Property and
Neighbor Disputes

TMK Article 683 gives the owner the possibility to demand that unlawful interference be ended and to recover the property from anyone who holds it without right. The type and area of the interference with a plot of land, residence, business premises or agricultural land are determined concretely. If there is a valid right of use arising from a lease, easement, permission or statute, the assessment changes accordingly.

• Unauthorized road, parking, storage or agricultural use, or leaving materials or excavation spoil.
• Closing off an entrance; obstructing use with a fence, wall, add-on, pipe or cable.
• Where the conditions are met, framing delivery, removal, restoration to the original condition and compensation for unjust occupation as separate claims.

Preventing ongoing interference and recovering the compensation for past use are not the same outcome. The party, proof, value and court fee requirements of each claim are addressed separately.

Using a property is not unlawful occupation in every case. Tenancy, usufruct, habitation, superficies or right of way; allocation, a usage agreement and the scope of the permission given are examined. Withdrawal of permission, termination of the contract and a change of right holder may affect the legal nature of the use.

In acting as attorney for the respondent, the basis of the right, the actual area and period of use, the status of the party, good faith, errors in the report and the proportionality of the remedy sought are assessed. An action to end interference cannot be used as a shortcut around the conditions of eviction to end a valid lease. The protection routes of the holder of a limited real right and of the tenant are also determined according to their own legal bases.

Interference by a third party in a property is different from one co-owner excluding another from use. In co-ownership in shares, the share ratio does not by itself indicate sole ownership of a specific physical part; in joint ownership, the conditions of representation and disposition are examined separately.

• Usage agreement, actual division, share ratios and the part used without dispute.
• Exclusion of the other co-owners; sharing of common produce or rental income.
• Separate review of claims to end interference, for compensation for unjust occupation and for demolition with respect to the proper composition of the parties.

If the aim is to end the co-ownership entirely, an action for dissolution of co-ownership is assessed separately. The existence of common ownership does not mean that every claim can be brought by the same persons and in the same procedure.

Use that crosses a boundary and an erroneous land registry or cadastral record are not the same problem. Current and past records, the basis of the registration, the cadastral sheet, the zoning implementation and the actual situation are compared. The need for a correction, for an action for cancellation and re-registration of title (tapu iptal ve tescil) or for annulment of an administrative act is determined accordingly.

Acquiring a property without a title deed by possession, or registration by acquisitive prescription, is subject to conditions separate from preventing an attack on possession. The nature of the property, its status as public property, forest or coast, the cadastral history and the special periods are investigated. Using a property for a long time does not automatically confer ownership of every property. Title annulment and registration services are a related area of work on this distinction.

Compensation for unjust occupation is the compensation that a right holder claims for use that does not rest on a valid right; it is not of the same legal nature as rent. Under TMK Article 995, bad faith, loss, and the fruits obtained or neglected to be obtained are taken into account.

• The area used, the start and end dates, and the type of use such as residence, business premises, tourism or agriculture.
• Rent comparables appropriate to the relevant period, and produce, yield and economic use data.
• Zoning, structural and physical condition; permission, formal notice (ihtar), contract and the relationship of the parties.

The average of current listings does not by itself show the compensation for use in past years. Why the comparables are appropriate, and the adjustments for period and area, must be verifiable in the report. The claim of good faith and the right of use are also argued separately.

In compensation for unjust occupation between co-owners, as a rule the condition of exclusion from use (intifadan men) is examined, under which the other co-owner’s wish to benefit from the property or its income has been communicated. The content of the notice, its addressee, the date it reached the addressee and its proof matter; it cannot be said that a formal notice through a notary is necessarily required in every file.

Situations that can constitute exceptions, such as properties that yield natural or legal fruits, denial of the co-ownership, a usage agreement and earlier actions or applications, are assessed according to the specific case and current case law. Being an heir, or the other side using the property alone, does not by itself give rise to the same claim for all past periods. Representation and party requirements in a protection action and in a claim for compensation for unjust occupation are determined separately.

In established judicial practice, a five-year statute of limitations is applied to compensation for unjust occupation; the period claimed counted back from the date of the action, the plea of limitation and the grounds of suspension and interruption are assessed together. This is not a preclusive period that starts running from the same date in every case.

The claim period, area and amount must be set out clearly; the start date of interest, determination of the amount by an expert and the procedure for increasing the claim should be planned according to the file. Sending a formal notice does not, as a general rule, interrupt the statute of limitations by itself. A formal notice that has the effect of excluding the other co-owner from use or of putting the other side in default and a legal act that interrupts the statute of limitations must not be confused with one another.

The assessment notice or notification of compensation for unjust occupation that a public administration issues because of the use of a property is not the same as a compensation action between private persons. The administration that issued the act, the legal status of the property, the date of service, and the objection and litigation route are separated first.

The period of occupation, area of use, calculation of the prevailing value, payment and reduction, collection and eviction proceedings are examined under the relevant legislation. The effect of an objection to the administrative act or of payment on the time to bring an action is also checked separately; the periods in a private-law action do not apply directly. Keeping the service document and all pages of the notification is important for the first review.

Possession is actual control over a thing. In protection under TMK Articles 982–983, the prior actual situation and the unlawful interference matter; the final question of ownership is not always the subject of this action. Dispossession occurs as the taking of control, while disturbance occurs as interference with use while control continues.

• Showing prior possession with delivery, use, utility subscription, agricultural and lease documents.
• Establishing the event and the perpetrator, with a determinable date, through images, records and witnesses.
• Separating restoration, ending the disturbance, preventing its recurrence and the related claims for damages.

Even a registered owner’s changing possession by force is not considered lawful in every case. The route of recourse must be determined instead of actual interference.

Under TMK Article 984, the right to bring an action arising from dispossession and disturbance lapses two months after the possessor learns of the act and the perpetrator and in any event one year after the act. The date of learning and the date of the event may not be the same; both should be documented.

This period cannot be used as the general period for an action to end interference based on ownership or for compensation for unjust occupation. It should not be assumed that the short period does not run merely because the interference continues. The effect of acts such as a prior application, a recurring act and mediation is examined separately according to the route chosen.

In interference with possession of an immovable, administrative protection under Law No. 3091 may be possible. The competent authority is the governor or a deputy governor designated by the governor for the central district, and the district governor (kaymakam) for other districts. Possession, the interference and the scope of the application are examined through an on-site inquiry.

The general application period is sixty days from learning of the interference and one year from the interference. The law provides an exception to the period for places under the authority and disposal of the state and for immovables whose benefit belongs to the public. An administrative decision does not finally resolve who owns the title; it does not replace a decision on compensation or registration.

If the dispute over the immovable is pending before a court at the time of an application under Law No. 3091, or if a related interim injunction exists, this affects the application of the law. Earlier decisions concerning the same immovable, parties and interference are investigated before the application; administrative and judicial routes are not pursued unaware of one another.

Judicial review of the administrative decision and a judicial action based on a claim of a better right are separate processes. The repetition of the interference after the decision is enforced may also have special consequences. The earlier decision, the service and the enforcement record therefore matter in a new application; contradictory statements about the same event must not be given to different authorities on the basis of incomplete information.

A wall, fence, row of trees or a line used for years may not coincide with the legal parcel boundary. An internet map and a real estate listing do not replace an official boundary staking. Under TMK Article 719, the title deed plan and the boundary marks on the ground are assessed together with the technical data.

• The current survey plan (çap), cadastral sheet, coordinates and boundary staking sketch.
• Earlier division and merger of parcels, parcelation, dedication to the road and neighboring parcel records.
• Permit, site plan, old aerial photographs and measurement of the actual use.

A surveyor and cadastral expert explains the area of interference, the boundary line and the method of measurement. The result should be shown with a sketch and coordinates that can serve as a basis for the judgment. Cases in which the record must be corrected are distinguished from encroachment through use.

A structure located entirely on another’s land is different from one that partly crosses onto a neighboring parcel. TMK Articles 722–724 apply according to conditions such as to whom the materials and the land belong, consent, good faith, whether removal would cause excessive damage, and the ratio of the structure’s value to the land.

Removal, restoration to the original condition, an appropriate price or, where the conditions are met, the options of transfer of ownership are assessed separately. Having built the structure does not automatically confer ownership of the land. Permit, construction and payment records, correspondence between the parties and the information and objections at the time construction began matter.

In an encroaching structure under TMK Article 725, it is first examined whether there is an easement over the part that crosses the boundary. If there is no such right, the following carry weight together in a claim for an easement or for transfer of ownership against an appropriate price: the injured party’s failure to object within fifteen days of learning of the encroachment, the good faith of the person who built the structure and the necessity of the situation.

The passing of fifteen days does not mean in every case that a demolition claim has ended or that the land is automatically transferred. The measurement, the date of learning, good faith and the other conditions are made concrete. If construction is continuing, it is important to plan the objection and the preservation of evidence without delay.

For walls, fences, railings, ditches and similar boundary installations separating two properties, the presumption of common ownership under TMK Article 721, contrary evidence and special regulations are examined together. Whether the installation is actually on the boundary must be determined by technical measurement.

The location of the wall, maintenance and renewal costs, height, retaining function, use and the danger it creates may give rise to different claims. The contract, title deed, approved project and local rules are investigated. Unilaterally changing a boundary mark or a shared installation may create a new dispute and a problem of proof.

Under TMK Article 747, an owner who does not have a sufficient passage to the public road may demand a right of way from neighbors against full compensation. The claim is directed first at the most suitable neighbor according to the earlier ownership and road situation, and then at the property that will suffer the least harm. The interests of the parties are weighed together.

• Road and existing easement records, earlier use and a zoning road that has not yet been opened.
• The purpose of use of the property, vehicle and pedestrian needs, slope and alternative routes.
• Width of the passage, compensation, integrity of the other properties and protection restrictions.

The shortest route is not always the most suitable route in legal terms. The decision must be capable of implementation in the land registry and on the ground.

The opening of a new road, the end of the need or a change in conditions may require the existing right of way to be reassessed. Registration, the purpose of its creation, the benefit of the right holder and the effect on the burdened property are examined together; a new road merely appearing on a plan may not show that sufficient access has actually been provided.

Changing the location of an easement and ending it entirely are subject to separate conditions. The relevant provisions, including TMK Articles 785 and 791, are assessed with the balance of benefit and cost. Closing off the existing passage before a court or settlement process is completed may give rise to claims for protection and compensation.

When a water, electricity, natural gas, sewage, drainage or communication line is run across another property, technical necessity, the suitability of alternatives and the harm to the neighbor are examined. The conditions of TMK Article 744 et seq. are distinguished from special public-law regulations.

• Route, depth of the line, safety distance and maintenance access.
• Compensation of the loss, operation of the installation and conditions for relocation.
• Permits of the relevant administration or infrastructure organization and, if required, registration.

A private-law easement is not the same as a public body’s authority of expropriation or to lay lines. Where the line actually runs must be measured as well as what the land registry shows.

Rain, drainage, spring and groundwater are not subject to a single regime. The natural flow between lands, the artificial redirection of water, rights over a spring and irrigation needs are handled, in addition to the provisions of the TMK, with the conditions of permits and special laws.

Accepting natural water that comes from higher land is not the same as directing wastewater or a concentrated flow onto a neighbor. Elevations, the drainage project, the seasonal situation and the source of the damage are investigated technically. Being close to a spring or well does not give an unlimited authority to draw water; the records and permits of the relevant institutions are also examined separately.

Under TMK Article 737, the criterion is not the existence of every nuisance but the exceeding of the ordinary limit of tolerance according to the condition and nature of the property and local conditions. The intensity, duration, repetition and source of the effect are made concrete.

• Sound or vibration from businesses, machinery, generators, air conditioners and ventilation.
• Smoke, dust, soot, steam, odor, waste and other harmful effects.
• Excessive light or reflection, intensity of use, and interference caused by animals or pests.

A log of events, measurements, records and lawfully obtained images are assessed. The solution may be insulation, relocation, a working schedule, remedy or cessation. It is not necessary to shut down the activity entirely in every case.

The existence of a building or business permit does not by itself remove the private-law claims arising from neighbor law. A violation of the permit likewise does not by itself require every claim for compensation or demolition to be accepted. The administrative permit and the effect on the neighbor are examined separately.

A change in view, light or air flow does not constitute an absolute prohibition in every case. The location of the properties, the purpose of use, zoning conditions and the severity of the effect are decisive. Under TMK Article 730, the remedy regimes for excessive use and for unavoidable effects consistent with local custom are also distinguished.

TMK Article 740 regulates the application to the neighbor and the conditions of remedy within an appropriate time for branches and roots that cross the boundary and cause harm. Overhanging branches do not all give rise to the same degree of harm or the same right to cut; proportionality, the health of the tree, protection status and local regulations are assessed.

Damage to structures or installations, shading, the danger of falling and agricultural effects are determined by expert review when necessary. Cutting the whole tree and removing the part that crosses the boundary are not the same act. Determining the legal conditions and safe practice first reduces the risk of later damage and liability.

In a dispute concerning an independent unit, roof, common installation, balcony, terrace or car park, the field of application of the Condominium Ownership Law and the general rules of neighbor law is separated. The management plan, approved project, board decisions and the common or private nature of the installation matter.

In water leakage, the source may be a unit, a common line, insulation or a structural defect. Directing a claim only at the person living on the floor above is not sufficient to identify the right party. The position of the management, the owner, the user and others who may be responsible is investigated. The check of jurisdiction and mediation is made according to the true basis of the claim; detailed work is handled within the scope of condominium ownership disputes.