Building on Another Person's Land and Encroaching Structures: Requirements for a Transfer Registration Action

Building on someone else's land does not, by itself, transfer ownership of the land to the builder. As a rule, a permanent structure is an integral part of the land on which it stands. The Turkish Civil Code (TMK) allows the owner of a structure or of materials, under certain conditions, to demand that the land or the necessary part of it be acquired against payment; in the case of encroaching structures, it allows a demand for transfer of ownership or the establishment of an easement. These exceptions do not apply merely because the building is expensive. 1

The first distinction is this: was the building erected entirely on another person's land, or has part of the owner's own structure extended onto a neighboring parcel? In the first case, TMK Articles 722–724 are examined first; in the second, Article 725. Good faith, the balance of values, a fair price and technical feasibility must be assessed on the basis of this distinction.

Why are TMK Article 724 and Article 725 addressed separately?

A building on another person's land

TMK Article 724 governs the situation in which the value of the structure clearly exceeds the value of the land. In that case, the party acting in good faith may demand that ownership of the structure and of the whole land, or of a sufficient part of it, be transferred to the owner of the materials, against a fair price. This provision does not make investing in someone else's property, by itself, a means of acquiring ownership. Good faith and the other conditions must be examined. 1

TMK Articles 722–723 also regulate the removal of materials and appropriate compensation. Where the conditions for registration are not met, which financial claim may be raised depends on the good or bad faith of the parties and on the concrete case. A general conclusion such as "if registration is not granted, all construction costs are repaid in full" cannot be drawn. The explanations in the article on termination of an arsa payı karşılığı inşaat sözleşmesi (construction contract in return for a land share) and return of title may be used for comparison.

A structure extending onto a neighboring parcel

TMK Article 725 ties a demand for an easement or a transfer of ownership over the encroaching part to specific conditions. A structure may extend beyond the ground level; a balcony or an upper section that is an inseparable part of the building may also project into the neighboring property's area of use. It is not enough to look only at whether the foundation sits on the ground surface of the land. 12

The table shows the first legal distinction. In cases involving joint ownership, public property or special allocation, other restrictions may also arise. In particular, the possibility of acquiring private ownership of pasture, coastal or state forest land cannot be argued solely on the basis of the value of the structure. For more detail, the article on objection to a demolition order and annulment action may also be read.

How is good faith assessed?

Showing the care required is as important as not knowing

Under TMK Article 3, good faith is linked to the non-awareness of the violation of right while the care required by the circumstances has been exercised. The statement "I did not know the boundary" is not sufficient on its own. Title deeds and application records, site handover, the project, measurements, earlier warnings and objections raised during construction are assessed together. 12

It matters what steps were taken to determine the boundary before construction began. Continuing construction despite the neighbor's clear warning is not the same as relying on an authorized technical measurement and later discovering a coordinate discrepancy. Obtaining a building permit also does not, by itself, make the encroachment onto the neighboring land lawful.

Good faith must exist during the construction process. The position of a person who later acquires the property is examined separately; it should not be assumed that a new buyer is equally liable for all earlier acts, or that earlier bad faith has no significance. The nature of the claim and its consequences attached to the property are assessed separately.

Is a technical error always evidence of good faith?

Not every claim of a technical error is accepted automatically. It must be explained who carried out the measurement, on what date and with what data. The conversion between old and new coordinate systems, the application sketch and the actual structure are reviewed together. It matters whether the technical document actually shows the place in dispute.

This review requires lawyers and engineers to work together. The survey expert determines the boundary and the encroachment; the construction expert examines the integrity of the structure, the effect of demolition and the cost. The legal assessment of good faith, however, is the court's task. An expert's general statement that someone "acted in good faith" does not replace a reasoned legal evaluation.

What does the fifteen-day objection period mean for an encroaching structure?

Under TMK Article 725, the owner who has suffered the harm is considered, together with the other conditions, not to have objected if they did not object within fifteen days from the date they learned of the encroachment. This period does not mean that "the person who built the encroaching structure must file a registration action within fifteen days." Likewise, if the neighbor remains silent for fifteen days, the land does not pass to the building owner automatically. 1

When and how the owner learned of the construction may be a matter of proof. The fact that the construction was visible and that the encroachment was known does not necessarily lead to the same conclusion in every case. A boundary violation determined technically only later may require a different assessment. It matters that the objection was made in a provable manner, because it will be significant at a later stage of the dispute.

The period does not replace good faith or the other conditions. Even if it is claimed that the owner did not object within the period, the building owner's failure to take the required care, or the absence of the technical and economic conditions, may affect the claim. The article on limitation periods and time limits for bringing an action may also be consulted in connection with this issue.

How are the value of the structure and of the land compared?

Under TMK Article 724, the requirement that the value of the structure clearly exceed the value of the land is an explicit statutory condition. Under Article 725, the statutory criterion concerning circumstances and conditions is, in Court of Cassation practice, applied by evaluating the value of the structure and the land together with the cost of demolition and the loss of value of the remaining property. Calculating only the bare land value of a few square meters of encroachment may be incomplete. 123

Does removing the encroachment affect the structural integrity of the entire building? To what extent does the neighboring parcel's building right or economic use decrease? Is establishing an easement sufficient, or is a transfer of ownership truly necessary? These questions must be answered technically and with reasons. The fact that the building is expensive does not make the loss of the owner of the land insignificant.

The date on which the fair price is determined must be clearly stated. The 2025 decision below required the calculation of the easement price closest to the decision date, in the concrete case. This solution should not be generalized to mean that all valuations in all transfer registration actions must be made as of the same date without exception. A separate assessment of this subject is included in the article on objection to an expert report.

The 2025 decision: coordinate difference, structural risk and easement

In its decision dated 21 October 2025, E.2024/4867, K.2025/4484, the 7th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 7. Hukuk Dairesi) examined the relationship between the encroachment in the structure and the position under the former local coordinates and the country coordinates used later. The majority considered that, under the conditions in the file, it could not be said that the building owner had breached the duty of care. It stated that the effect of the demolition on the structural integrity of the building and the state of development of the neighboring property should be taken into account, and that the easement price should be investigated; the judgment was quashed. 2

The dissenting opinion argued that the objective value condition was not met. Accordingly, the decision should not be reported as stating that "if there is a structural risk, registration or an easement must always be granted." Specific technical findings, good faith and economic balance were assessed together. An easement is not the same outcome as the transfer of ownership of the entire land.

The contribution of the decision to practice is that the solution is not confined to the options of demolition or full transfer of ownership alone. However, in order to discuss these options, the legal conditions and the legal framework of the claim must first be set out.

The 2024 decision: lack of good faith and review after remittal

In its decision dated 28 February 2024, E.2023/5875, K.2024/1179, the 7th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 7. Hukuk Dairesi) examined a transfer registration claim joined with claims to prevent interference and for demolition. The assessment made in the file, in line with an earlier remittal, shows the importance of the required care and good faith, as well as the technical conditions of registration. The chamber affirmed the judgment, which complied with the remittal. 3

This decision demonstrates that the existence of the building alone is not sufficient for registration. Because the earlier remittal in the concrete file had a binding effect, the outcome of the decision should not be carried directly over to every case with different evidence. In practice, the title deed, application, warnings and construction dates must be read together.

Subdivision, easement and implementation of the judgment in the land registry

It must be examined whether the part for which ownership is sought can be separated in accordance with zoning and subdivision rules. Not every piece that can be drawn on a sketch is legally suitable for an independent registration. The opinion of the relevant administration and, where necessary, the decision of the competent body must be assessed in the file. 234

In the easement solution, the nature of the right, its scope, its surface area and the property for whose benefit it is established must be clear. There must be no contradiction between the sketch annexed to the decision and the operative part. The registration or easement must not be assumed to arise automatically where the price deposit condition has not been fulfilled. The enforceability of the judgment is not a simple drafting matter to be considered at the end of the case; it is part of the technical review. For a separate guide, the article on steps after a judgment for annulment and registration of title becomes final is also useful.

Jurisdiction, mediation and preparation for litigation

In claims concerning ownership and the rights in rem of a property, the court in whose area the property is located is, as a rule, the competent civil court of first instance. The current registered owner and the status of co-ownership must be determined. The period and the defendant for each of the claims — prevention of interference, demolition, compensation for unjust occupation and transfer registration — may differ. 5

Under Law No. 6325 on Mediation in Civil Disputes, Article 18/B, mediation before litigation is provided for disputes arising from neighbor rights. In an encroaching-structure case, it must be examined concretely how the claim is characterized: as a neighbor-right claim, as a removal of interference based on ownership, or on some other legal ground. It cannot be said that mediation will never be required merely because the petition is titled "annulment of title." The transitional and entry-into-force provisions of the Law must also be checked against the date of the action. 6

The principal documents of the file are the title deed and cadastral map, the application records, the licence and project, photographs of the structure, warnings, evidence of the neighbor's knowledge and objection, and survey and structural reports. Nor should it be assumed automatically that use of another person's land leads to acquisition of ownership by adverse possession; for this separate subject, the article on registration by possession and acquisitive prescription may be examined. For the subject matter of the details, the article on cancellation of a building permit may be consulted.

Conclusion

Transfer registration is not a general remedy that protects every structure built on another person's land. First the distinction between Article 724 and Article 725 must be made; good faith, balance of value, objection, fair price and the technical conditions of registration must each be proven separately. The options of demolition, compensation, easement and transfer of ownership must be assessed according to the conditions of the concrete case.

Frequently Asked Questions

If I build a house on someone else's land, does the land become mine?

No. Registration may be requested only if the relevant statutory conditions are met. Carrying out construction alone does not confer ownership.

Does a licensed building conclusively prove that I acted in good faith?

It does not prove this on its own. Boundary measurement, title deed, project, warnings and the care shown are examined together. A permit does not grant the right to encroach onto a neighboring property.

Is the fifteen-day period the time limit for filing a registration action?

No. The period in TMK Article 725 relates to the objection of the owner who suffered the harm after learning of the encroachment. It does not replace the other conditions.

Can a balcony or projection also be considered an encroaching structure?

If an inseparable part of the building extends into the area of the neighboring property, the assessment under Article 725 may be carried out. The encroachment does not have to be only at ground level.

If the building is more expensive than the land, is the case certain to be won?

No. The type of claim, the loss of the other owner, the fair price and the technical conditions are also examined, together with good faith. A difference in value alone is not sufficient.

Can an easement be established instead of ownership?

In an encroaching-structure case, an easement option exists under the statutory conditions. The scope and price of the right must be clearly determined; it does not apply automatically in every case.

Must mediation be attempted before an encroaching-structure action?

The legal nature of the claim must be checked. Disputes arising from neighbor rights fall within Article 18/B; the joined claims and the date of the action are assessed separately.

Sources and legal bases

1. Turkish Civil Code No. 4721 (Türk Medeni Kanunu), Articles 3, 684, 718 and 722–725. Source link
2. Court of Cassation, 7th Civil Chamber (Yargıtay 7. Hukuk Dairesi), 21.10.2025, E.2024/4867, K.2025/4484, full text including the dissenting opinion. Secondary publication; the points on which the majority and the dissent diverge are examined together. Source link
3. Court of Cassation, 7th Civil Chamber (Yargıtay 7. Hukuk Dairesi), 28.02.2024, E.2023/5875, K.2024/1179, official full text. Source link
4. Zoning Law No. 3194 (İmar Kanunu), provisions on subdivision and parcelling. Source link
5. Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 (Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu), provisions on jurisdiction, venue and parties. Source link
6. Law No. 6325 on Mediation in Civil Disputes (Hukuk Uyuşmazlıklarında Arabuluculuk Kanunu), Article 18/B and provisional Article 3. Source link