

Can a foreign property owner in Turkey be required to pay for elevator, roof or façade repairs? Learn how common building expenses are shared, when owners can object and what happens if payment is refused.
Foreigners who own apartments, offices or other independent units in Turkey may receive unexpectedly high payment requests from the apartment or site management for elevator replacement, roof repairs, façade renovation, insulation, structural works or other common-area expenses. A foreign owner may believe that the repair does not benefit their particular apartment or that the amount demanded is excessive. However, liability for common expenses in Turkey generally depends on the legal status of the relevant part of the building, the nature of the expense, the management plan, the ownership shares and the decision authorizing the work. Therefore, an owner should not automatically refuse payment merely because they do not personally use the repaired area.
In principle, ownership of an independent unit in Turkey carries rights and obligations relating to the common property. Foreign ownership does not create a general exemption from apartment or site expenses.
A foreign owner can therefore be required to contribute to legally chargeable common expenses in the same manner applicable to other owners.
Elevators serving an apartment building are generally treated as part of the building’s common facilities. Maintenance, repair, inspection and necessary replacement costs can therefore become common expenses.
The exact allocation of the expense should nevertheless be examined under the Condominium Ownership Law, title structure and applicable management plan.
A common argument is: “I live on the ground floor and never use the elevator, so I should not pay.”
Non-use alone does not necessarily eliminate liability for a common facility. Whether the owner must contribute should be determined according to the legal rules governing common expenses and any valid provisions affecting cost allocation.
Commercial units can create more complicated disputes. The physical layout of the building, condominium documentation, management plan, nature of the common facility and applicable cost-sharing provisions should all be reviewed.
A shop owner should therefore not accept or reject the charge solely because the management describes it as an elevator expense.
The roof is generally a common structural part of an apartment building rather than the private property of the top-floor apartment owner.
Accordingly, necessary roof repair expenses may normally concern all owners according to the legally applicable allocation method.
Not simply because the top-floor apartment experiences the water leak first.
Where the source is a common roof, responsibility for necessary common-area repairs should be distinguished from damage caused by an individual owner’s private acts.
The owner should document both the source of the leak and the resulting damage.
Photographs, videos, management correspondence, expert reports, repair invoices and evidence concerning when the management was notified may become important if compensation is later sought.
The external façade generally forms part of the building’s common structure. Necessary repairs, safety work, exterior renovation and certain insulation projects can therefore result in common expenses.
However, the legal basis and scope of the particular project should be examined.
This distinction can become important.
Repairing a dangerous façade, leaking roof or defective elevator is different from approving an expensive aesthetic project that is not necessary for preservation, safety or ordinary use of the building.
The decision-making requirements and financial consequences may differ depending on the nature of the work.
The answer depends on the type and urgency of the work and the authority granted to the manager.
Routine or urgent preservation measures should be distinguished from major projects requiring a valid decision of the owners.
For expensive renovation projects, the owner should request the decision on which the payment demand is based.
A foreign owner receiving a substantial repair invoice should request a copy of the relevant owners’ board decision or other document authorizing the expense.
Check the date, attendance, voting result, scope of work and amount approved.
The management plan can contain important provisions concerning administration of the building and allocation of particular expenses.
Foreign buyers should obtain and review this document rather than relying only on explanations given by the property agent or building manager.
Not every common expense is necessarily divided using exactly the same formula.
Depending on the type of expense and applicable rules, allocation may involve equal contribution for certain categories and land-share proportions for others. The management plan may also need to be examined.
The calculation should therefore be checked rather than assuming that every owner must pay an identical amount.
Each independent unit normally has a land share connected with the condominium title.
This share can be important for various condominium-law issues, including allocation of certain common expenses.
A large apartment may therefore have a different financial burden from a smaller unit depending on the applicable expense category and ownership structure.
An apartment manager cannot simply invent a new payment formula because it appears convenient.
Any allocation should have a proper legal or contractual basis. If the calculation conflicts with mandatory law or the applicable management arrangements, the owner may have grounds to object.
For a substantial repair project, the owner should seek documentation showing what work is being performed and how the demanded amount was calculated.
Relevant documents can include contractor quotations, agreements, invoices, payment records, technical reports and owners’ decisions.
An unusually high price does not automatically make the payment request invalid. However, it may justify closer examination of the procurement process, approved budget and actual work.
For major projects, competing quotations and technical expert assessment may help determine whether the amount is commercially reasonable.
Potentially. Decisions of condominium owners can be subject to judicial challenge where the legal conditions are satisfied.
The correct strategy depends on the nature of the decision, the owner’s participation in the meeting, voting position, notification circumstances and applicable procedural periods.
Owners should therefore act promptly after learning of a disputed decision.
Failure to receive proper information about a meeting can become relevant, particularly where an important financial decision was adopted.
The meeting notice, delivery method, address records and other procedural requirements should be examined.
No general exemption arises merely because the owner lives outside Turkey for most of the year.
A vacant apartment can still generate common ownership expenses.
Generally, simple non-use does not automatically eliminate common-expense obligations arising from ownership.
This is one reason foreign investors who purchase holiday homes or investment apartments should budget for building and site expenses even when the property remains empty.
The distinction between owner and tenant becomes important.
Some ordinary operating expenses may practically or contractually be paid by the tenant, while major structural or ownership-related expenses may remain the owner’s responsibility. The lease should be examined together with the legal nature of the charge.
The underlying legal responsibility and the private agreement between landlord and tenant should be distinguished.
A landlord should not assume that every building charge can automatically be transferred to the tenant merely because the lease says the tenant pays “dues.”
Where a property is rented, the agreement should distinguish ordinary monthly building expenses from extraordinary renovation and capital expenses.
Clear drafting can prevent later disputes between foreign landlords and tenants.
If a legally valid common expense remains unpaid, the management or other authorized parties may pursue collection procedures.
This can result in enforcement proceedings and additional financial consequences.
Ignoring notices because the owner lives abroad can therefore make a relatively manageable dispute significantly more expensive.
Late payment can generate additional financial liability under the applicable condominium-law framework.
A foreign owner who disputes the debt should therefore consider formally challenging the legal basis rather than simply refusing payment without taking action.
Yes, where the legal requirements are satisfied. Foreign nationality does not prevent enforcement proceedings concerning property and debts in Turkey.
The owner should react promptly to any payment order or official notification.
Serious and prolonged unpaid obligations can result in enforcement measures against assets.
Foreign owners should not treat apartment-management demands as informal correspondence that can safely be ignored indefinitely.
Preserve bank transfers, receipts and payment descriptions.
The owner should compare the payment with the specific period and repair assessment claimed by management and object with documentary evidence.
Nationality by itself is not a lawful basis for imposing a different share of common expenses.
If a foreign owner appears to have been charged differently from comparable owners, request the complete expense allocation and identify the legal basis for the difference.
This requires careful analysis.
The legal classification of the relevant area, whether it is a common part and any special provisions governing its use can affect the result. Physical benefit alone does not always determine legal liability.
If damage to a common area results from the fault or conduct of a particular owner or person for whom that owner is responsible, separate liability questions can arise.
Other owners should not automatically bear a loss legally attributable to an identifiable responsible party.
If roof, façade or elevator problems result from defective original construction, claims against the developer, contractor or other responsible parties may need to be investigated.
Paying for an urgent repair does not necessarily mean that possible recovery claims against responsible third parties should be abandoned.
Foreign purchasers sometimes receive large repair demands shortly after buying an apartment in a newly completed project.
In such circumstances, determine whether the problem is ordinary maintenance or evidence of a construction defect that should be pursued against the developer or contractor.
For significant roof leakage, façade deterioration, structural problems or expensive elevator replacement, technical expert evidence can be valuable.
The report can help distinguish ordinary maintenance from defective construction, misuse or unnecessary replacement.
Foreign owners should keep copies of notices, meeting decisions, invoices, WhatsApp communications, emails, photographs and bank records.
These documents can become important if the dispute reaches enforcement proceedings or court.
A real estate agent may assist practically but should not be treated as the final source for determining condominium-law liability.
For substantial assessments, review the title records, management plan, owners’ decisions and supporting financial documents.
Foreign purchasers should investigate outstanding common expenses before completing a property acquisition.
A building undergoing major façade, roof or elevator works may have substantial approved or anticipated assessments.
Before buying an apartment in Turkey, foreign investors should ask about monthly dues, extraordinary assessments, pending renovations, litigation, elevator replacement, structural repairs and major planned projects.
Minutes from recent owners’ meetings can reveal expenses that are not obvious during a physical viewing.
A foreign owner receiving a substantial elevator, roof or façade repair demand should first obtain the written payment request, identify the nature of the work, review the management plan, obtain the owners’ meeting decision, verify the applicable cost-sharing method, request invoices or contractor documentation, determine whether the work is necessary repair or improvement, check whether a developer or responsible third party may be liable and protect any deadline for challenging the decision or enforcement proceedings.
Potentially yes. Foreign nationality does not create a general exemption from legally chargeable common expenses.
Non-use of the elevator alone does not necessarily remove liability. The applicable condominium rules and management arrangements should be examined.
Where the roof is a common part, repair costs can generally constitute common building expenses rather than an obligation belonging solely to the top-floor owner.
The external façade is generally treated as part of the common structure, although the particular project and expense should still be analyzed.
No. The demand should have an appropriate legal and administrative basis, and the owner can request documents explaining the project and allocation.
Potentially, where the legal requirements for challenging the decision are satisfied. Timing can be important.
Potentially yes. Absence from Turkey or non-use of the apartment does not automatically eliminate ownership-related common expenses.
This depends on the nature of the expense, applicable law and lease arrangements. Ordinary operating expenses should be distinguished from major structural or ownership-related costs.
Collection and enforcement proceedings may be initiated where the debt is legally valid, and additional financial consequences can arise.
Request the management plan, owners’ decision, expense calculation and supporting repair documentation. Determine whether the work concerns a genuine common-area obligation and whether the amount has been allocated according to the legally applicable method.
Disputes concerning elevator replacement, roof leakage, façade renovation, common expenses, extraordinary assessments, management decisions and enforcement proceedings can become particularly difficult for foreign owners who do not live permanently in Turkey. Fırat Fesih Kaya Law Office assists foreign property owners and investors in reviewing condominium management decisions, challenging disputed common expenses, responding to enforcement proceedings and pursuing claims arising from construction defects or improper building management. Lawyer Fırat Fesih Kaya provides legal assistance to foreign owners seeking to protect their property and financial interests in Turkey.
Phone: +90 312 434 22 22
Mobile: +90 532 769 22 22
Email: info@firatfesihkaya.av.tr
Address: Mevlana Boulevard No:221, Yıldırım Tower, Office No:148, 06520 Balgat, Çankaya, Ankara, Turkey