Unauthorized Construction and Non-Agricultural Use on Agricultural Land

How Did the 2026 Rules Change the Construction Regime on Agricultural Land?

The new Regulation of April 4, 2026

The Regulation on the Protection and Use of Agricultural Land, published in Official Gazette No. 33214 of April 4, 2026, repealed the previous Regulation of December 9, 2017. The new Regulation governs together the characteristics of structures for agricultural purposes, permits for non-agricultural use, soil conservation projects, application procedures, the detection of unauthorized use and the procedure for applying the sanctions under Law No. 5403.

The most distinctive feature of the Regulation is that it does not treat unauthorized construction merely as a misdemeanor met with a retrospective fine. The rules establish a system of elimination and restoration to the original state that prevents the completion or use of the structure, makes the removal of the violation mandatory and ultimately leads to demolition and the return of the land to agricultural production.

Law No. 7584 of June 20, 2026

The legislative amendment of June 20, 2026 affected three important areas with regard to Law No. 5403:

• For certain acts of unauthorized use and land degradation, the per-square-metre administrative fine in the text of the law was reset at TRY 2,500.
• A restriction was introduced on the acquisition by cooperatives of ownership or limited rights in rem over immovable property in areas whose agricultural character is to be preserved under zoning plans and on certain agricultural land not covered by a plan. The special regime subject to Ministry permission for agricultural cooperatives is reserved.
• It was provided that no electricity, water or natural gas connection or subscription may be established for structures and facilities built without a permit, and that institutions and organizations acting in breach of this rule are subject to an administrative fine per subscriber.

These amendments show that unlawful use of agricultural land has become a multi-actor field of supervision that covers not only the owner of the structure but also cooperatives, legal entities, intermediaries and the institutions providing utility services.

The amendment of August 4, 2026 and the transitional provision

By the amendment published in Official Gazette No. 33330 of August 4, 2026, it was accepted that applications made to the Ministry’s units before April 4, 2026, the date on which the Regulation entered into force, are to be concluded under the provisions of the previous Regulation. For this reason, the criteria applicable to two applications of the same nature may vary not only according to the date of the decision but also according to the date of application.

Applications made before April 4, 2026

If the application was properly made before April 4, 2026, the previous rules may have to be applied by virtue of the transitional provision. For this, it is important to prove not merely that the application had been prepared, but on what date and with which documents it was submitted to the competent Ministry unit. The document registration number, the electronic application record, the receipt and any letters on missing documents should therefore be kept.

Limits of the criterion reduced from 5 hectares to 2 hectares

The August 4 amendment reduced a certain land size threshold in section 6.1 of Annex 1 from 5 hectares to 2 hectares. This change cannot be interpreted as creating an automatic right to build on every agricultural parcel exceeding two hectares. The relevant type of structure, the class of the land, the actual agricultural use of the parcel, the building area, the site plan, the project and the other conditions are assessed together.

Chronology of the 2026 legislation

The Word “Field” in the Land Registry Does Not by Itself Determine the Construction Outcome

The type of immovable shown in the land registry record is the starting point of the review; it does not determine the outcome on its own. The degree to which a parcel is protected as agricultural land is determined by soil characteristics, irrigation possibilities, current production, its integrity with surrounding parcels, plan decisions and the Ministry’s records. Two parcels both registered as “field” may not be subject to the same permit regime under agricultural law.

Why does the class of agricultural land matter?

Law No. 5403 divides agricultural land into different classes according to production capacity and use characteristics. On absolute agricultural land, special crop land, planted agricultural land and irrigated agricultural land, non-agricultural use is subject to more limited conditions than on marginal agricultural land.

Absolute agricultural land

This is land of regional, local or national importance with a high capacity for agricultural production. It cannot be opened to non-agricultural use unless strict conditions are met, such as the absence of an alternative site and the existence of one of the special purposes listed in the Law.

Special crop land and planted agricultural land

These are areas of particular value for growing certain crops or for perennial planted production. Continuity of production, irrigation infrastructure and economic integrity are important in the permit assessment.

Irrigated agricultural land

These are areas that benefit from irrigation in agricultural production. Irrigation investments and infrastructure built with public resources may increase the weight of protection when a request for non-agricultural use is assessed.

Marginal agricultural land

These are areas whose capacity for agricultural production is relatively limited but which retain the character of agricultural land. The “marginal” designation does not mean that construction is unrestricted; it may only create a different legal threshold in the permit assessment.

Large plain protection area

In large plain protection areas (büyük ova koruma alanı), non-agricultural use and acts of land degradation are treated more severely. Certain administrative fines under Law No. 5403 are applied at double the amount in these areas. Whether the parcel falls within this scope should be verified not only from the title deed but also from the Ministry’s and plan records.

Distinguishing village settlement areas, rural neighbourhoods and planned areas

The scope of the Regulation is not determined solely by looking at the administrative boundary within which the immovable lies. Areas covered by the Forest Law and the Pasture Law; non-agricultural areas defined in Law No. 5403; approved village/rural settlement areas and their surroundings, and settled areas; approved planned areas in compliance with the legislation, except for places designated in zoning plans as “areas whose agricultural character is to be preserved”; parcels that have acquired building plot status under an approved plan in force; and places defined with a non-agricultural designation or having acquired building plot status in the initial cadastral survey may fall outside the scope of the Regulation. In olive grove areas, the Regulation applies to matters not covered by Law No. 3573.

As a result, the mere fact that a parcel lies within the administrative boundaries of a village, a rural neighbourhood or a municipal adjacent area (mücavir alan) does not provide an exemption. It must be shown by the approved boundary, plan, cadastral and land registry documents that the immovable lies within an approved settlement area and its surroundings or within one of the other areas outside the scope.

Olive groves, pastures, forests and protected areas

The immovable may at the same time lie within an olive grove, pasture, forest, coastal area, natural protected site, archaeological protected site, water basin or special environmental protection area. In such a case compliance with Law No. 5403 is not sufficient; the relevant special laws and protection decisions are also applied together. Obtaining one of the permits does not neutralize the other protection regimes.

Agricultural Permit, Zoning Plan, Construction Permit and Operating Permit Do Not Replace One Another

The most common mistake regarding agricultural land is to treat the permits that must be obtained from different authorities as if there were a single “licence”. In fact, each permit answers a different question.

Permit under the agricultural legislation

The use of the area needed for structures for agricultural purposes and requests for non-agricultural use are assessed under Articles 13 and 14 of Law No. 5403 and the Regulation. The land class, alternative sites, public interest, the soil conservation project and agricultural integrity may be decisive.

Construction permit and zoning plan

A use permit obtained from the Ministry of Agriculture or a governorate unit does not mean that a construction permit has been issued under Zoning Law No. 3194 (3194 sayılı İmar Kanunu). Likewise, a structure found suitable under the zoning legislation cannot be placed on agricultural land without a permit for non-agricultural use.

Operating, tourism and accommodation permits

Uses such as a tiny house park, camping, glamping, a bungalow facility, a country restaurant or an accommodation business may, in addition to agricultural and zoning permits, bring into play a business licence, a tourism certificate, and fire, health, access and environmental requirements. A building constructed under a permit for an agricultural structure cannot later be converted into an accommodation facility.

Non-Agricultural Use Cannot Be Carried On Under the Guise of a Structure for Agricultural Purposes

A structure for agricultural purposes is not every structure whose name contains an agricultural expression. The structure must have a genuine and proportionate connection with carrying out production, protecting the produce, livestock activity or the essential needs of the agricultural holding.

Vineyard house

A vineyard house (bağ evi) is regarded as a structure that serves the agricultural use of the land and complies with the size, project and location requirements in the Regulation. The size of the parcel alone is not sufficient. Actual use of the structure as a permanent residence, a holiday home or a rental accommodation unit may constitute a breach of the purpose of the permit.

Numerical thresholds do not grant an automatic right to build

These figures are only some of the criteria required for a permit request to be assessed. A tenant cannot request a vineyard house for leased land; the principle of one vineyard house per family within the same district boundaries and one per parcel applies; and on a parcel held in shares, the notarized consent of the other co-owners is required. In addition to the permit under the agricultural legislation, the plan, project, construction permit and other special legislative conditions must also be met.

Agricultural storehouse and shed

A storehouse must serve the storage of produce, equipment or inputs. Converting the interior into a dwelling, installing a kitchen and bathroom layout, creating large terraces and landscaped areas, or tourist use may lead to the true nature of the structure being reassessed.

Greenhouse and livestock facility

For greenhouses and livestock facilities, production capacity, water and waste management, surrounding parcels, access, health protection distances and the integrity of the project are important. Obtaining a permit does not confer a right to expand independently of the project or to carry on a different business activity.

Adherence to the project and the purpose of use

The permitted structure must be built in accordance with the approved site plan, the architectural/technical project and the soil conservation project. Subsequently enlarging the building area, changing its location, adding new independent units or changing the purpose of use may give rise to a new violation.

Tiny Houses and Containers Are Not Outside the Agricultural Permit Regime

In debates about tiny houses, focusing only on whether the structure has wheels is incomplete. Where a unit that qualifies as a vehicle or trailer under road traffic legislation is permanently placed on agricultural land and actually turns the land into an accommodation area, this is assessed separately under Law No. 5403.

Tiny houses on wheels and towed caravans

Temporary and mobile use is not the same as permanent settlement. Keeping the unit in the same place for a long time, opening an access road, building a parking area, or installing a perimeter fence, landscaping, a terrace, a water tank, a septic tank, a power line or a shared social area may constitute strong indications that the land is being used for non-agricultural purposes.

Fixed tiny houses, containers and prefabricated structures

Prefabricated or container units that are fixed to the ground, placed on a foundation or platform and connected to utilities may be considered structures under the zoning legislation. Under agricultural law, the key question is whether the productive capacity of the soil is affected and whether the use is compatible with an agricultural purpose.

Wheels or a number plate alone do not provide protection

The fact that a unit has traffic registration or a number plate does not mean that a tourism, accommodation or hobby garden activity is permitted on the parcel. Likewise, the fact that an electricity or water subscription was set up in the past does not settle the lawfulness of the land use.

The actual use is assessed as a whole

The administration may examine not only the individual units but the entire use of the parcel. Placing a large number of units on the same land, internal roads, common areas, numbered sections, allocation through membership and commercial promotion reveal a land use model different from parking an individual vehicle.

Hobby Gardens and De Facto Share Models Do Not Legally Divide Agricultural Land

Dividing an immovable that has not been subdivided in the land registry into small parts on the ground in order to circumvent the minimum size rules for agricultural land, and allocating these parts through cooperative membership, company shares, use agreements or transfer of possession, carries legal risk.

What is a de facto share?

A de facto share (fiili hisse) is a section that is not registered in the land registry as an independent parcel or share, but is demarcated on the ground and left to a specific person. Sections created with a fence, number, path, separate entrance or use sketch do not confer any title right.

Does membership or partnership legitimize a right of use?

Membership of a cooperative or company does not create a right to build or stay on a specific part of agricultural land. The fact that a membership agreement mentions a “use area”, “garden”, “share” or “unit plot” does not override the prohibitions in agricultural, zoning and land registry legislation.

Article 22(7) of the Regulation and the criminal provision of the Law

Where de facto shares that cannot be registered are created and possession is transferred through a membership or partnership relationship with a private-law legal entity, or where such transactions are brokered, and this disrupts the integrity of the land and leads to use contrary to its purpose, the Regulation provides that a criminal report is to be filed with the relevant Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor (Cumhuriyet Başsavcılığı). The substantive basis of criminal liability is Article 21 of Law No. 5403. The Law provides for imprisonment from one to three years and a judicial fine of one hundred to one thousand days for natural persons, and for the administrative fine set out in the Law for the legal entity concerned. For the legal entity’s fine, the current amount applicable on the date of the act must also be calculated.

This provision does not automatically treat every cooperative or every partnership model as a crime. The elements of de facto division, transfer of possession, disruption of land integrity and use contrary to purpose must be investigated together in the specific case.

Effect of restoring the land on the criminal proceedings

The Law attaches a special consequence to remedying the situation. If the integrity of the agricultural land is restored and the land is made suitable for agricultural production, no public prosecution is brought; a public prosecution already brought is discontinued; and any sentence imposed is lifted with all its consequences. This possibility is not an amnesty that takes effect automatically. It must be shown by documents that the remedial work has been technically completed, that the integrity of the land has been restored and that its suitability for production has been established by the competent administration.

The Cooperative Model Does Not Automatically Make the Use of Agricultural Land Lawful

Law No. 7584 additionally restricted the acquisition by cooperatives of ownership and limited rights in rem over immovable property in certain protected agricultural areas. The exception subject to Ministry permission for agricultural cooperatives can only be applied within the framework of genuine agricultural activity and the statutory conditions.

The exception for agricultural cooperatives

The presence of words such as “agriculture”, “production” or similar in the cooperative’s name is not sufficient on its own. The articles of association, the members’ activities, the land use plan for the immovable and actual practice must be consistent with an agricultural purpose.

Immovables acquired earlier

For immovables acquired before the legislative amendment, the existence of ownership does not mean that the use of the land is lawful. New construction, allocation of use, de facto division or subscription transactions are examined separately under the legislation in force on their respective dates.

Risks for members, managers and the legal entity

Administrative fines, restoration to the original state, demolition, criminal reports and private-law liability may be directed at different persons in the same case. A decision taken by the cooperative’s management does not automatically exempt the landowner, the actual user or the contractor from liability.

How Does the Procedure Work Once Unauthorized Construction Is Detected?

The Regulation’s sanction system consists of successive administrative acts. Each stage may have its own notification, time limit and legal consequence.

What information should the inspection report contain?

The report should at least set out the parcel details, coordinates, the area used or damaged, the number and nature of the structures, the existing agricultural activity, the land class, photographs and the measurement method, the estimated start date of the act and the addressee’s connection with the act. General statements make judicial review of the area calculation and of the identification of the perpetrator more difficult.

Immediate stopping of the activity

If unauthorized work has begun, the activity is stopped entirely. If the work has been completed, its use is not permitted. This decision is an administrative act distinct from the administrative fine, and its notification and manner of enforcement must be examined separately.

First administrative fine

The fine may be directed at the landowner or the person who degraded the land. These two capacities do not always coincide in the same person. If a tenant, operator, contractor, cooperative or third party actually degraded the land, who bears responsibility must be determined on the basis of concrete evidence.

A notation may be entered in the land register within seven days

If a violation is identified as a result of an inspection, a complaint or an ex officio check, the Ministry or the governorate notifies the land registry directorate within seven days at the latest, and the notation “Used contrary to the purpose of Law No. 5403.” is entered in the declarations section of the immovable. This entry is not removed unless the competent administration notifies the land registry directorate that the violation has been remedied. The notation is of direct importance in the legal review preceding a sale, loan, mortgage, valuation or cooperative membership.

A One-Month Permit Application Is Not a Zoning Amnesty

Applying for a permit under Article 13 or 14 of Law No. 5403 within one month of notification of the administrative fine does not by itself make an unauthorized structure lawful.

Where and how is the permit application made?

Natural persons and legal entities submit their requests for agricultural or non-agricultural use to the municipality if the immovable lies within municipal and adjacent area boundaries, and otherwise to the special provincial administration or another body with planning authority. The application is forwarded by the relevant body to the provincial directorate of agriculture and forestry via the TAD Portal – Agricultural Land Assessment and Information System (Tarım Arazileri Değerlendirme ve Bilgilendirme Sistemi). Planning work and certain special investment applications may be conducted directly through the TAD Portal; applications for agricultural or non-agricultural structures may also be made by authorized plan authors.

Within what period must missing documents be completed?

Missing documents in the application that are to be obtained from public institutions must be completed within six months, and other documents within three months. An application not completed in time is not taken into consideration and is returned to the applicant. If the deficiencies are later remedied, the procedure resumes from where it left off, also taking into account any legislative changes that entered into force in the meantime.

A permit granted must be followed by a plan, approval or construction permit within two years

A land use permit may be deemed invalid if the necessary final steps are not completed within two years of its notification to the applicant. For activities not requiring a plan or permit, the necessary approval procedures must be completed; for non-agricultural uses, the plan must be approved; and for a permit for a structure for agricultural purposes, a construction permit must be obtained. If the land has been degraded during this period by construction, excavation or fill, the sanction procedure under Article 21 of Law No. 5403 may be initiated independently of a new permit application.

When does the period start?

The period starts with the proper notification of the administrative fine. The addressee of the notification, the address, electronic notification records and the date of notification must be checked carefully. The fact that the decision to stop the activity was learned of earlier should not automatically be equated with the start of the one-month period linked to notification of the fine.

Is it enough merely to apply?

No. In addition to a timely application, the Law and the Regulation require that the necessary permit actually be obtained. The fact that the application has not yet been decided, the possibility of rejection or missing documents do not confer a right to continue using the structure.

Situations in which a permit cannot be granted

A permit may be legally impossible because of the land class, large plain status, a plan decision, a special protection regime, the size of the parcel, the type of structure or the purpose of use. In that case, the fact that a one-month application has been made does not prevent demolition.

Is the first fine cancelled?

Obtaining a permit later does not automatically cancel the first administrative fine imposed for the past act of starting work without a permit. The fine is examined separately in terms of the date of the act, fault, addressee, measurement and legal basis.

A Violation Not Remedied in Time May Result in a Threefold Fine and Demolition

If no application is made or the permit request is not approved, a period of two months is granted for the unauthorized structure to be demolished and for the land to be made suitable for agricultural production.

Notification of the two-month period

The obligation must be notified in an understandable manner, specifying which structures are to be removed and by which operations the land is to be restored. A vague order to “restore to the original state” may give rise to disputes over the scope and cost of the work to be carried out.

Why is the second inspection important?

For the threefold sanction, the Ministry’s units must establish anew that the violation continues at the end of the period granted. Relying on the first report alone may leave unanswered claims that the demolition was partly carried out, that the structure was removed or that the land was reopened to production.

Conditions for the threefold fine

The threefold fine is not an automatic continuation of the first fine. Proper notification of the period, expiry of the period, continuation of the violation and a lawfully conducted second inspection are required. The calculation sheet must show which amount was trebled and how the relationship with the large plain increase was established.

Demolition and return to agricultural production

Demolition is not merely dismantling the structure. Removing fill, concrete, platforms, roads, utilities, septic tanks, fences or materials covering the soil, making the soil cultivable again and carrying out the necessary clean-up may also fall within the scope of restoration to the original state.

Under which technical procedure is demolition carried out?

Under Article 22(6) of the Regulation, demolition is carried out in accordance with the Regulation on the Demolition of Buildings (Binaların Yıkılması Hakkında Yönetmelik). Depending on the nature of the structure, the demolition plan and permit, technical responsibility, disconnection of electricity, water and natural gas, environmental and occupational safety measures, removal of demolition waste and protection of neighbouring parcels are considered. The process does not end with dismantling the structure; making the land suitable for agricultural production must also be completed.

If the Municipality or Special Provincial Administration Does Not Demolish, the Ministry May Intervene Directly

Demolition and restoration must be carried out by the relevant municipality or special provincial administration within one month. Inaction by the local administration does not give the owner of the structure an acquired right or an indefinite right of use.

The Ministry’s substitute demolition power

If the local administration does not carry out the demolition within one month, the Ministry may demolish the structure directly or have it demolished. The aim is to prevent the sanction from going unenforced because of local administrative preference or budget shortfalls.

Two separate cost recovery regimes

1. If the demolition is carried out by the local administration, the demolition and clean-up costs initially covered by the Ministry are recovered from those responsible under the general provisions.
2. If the Ministry intervenes directly because the local administration failed to perform its duty, the demolition costs are recovered with a one hundred per cent surcharge from the relevant municipality or special provincial administration; if they cannot be recovered, deductions from central budget allocations come into play.

The debtor and the legal basis of these two routes differ; the same cost item should not be treated as a single recovery procedure.

Breach of the Soil Conservation Project Is a Separate Sanction Regime

Starting work without a permit and conducting a permitted activity in breach of the soil conservation project are different violations. In the event of a breach of the project, an administrative fine is imposed and a maximum of two months is granted to bring the activity into compliance with the project.

If the breach continues at the end of the period, the activity may be stopped, the use permit may be cancelled and an increased fine may be imposed. Unauthorized structures are demolished and the land is made suitable for production. In addition, for damage arising from the failure to prepare the project, its inadequate preparation or the failure to make the necessary amendments, the liability of the persons who prepared or approved the project, or who decided that no project was necessary, may arise.

No Electricity, Water or Natural Gas Subscription May Be Set Up for Unauthorized Structures

Law No. 7584 introduced the principle that no electricity, water or natural gas connection or subscription may be established for structures and facilities built without a permit. This rule is a complementary sanction intended to prevent subscriptions or service agreements from being used, as in the past, as evidence of the lawfulness of a structure.

Responsibility of utility providers

A local administration, public institution, organization or private company that establishes a connection or subscription for an unauthorized structure or facility is subject to an administrative fine of TRY 100,000 per subscriber. If the subscription is not cancelled within thirty days of notification of the fine, an additional administrative fine of TRY 100,000 is imposed for each month during which the subscription is found to continue. The current applicability of the amounts on the date of the act and the effect of revaluation must also be checked.

Existing subscriptions

An existing electricity, water or natural gas subscription does not show that the structure complies with agricultural and zoning legislation. The date on which the connection was established, the permit status of the structure and the notice sent by the competent administration to the subscription provider must be examined. The current system of the Law provides for a thirty-day cancellation period following the notice and a new sanction for each further month; the existence of an old subscription does not by itself create an acquired right of use.

The Addressee of the Administrative Fine Is Not Automatically the Registered Owner

Law No. 5403 provides that the fine is to be directed “at the landowner or the person who degrades the land”. This wording does not give the administration an arbitrary choice; the link between the act and the person must be established.

The landowner

The owner may have built the structure personally, had it built, allocated it for use or knowingly maintained the violation. However, the mere fact that the immovable is registered in the owner’s name in the land registry may not in every case be sufficient for all fines arising from a third party’s independent act to be automatically directed at the owner.

The person who degraded the land

A tenant, operator, contractor, cooperative or other user may have actually carried out fill, concrete, excavation, road, building or utility work. The identity of the person who degraded the land is established through contracts, payments, permit applications, advertisements, camera footage, vehicle records, witnesses, invoices and site inspections.

Legal entities and their organs

If the act was carried out within the scope of a legal entity’s activities, the imposition of an administrative sanction on the legal entity does not automatically eliminate the criminal liability of managers or natural persons. The statutory basis and personal elements of each type of liability must be examined separately.

Standard of proof for liability to a fine

The act subject to an administrative fine must be established with clear and concrete evidence as to date, place, area and perpetrator. Although a photograph or satellite image is important evidence, it may not be sufficient on its own unless the date and coordinates of the image and the person who carried out the act are explained.

How Is the Calculation of the Administrative Fine Reviewed?

It is not correct to assess the amount of the fine solely on the basis of the total figure. All components of the calculation must be visible.

The unit amount in force on the date of the act

Law No. 7584 of June 20, 2026 did not change every type of violation in the same way. The date on which the act was committed, the subparagraph of the law into which the violation falls and the current amount for the relevant year must be determined together. A later increase in the severity of the penalty provision cannot automatically be applied to a past act; a claim of a continuing act must likewise be substantiated with concrete dates and actions.

Three separate fine regimes must not be confused

The double application in a large plain protection area and the threefold application where the violation is not remedied in time are assessed separately, and only if the conditions of the relevant provision are met.

The area used or damaged

The fine must be calculated not on the basis of the entire parcel area but on the basis of the area used or damaged as specified in the law. The method of measuring the building footprint, terraces, roads, parking, utilities and other areas preventing agricultural production must be shown in the report.

Double application in a large plain protection area

If the parcel is in a large plain protection area, the relevant fine may be applied at double the amount. This status must be based on the official record on the date of the administrative act and must be clearly stated in the decision.

Threefold application where the violation continues

The threefold fine requires the period and second inspection conditions explained in the previous section. The existence of the first inspection alone is not sufficient for an increased fine.

Annual revaluation and currency

The fixed administrative fines in the Law may be affected by the revaluation rules for the relevant year. For this reason, a figure in a published article should not be substituted for the amount applicable on the date of the act. The unit, minimum amount and increases used in the administrative sanction decision must each be stated.

Calculation review table

The Fine, Demolition and Restoration May Be Subject to Different Remedies

One of the most critical issues in acts under Law No. 5403 is which forum has jurisdiction. Both general assumptions, “since it is an administrative act, the administrative court always has jurisdiction” and “since it is a fine, the criminal judgeship of peace (sulh ceza hâkimliği) always has jurisdiction”, are wrong.

The one-year administrative objection period in the Regulation is not a time limit for bringing an action

Article 18 of the Regulation allows a one-time administrative objection to be lodged with the governorate, for forwarding to the Ministry, within one year following the governorate’s notification, against decisions taken under the Regulation or against the land class determined by a survey report. The Ministry’s decision is final as regards the administrative objection; it does not exclude judicial review.

Time limit warning: This one-year period does not mean that the period for applying to the criminal judgeship of peace against an administrative fine, or the period for bringing an action before the administrative court, is one year. The fifteen-day application period for an administrative fine alone and, for administrative acts, the general time limit for bringing an action unless there is a special provision, must be safeguarded separately for each notification. An administrative application made after the time limit for bringing an action has expired does not, as a rule, restart the expired period.

Where there is only an administrative fine

In its decision of June 15, 2026, Docket No. 2026/293, Decision No. 2026/288, the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes (Uyuşmazlık Mahkemesi) held that the ordinary judiciary has jurisdiction over a dispute in which only the annulment of an administrative fine imposed under Article 21 of Law No. 5403 is sought. The reasoning was that Law No. 5403 does not designate a special judicial route and that Article 27 of Law No. 5326 on Misdemeanors (5326 sayılı Kabahatler Kanunu) therefore applies.

The decision of the 10th Chamber of the Council of State (Danıştay) of February 17, 2025, Docket No. 2024/3762, Decision No. 2025/577 likewise upheld the decision holding that the administrative judiciary lacks jurisdiction in an action concerning only an administrative fine under Law No. 5403.

Practical consequence: If only a fine has been notified, an application to the criminal judgeship of peace within 15 days of notification comes into play. Because the period is preclusive, the date of notification should be checked without delay.

Where the same act also includes restoration, demolition or another administrative decision

In its decision of October 31, 2022, Docket No. 2022/406, Decision No. 2022/515, the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes held that the administrative judiciary has jurisdiction because, in addition to the administrative fine, a decision to make the land suitable for agricultural production was part of the same chain of administrative acts. The basis was Article 27(8) of the Law on Misdemeanors.

Practical consequence: If, together with the fine, a decision on demolition, restoration, cancellation of the use permit or another matter falling within the jurisdiction of the administrative judiciary has been made, it is examined whether the acts fall within the same scope. If there is a connection, the claims of unlawfulness may be heard together before the administrative court.

Where the acts were notified on different dates and in separate documents

The fine, the stopping of the activity, demolition and cost recovery may be established on different dates. In that case, the competent forum, the time limit for bringing an action and the date of notification must be assessed separately for each act. An action brought against one act does not automatically preserve the time limit for another act.

Time limit for bringing an action and stay of execution in the administrative judiciary

For administrative acts for which no special period is prescribed, the general time limit for bringing an action before the administrative courts is, as a rule, 60 days from the day following written notification. However, the specific act, any special law and the notification must always be checked. Bringing an action does not automatically stay the execution of the act. With regard to demolition, a ban on use or the stopping of an activity, a stay of execution may be requested by substantiating the conditions of irreparable harm and manifest unlawfulness.

Matrix of applications and remedies

Main Grounds for Annulment of Inspection and Sanction Acts

Failure to specify the act concretely

A general statement such as “there is non-agricultural use” is not sufficient. It must be explained how the structure, the fill, the road or the use prevents agricultural production.

Wrong addressee

Imposing a fine on the registered owner solely on the basis of the ownership record although another person carried out the act, or attributing a legal entity’s action to a manager without any investigation, may give rise to unlawfulness.

Uncertainty of the area measurement

The area marked on a satellite image and the actual use on the ground may differ. High fines without a measurement method, coordinates and a calculation sheet raise problems of reviewability.

Incorrect determination of the land class or large plain status

Whether the land is absolute, special crop, planted, irrigated or marginal affects the outcome. Current scientific data should be used instead of an old survey, a neighbouring parcel’s record or an unreasoned classification.

Confusing the date of the act with the date of detection

If the penalty provision later becomes more severe, the new, higher amount cannot be applied to an earlier act. A claim that the act is continuing must likewise be substantiated with date and action elements.

Missing period or second inspection

Failure to grant the periods provided for in the Law, or failure to carry out the second inspection, in the procedure for the threefold fine, cancellation of the use permit and demolition may vitiate the act.

Errors of competence and form

Under Article 23 of the Regulation, the administrative fine must be imposed by the local civil administrator (mülki amir) in accordance with the report format in Annexes 11 and 12. The inspection or detection report must be distinguished from the final administrative sanction decision; the governor/district governor or a proper delegation of authority, the signature, the decision number, the addressee, the act, the date, the parcel, the area measurement, the statutory subparagraph applied, the unit amount, the minimum amount and any twofold/threefold increases must be shown in the decision in a reviewable manner. Leaving the legal ground, the available remedy or the calculation elements unclear may impair the right of defence and the principle of legal certainty.

Documents to Check Before Buying Property or Joining a Cooperative

On-site inspection before purchase

A document review does not replace seeing the land. The units, roads, terraces, utilities, perimeter fence, whether agricultural production continues and the integrity with neighbouring parcels should be checked on site.

Safeguards that should be included in the contract

Instead of general statements by the seller or the cooperative such as “a permit can be obtained”, “tiny houses are allowed” or “the subscription is ready”, the number, scope, duration and transferability of existing permits should be attached to the contract. Termination, refund of the price and liability provisions should be clearly established for the event that a permit cannot be obtained or that demolition or a fine ensues.

The Most Common Mistakes in Practice

• Believing that a unit on wheels is in all cases exempt from agricultural and zoning legislation.
• Mistaking a non-agricultural use permit for a construction permit or business licence.
• Treating the one-month application as a “zoning amnesty”.
• Assuming that the structure can remain once the administrative fine has been paid.
• Regarding an electricity or water subscription as conclusive proof of the structure’s lawfulness.
• Regarding cooperative membership as a right in rem over a specific piece of land.
• Objecting only to the fine and missing the demolition or restoration period.
• Assuming that all acts will be heard by the same court.
• Automatically treating the registered owner as the perpetrator of the act.
• Not questioning an area calculation made on the basis of the entire parcel.
• Applying the more severe rules in force on the date of detection instead of the legislation in force on the date of the act.
• Believing that bringing an action automatically stops demolition.

Related articles: Tiny Houses and Bungalows: Zoning and Permit Guide; Land, Zoning and Construction: Tourism Facility Guide; Objection and Annulment Action Against a Zoning Fine; Objection and Annulment Action Against a Demolition Order.

Conclusion

The 2026 rules have established a comprehensive sanction regime in which unauthorized use of agricultural land is not met only with an administrative fine, but is completed by stopping the activity, preventing use, refusing or cancelling subscriptions, demolishing the structure, returning the land to agricultural production and recovering the costs.

To determine the legal outcome in this system, the following questions must be answered together:

1. Which class of agricultural land does the immovable belong to, and is it within a large plain or another protection regime?
2. Is the structure or activity genuinely for agricultural purposes?
3. Do the agricultural permit, zoning plan, construction permit and operating permit each exist separately?
4. Does the tiny house, container or cooperative model actually divide the land or take it out of production?
5. Does the inspection report show concretely the act, the area, the date and the person responsible?
6. Was the fine calculated on the basis of the correct amount, the correct date and the correct addressee?
7. Were the one-month and two-month periods in the demolition and restoration procedure properly applied?
8. Should the application be made to the criminal judgeship of peace or to the administrative court?

A legal and technical review carried out before a structure is installed, a property is purchased or cooperative membership is acquired is the most effective protection against the risk of high fines, demolition and loss of investment that may arise later. If a sanction has already been notified, each of the fine, stopping, demolition and restoration decisions should be assessed without delay in terms of its own time limit and competent forum.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can a house be built on a field?

Building a dwelling on agricultural land is not a general right. The land class, the conditions for structures for agricultural purposes, the non-agricultural use permit, the zoning plan and the construction permit are examined together. The “field” designation does not by itself result in a prohibition or a permit.

How many decares of land are needed to build a vineyard house?

Under the current criteria, at least 2 hectares are required on absolute, special crop and marginal agricultural land; at least 1 hectare on planted agricultural land; and at least 0.3 hectares on land under covered cultivation. A vineyard house that may be permitted has a footprint of at most 30 m² and two storeys. However, these figures do not grant an automatic right to build; the family/parcel limit, co-owner consent, project, agricultural permit, plan and construction permit conditions are also required.

Is a non-agricultural use permit required for a tiny house?

A permit is required if the actual use prevents agricultural production, creates a permanent accommodation or tourism area, or involves utility and ground works. The fact that the unit is on wheels does not by itself provide an exemption.

Can a tiny house on wheels be demolished?

In the specific case, instead of “demolition”, removal of the unit and restoration of the land may come into play. Platforms, terraces, roads, septic tanks, utilities and other fixed elements may also be removed. The scope of the measure is determined from the report and the text of the decision.

Is a container considered a structure?

It may be regarded as a structure depending on its connection to the ground and utilities, the duration of use, the purpose of use and its physical characteristics. Under agricultural law, it is also examined whether the land is being used contrary to its purpose.

Does the one-month application period legalize the structure?

No. Applying within one month is not enough; the necessary permit must be legally obtainable and must actually be obtained. The application does not automatically lift the first fine imposed in the past.

What happens if an agricultural use permit is not followed by a construction permit within two years?

The permit may be deemed invalid if the necessary plan, approval or construction permit procedures are not completed within two years. If the land has been degraded by construction, excavation or fill, the sanction provisions of Law No. 5403 may also be applied.

Can the structure remain once the fine is paid?

No. Paying the fine does not end the obligation to demolish or restore. The fine and the administrative measures are different consequences.

Is the structure protected if the municipality does not demolish it?

No. If the local administration does not demolish within one month, the Ministry may demolish the structure directly or have it demolished; increased cost recovery against the local administration may apply.

Can agricultural land be acquired through a cooperative?

Acquisitions by cooperatives in certain agricultural areas were restricted by the 2026 amendment. There is an exception subject to Ministry permission for agricultural cooperatives. Membership does not confer an independent parcel or a right to build.

Does membership of a hobby garden confer title rights?

No. An unregistered use sketch or membership agreement does not create a right in rem in the land registry. De facto division and use contrary to purpose may also be subject to sanctions.

Can electricity and water be connected to an unauthorized structure?

Law No. 7584 introduced the principle that no electricity, water or natural gas connection/subscription may be established for structures and facilities built without a permit. The existence of a subscription does not make the structure lawful.

Which court hears an application against an administrative fine?

If there is only an administrative fine under Law No. 5403, the criminal judgeship of peace has jurisdiction as a rule and the time limit is 15 days. If the same act also includes a decision falling within the jurisdiction of the administrative judiciary, such as demolition or restoration, the administrative judiciary may have jurisdiction.

Does the one-year objection period in the Regulation extend the time limit for bringing an action?

No. The one-year period in Article 18 of the Regulation concerns the administrative objection to be lodged with the governorate for forwarding to the Ministry. The time limit for the criminal judgeship of peace or the administrative court must be calculated separately for each act and notification; the effect of the administrative objection on the time limit for bringing an action is assessed on the basis of the actual application date and Article 11 of Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 (2577 sayılı İdari Yargılama Usulü Kanunu, İYUK).

Can the execution of a demolition order be stayed?

In an action brought before the administrative court, a stay of execution may be requested by substantiating the conditions of manifest unlawfulness and irreparable or impossible-to-repair harm. Bringing an action does not by itself stop the demolition.

Is the former owner liable for a structure built by the new owner?

As a rule, because penalties are personal, the link between the act and the person is investigated. However, the date of transfer of ownership, the start of the violation, the use relationship and the former owner’s participation in the act must be examined concretely.

Can an agricultural storehouse later be converted into a dwelling?

No. Use contrary to the purpose of the permit may lead to cancellation of the use permit, an administrative fine, stopping of the activity and the demolition/restoration procedure. For a new use, all permit layers must be reassessed.

Sources and legal bases

1. Regulation on the Protection and Use of Agricultural Land (Tarım Arazilerinin Korunması ve Kullanılması Hakkında Yönetmelik) - April 4, 2026, Official Gazette 33214
2. Regulation Amending the Regulation on the Protection and Use of Agricultural Land (Tarım Arazilerinin Korunması ve Kullanılması Hakkında Yönetmelikte Değişiklik Yapılmasına Dair Yönetmelik) - August 4, 2026, Official Gazette 33330
3. Law No. 7584 Amending the Law on Soil Conservation and Land Use and Certain Laws (7584 sayılı Toprak Koruma ve Arazi Kullanımı Kanunu ile Bazı Kanunlarda Değişiklik Yapılmasına Dair Kanun) - June 20, 2026
4. Law No. 5403 on Soil Conservation and Land Use (5403 sayılı Toprak Koruma ve Arazi Kullanımı Kanunu) - current text
5. Zoning Law No. 3194 (3194 sayılı İmar Kanunu) - current text
6. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (Tarım ve Orman Bakanlığı) - announcement of the publication of the new Regulation
7. Regulation on the Demolition of Buildings (Binaların Yıkılması Hakkında Yönetmelik) - October 13, 2021, Official Gazette 31627
8. Law No. 5326 on Misdemeanors (5326 sayılı Kabahatler Kanunu) - current text
9. Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 (2577 sayılı İdari Yargılama Usulü Kanunu) - current text
10. Court of Jurisdictional Disputes (Uyuşmazlık Mahkemesi), E. 2026/293, K. 2026/288, June 15, 2026
11. Court of Jurisdictional Disputes (Uyuşmazlık Mahkemesi), E. 2022/406, K. 2022/515, October 31, 2022
12. Council of State, 10th Chamber (Danıştay 10. Daire), E. 2024/3762, K. 2025/577, February 17, 2025
13. Council of State, 10th Chamber (Danıştay 10. Daire), E. 2024/1558, K. 2024/1063, March 26, 2024.
14. Council of State, 10th Chamber (Danıştay 10. Daire), E. 2023/6115, K. 2024/529, March 6, 2024.