial contribution.

Ninth, investigate the contractor.

Finally, determine whether there is a genuine legal defect requiring challenge or whether joining the arrangement is commercially preferable.

What Should You Do If Your Share Is Already Being Put Up for Sale?

Act quickly.

Obtain the majority decision, meeting records, title-share calculation, notification documents, proposed agreement, valuation records and sale documents.

Determine whether the statutory requirements were satisfied at every stage.

Do not rely exclusively on information supplied by the contractor or another owner.

Once the auction and title-registration process has been completed, protecting the former owner’s position can become substantially more difficult.

2026 Practical Legal Strategy

The first priority is understand what the majority can and cannot do. The majority cannot simply force you to physically sign a private redevelopment contract, but a valid majority decision can trigger statutory consequences for a dissenting ownership share.

The second priority is verify the majority calculation. It is based on registered ownership shares rather than simply counting apartment owners.

The third priority is do not rely on outdated two-thirds information. Current official guidance applies the simple-majority framework to the relevant new-development decisions.

The fourth priority is obtain the complete contractor agreement before deciding whether to join.

The fifth priority is take the statutory notification seriously. Failure to accept the majority decision within the prescribed process can expose the dissenting share to auction.

The sixth priority is verify the valuation and sale procedure if your share is being offered for sale.

The seventh priority is do not assume that refusing to attend meetings protects you. The process can continue if the statutory majority requirements are satisfied.

The eighth priority is protect foreign owners through active monitoring and carefully drafted representation.

The ninth priority is review the current 2026 forms and procedural requirements, particularly after the February 2026 regulatory amendments.

The tenth priority is act before the share is sold and registered to another person. Delay can substantially change the legal and practical position.

The central principle is:

The majority cannot ordinarily force a dissenting property owner to personally sign an urban transformation contract. However, the owner also cannot necessarily stop a valid redevelopment project simply by refusing to sign. Under the current framework, a valid simple-majority decision can be followed by statutory notification and, if the dissenting owner does not join the agreement, a regulated sale of that owner’s land share.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Can other owners force me to sign an urban transformation contract?

They cannot simply compel your signature. However, if the required simple majority validly approves the new development and you do not join the agreement through the prescribed procedure, your land share may ultimately become subject to the statutory sale mechanism.

2. Can one owner block urban transformation by refusing to sign?

Generally, not merely by withholding consent where the statutory majority has been properly achieved.

3. What majority is currently required?

For the relevant new-development decisions concerning risky buildings, current official guidance applies a simple majority calculated according to registered ownership shares.

4. Is the vote calculated according to the number of apartments?

No. The calculation is based on registered ownership shares.

5. What happens if I disagree with the majority?

You must be informed of the majority decision and agreement terms through the statutory process. If you do not join the arrangement within the applicable procedure, your land share can proceed toward statutory sale.

6. Can the other owners choose the price of my share?

Not simply by private agreement. The statutory sale process includes valuation procedures before auction.

7. Can a foreign owner’s share also be sold?

Yes. Foreign nationality does not automatically exempt a registered owner from the statutory majority and dissenting-share framework.

8. Can I stop the process by refusing to attend the owners’ meeting?

Not necessarily. Once risky status is final, the meeting can proceed where the required ownership-share majority participates.

9. Can I challenge an invalid majority or share-sale procedure?

Potentially, depending on the specific defect, administrative act, procedural stage and applicable deadline. The majority calculation, notification, valuation and sale records should be examined immediately.

10. What should I do after receiving a notice saying my share may be sold?

Obtain the complete project file immediately, verify the majority calculation and notification date, review the contractor agreement and replacement-unit allocation, examine the valuation and sale procedure, and determine whether urgent legal action is required before the auction or title registration occurs.

Protecting a Dissenting Owner During Urban Transformation

Disagreeing with the majority does not mean that a property owner has no rights. But it also does not necessarily give the owner an unlimited veto.

The most serious mistake is simply refusing to sign documents and then ignoring the process. Under the current framework, the project may continue, and a dissenting owner’s land share can ultimately enter the statutory sale procedure.

Foreign owners face particular risks because meetings, notifications and sale procedures may progress while they are outside the country.

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

Lawyer Fırat Fesih Kaya assists foreign property owners with reviewing majority calculations, owner-meeting procedures, contractor agreements, replacement-unit allocations, dissenting-owner notices, statutory valuation and share-sale proceedings, title-related risks and available legal remedies against allegedly unlawful urban transformation decisions.

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