If excavation or construction on the neighboring parcel causes cracks, settlement, water leakage, or loss of use in your building, safety must be secured first and the evidence of the damage must be preserved. From a civil court, preservation of evidence can be requested; if the conditions are met, an interim injunction, removal of the danger, and compensation can also be sought. Having a construction permit does not give anyone the authority to harm a neighbor. While mandatory mediation is considered in private-law cases arising from neighbor rights, urgent protection requests should also be addressed without delay.
What should be done first in case of neighbor construction damage?
Seeing a new crack and whether the building’s load-bearing system is safe are not the same question. The seriousness of the damage requires an engineering assessment. If collapse, sudden settlement, or damage to a load-bearing element is suspected, emergency services and the relevant authority should be notified, and leaving the dangerous area takes priority. One should not stay in a risky building in order to prepare a case file.
If it can be done safely, dated images of the damage, the time it was first noticed, the type of work at the neighboring construction site, and earlier images of the building are kept. Plastering over the crack or backfilling the excavation afterward may make it harder to investigate the cause. Necessary safety repairs should not be delayed, and the earlier condition should be recorded as properly as possible.
Does a municipality record replace a court’s preservation of evidence?
The municipality can carry out inspections with respect to construction supervision and safety. The record may be valuable evidence; however, not every municipal inspection covers the cause of the damage, all repair items, and loss of income. Preservation of evidence requested from a civil court is planned separately according to the needs of the private-law case that will be filed later.
A private engineer’s report is also useful. However, a private report does not have the same procedural standing as an examination by an expert appointed by the court. The preparer of the report, the method used, the supporting photographs, the measurement dates, and the assumptions must be clear. One should not conclude, relying on a photograph alone, that the excavation is the cause of all the damage.
Does liability for damage to a neighbor arise even if there is a construction permit?
Article 730 of the Turkish Civil Code (Türk Medenî Kanunu) protects a person who suffers damage, or faces the risk of damage, because ownership has been exercised contrary to its legal limits. Article 737 regulates effects between neighbors that exceed the tolerable degree; Article 738 regulates damage to neighboring land or installations caused by excavation and construction work. A permit does not remove these private-law obligations.
Ordinary construction nuisance versus physical damage
Temporary noise or dust and physical damage resulting from failure to support a neighboring foundation are not subject to the same assessment. Place, duration, intensity, and the precautions taken are important. Endangering the safety of a neighboring structure through excavation cannot be explained merely by saying “it is the ordinary result of construction.”
For damage arising from excesses that are consistent with local custom and unavoidable, the possibility of balancing under Article 730 of the Turkish Civil Code (TMK) is assessed separately. For this, the conditions of unavoidability and appropriate compensation are examined. Not every nuisance gives rise to pecuniary compensation, and not every worry gives rise to non-pecuniary compensation; the legal basis and proof of the claim must be established separately.
Against whom is the case filed: the owner or the contractor?
The owner’s liability under Article 730 of the Turkish Civil Code (TMK) and the contractor’s liability for its own activity may rest on different bases. Discussing strict liability on the owner’s side does not make proof of damage and the causal link unnecessary. The liability of the contractor, subcontractor, construction supervision firm, and other persons is likewise not accepted automatically without examining their roles and obligations.
Which documents are needed to identify the parties?
Title deed information, the permit, the construction site sign, the contractor’s records, any contracts, and the type of work performed are investigated. The trade name on the sign may not be the same as the full legal name of the defendant legal entity. It cannot be assumed that the municipality is liable for all damage from private construction merely because it issued the permit; claims concerning the administration’s service fault may give rise to a separate judicial route.
A tenant can also assert rights for damage to its own use or belongings. However, the structural damage belonging to the building’s owner, the damage to its own business, and claims arising from the contract must be separated. Entitlement and claim items should be explained in a way that prevents the same damage from being collected twice by different persons.
How is preservation of evidence requested?
Under Article 400 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK), advance preservation may be requested for evidence that may be lost, or become considerably harder to present, in the future. The request must clearly show which event is to be proven, why it cannot wait, and the subject of the examination. Preservation of evidence is not the main case that decides on collection of compensation.
Competent court and urgent examination
Before a case is filed, preservation of evidence can be requested from the court that has subject-matter and territorial jurisdiction over the merits, or from the civil court of peace (sulh hukuk mahkemesi) of the place where the thing to be subject to on-site examination and expert examination is located. After the main case is filed, the request for preservation is directed to the court hearing that case. Although urgent circumstances allow preservation without prior notice to the other side, the statutory guarantees of notice and objection apply.
The legal interest of the person requesting preservation should not be left as a mere statement that “I may file a case later.” That the excavation will be filled in, the necessity of repairs, or the progression of the damage can be made concrete. The costs of preservation, the expert’s specialization, and the scope of the on-site examination should also be considered when preparing the application.
What questions should be put to the expert?
An examination that merely counts the cracks is often not sufficient. The ground, foundation, shoring, drainage, and the condition of the existing structure should be investigated together. Depending on the specific case, the following questions are important:
- Where is the damage, how large is it, and in which load-bearing or non-load-bearing element is it?
- Is there a technical connection between the damage and the excavation, vibration, water movement, or loss of support?
- Is all of the damage new; have earlier defects or other events had an effect?
- What urgent measure is needed to reduce the danger?
- What are the method, reasonable duration, and calculable cost of the permanent repair?
The expert report must be read together with its measurements and photographs. An objection to a deficient report should not be limited to saying “the amount is low”; the missing item, the wrong assumption, or the contradiction should be pointed out. The time limits for objecting to the preservation report and for objecting to the expert report in the main case should not be assumed to be the same.
Can an interim injunction be obtained to halt the construction?
Under Article 389 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK), provisional protection can be requested if obtaining the right would become considerably more difficult, or if there is a risk of serious damage due to delay. The claimant’s case must be shown to a probable degree, and why the requested measure is necessary must be explained. Halting the entire construction site indefinitely upon every report of a crack is not an automatic outcome.
Depending on the concrete risk, the court may consider halting a specific excavation, a supporting measure, or other appropriate protection. The request should be framed in proportion to the technical risk. The suspension of execution of the permit in administrative court and the civil court injunction protecting neighbor rights are different institutions and cannot be used in place of one another.
Security and time limits for maintaining the injunction
Under Article 392 of the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK), the security rule and its exceptions are assessed; it cannot be said that an injunction will be granted without security in every file. Under Article 393, the enforcement of the decision must be requested within one week from the pronouncement or service on the party requesting the injunction. If this obligation is not fulfilled, the injunction may lapse by itself even if a case has been filed.
For a pre-suit injunction, under Article 397, the main case must be filed within two weeks from the enforcement request and the required document must be submitted to the enforcing officer. The special provision on mediation as a condition for suit may affect this period. This effect does not mean that all injunction time limits are suspended; in particular, the one-week period for the enforcement request must be protected separately.
Is mediation mandatory in a neighbor case?
Under Article 18/B of Law No. 6325, recourse to a mediator before filing a case has been a condition for suit since September 1, 2023 in disputes arising from neighbor rights. The true legal nature of the claim must be determined. An action for annulment of a construction permit in an administrative court is not within the scope of this private-law mediation.
Mediation does not require ignoring the need for preservation of evidence or an urgent injunction. Under the time-limit provisions in Article 18/A, in the period between the application to the office and the final minutes, the statute of limitations is suspended and the preclusive period does not run; the special rule on the period for filing the main case in a pre-suit injunction is also taken into account. In the timeline, the dates of the application, the final minutes, and the enforcement of the injunction should be shown separately.
If a settlement is reached, the repair method, the performer, the time, the supervision, the payment, and the case of renewed damage should not be left uncertain. An agreement between the parties does not make a structure in breach of zoning legislation licensed or remove the municipality’s public-law authority.
For which damages can compensation be requested?
Repair costs, necessary reinforcement, damage to belongings, necessary temporary accommodation or relocation costs, and provable loss of use or earnings can be claimed depending on the specific case. In calculating the amount, reasonable expense, causation, and the duty to mitigate the damage are important. The same loss should not be calculated twice under different headings.
How is loss of earnings proven?
It is not sufficient to calculate the damage by adding up the turnover for each day the business remained closed. Actual operating records, expenses, net earnings, the reasonable repair period, and the connection between the closure and the damage are examined. That the business actually returned late does not show that the whole delay can be attributed to the defendant.
The owner’s strict liability does not mean that the conduct of the injured party will have no effect at all. Earlier structural defects, failure to take necessary precautions, or conduct that increased the damage may be subject to technical and legal assessment. On the other hand, the mere age of the building does not justify placing all the damage automatically on the injured party.
Court of Cassation decision: Why is the reasonable repair period important?
In the decision of the 4th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 4. Hukuk Dairesi) dated October 13, 2020, E.2019/835, K.2020/3372, restoration cost and loss of earnings were discussed for a business damaged by a neighboring excavation. The chamber treated the failure to adequately investigate the contribution of the injured party and the reasonable repair period as a ground for reversal. It did not consider it sufficient to take the entire actual closure period directly into the loss-of-earnings calculation.
The decision should be read within the framework that a permit does not remove liability and that technical causation analysis is important. The result is not that the same rate of reduction or the same repair period applies in every file. In addition, this decision predates 2023; it cannot be used as an example that removes today’s mandatory-mediation rule as a condition for suit.
How are the competent court and the statute of limitations determined?
In this type of property case based on neighbor law, the civil court of first instance (asliye hukuk mahkemesi) comes into play unless a special rule on jurisdiction exists. The nature of the claim, whether directed at the thing itself, at preventing interference, or only at compensation, affects the examination of territorial jurisdiction. Instead of giving a single, unchanging court description for every case, the parties and the claims should be examined together.
The statute of limitations is also determined according to the basis of the claim. For tort compensation, the periods tied to the date of learning and the date of the event under Article 72 of the Code of Obligations (TBK), and any longer criminal statute of limitations, are taken into account. Preventing ongoing interference and a pecuniary loss that arose in the past should not be subjected to the same limitation assessment. Having evidence preserved does not by itself mean that all claim periods are protected.
Conclusion
In neighbor construction damage, safety, evidence, and legal protection must be addressed together. Early technical examination, choosing the right party, and documenting the damage items are the foundation of the file. Preservation of evidence records the damage; an interim injunction aims to limit the danger; the main case determines liability and redress. Mediation and injunction time limits must be tracked separately.
Related articles: Municipality Failing to Act Against Unauthorized Construction: Complaint, Application, and Litigation Routes; Construction in Breach of Setback Distance and Building Height: Permit Review and the Neighbor’s Rights.
Frequently Asked Questions
If the construction is permitted, can I not claim compensation?
A permit does not give authority to harm a neighbor. The damage, the ground of liability, and the causal link are examined in the specific case.
Does a decision on preservation of evidence enable me to collect compensation?
Not by itself. Preservation of evidence serves to protect the current condition for later proceedings; the main claim is asserted separately.
Can a tenant apply if damaged by neighboring construction?
An application may come into question for damage to its own use, belongings, or business. The owner’s claim and the tenant’s claim must be separated.
Can urgent protection be requested before mediation is finished?
If the conditions are met, preservation of evidence and an interim injunction are considered. The time-limit rules connected with mediation do not automatically suspend all time limits relating to enforcement of the injunction.
Should I have the wall repaired right away?
Necessary safety measures should not be delayed. However, where possible and safe, it is important to have the pre-repair condition properly recorded and to keep expense documents.
References
- Turkish Civil Code No. 4721 (4721 sayılı Türk Medenî Kanunu), Arts. 730, 737, 738 and 739; reproduction of the statutory text.
- Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 (6100 sayılı Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu), Arts. 2, 12, 16, 389–405; reproduction of the statutory text.
- Law No. 6325 on Mediation in Civil Disputes (6325 sayılı Hukuk Uyuşmazlıklarında Arabuluculuk Kanunu), Arts. 18/A and 18/B.
- Code of Obligations No. 6098 (6098 sayılı Türk Borçlar Kanunu), Arts. 49, 51, 52 and 72; official legislation link.
- Court of Cassation 4th Civil Chamber (Yargıtay 4. Hukuk Dairesi), October 13, 2020, E.2019/835, K.2020/3372, accessible text of the decision.
Research check date: October 15, 2026. This text is general legal information; it does not replace a technical safety assessment or a review of the specific case.