In some implementation zoning plan amendments made at the request of the owners, 90 percent of the increase in the value of the real property is collected as a value increase share (değer artış payı, DAP). This rate is not applied to the total sale value of the property. The difference between the value before and after the plan amendment is the basis. Errors in the calculation, in the scope or in the exemptions may be the subject of an administrative application and a lawsuit. The 7-day objection to the amount under the Regulation of November 22, 2025 and the time limit for filing a lawsuit in court are different.
What is the value increase share, and how does it differ from other charges?
The main basis of the value increase share is additional Article 8 of the Zoning Law No. 3194. The implementation details are set out in the Regulation on the Implementation of the Value Increase Share Resulting from Zoning Plan Amendments (İmar Planı Değişikliğine Dair Değer Artış Payı Uygulama Yönetmeliği), published in Official Gazette No. 33085 of November 22, 2025. The previous 2020 Regulation has been repealed; the time limits in the old text should not be used as they stand today.
This share is not a development contribution share (düzenleme ortaklık payı), a building permit fee, a contribution to road expenditure, or a gain from an increase in value under income tax. A similarity in names does not mean that the same calculation and the same litigation route apply. If the administration’s payment letter uses a general expression such as “zoning fee” (imar bedeli), the statutory basis and the type of act should be clarified.
Does every plan amendment give rise to a value increase share?
No. First, it is examined whether the amendment falls within the scope of the Regulation. The request of all the owners of the property, the type of amendment, which authority approved the plan and how, whether there is an increase, and the exemptions are assessed together. A rise in the market value of the property through general economic conditions is not, on its own, a ground for this share.
The Regulation governs, under certain conditions, changes in density, population, number of storeys or function at the block (ada) level, and some changes of use at the parcel level. Unlimited planning rights are not granted for every change of function. The public interest, urban planning principles and social and technical infrastructure conditions must also be satisfied. Agreeing to pay the share does not make an unlawful plan lawful.
Amendments made by the administration ex officio
The Regulation contains an exemption for implementation plan amendments approved ex officio by the administration and for implementation plan proposals aimed at conforming to an ex officio master plan amendment. Who initiated the amendment and the real nature of the request should be investigated in the file. The mere presence of the owner’s signature on the final petition may not prove that the whole process originated with the owner.
How is the 90 percent calculated?
First, the value of the property under the old plan conditions and its value under the new conditions are determined. The 90 percent is calculated on the positive difference. The valuation cannot rest solely on the total sales revenue of the new project or on the advertised price of a neighboring project. The value of existing buildings, facilities, appurtenances and other improvements (muhdesat) is not included in the property valuation under the Regulation.
| Entirely hypothetical example | Amount |
|---|---|
| Value under the old plan conditions | 10,000,000 TL |
| Value under the new plan conditions | 14,000,000 TL |
| Increase arising from the plan amendment | 4,000,000 TL |
| 90 percent of the increase | 3,600,000 TL |
| Amount after a 10 percent discount for payment in full within the conditions | 3,240,000 TL |
This table shows only the arithmetic; it is not an appraisal or an assessment of a real property. An exemption, a transitional provision, the consumer price index (TÜFE) update and the payment date may change the result. In particular, it is not correct to apply the current 90 percent rate directly to all files with older assessments.
On what grounds can the valuation report be challenged?
Reports are obtained from at least two authorized real estate valuation companies assigned automatically through the DAP system. The valuation commission (kıymet takdir komisyonu) makes its assessment within the lower limit and reasoning rules in the legislation. The reports must show the values under the old and the new situation separately. The result reached by the commission must rest on reasoning that can be reviewed.
The date, location, type of use, building rights and the nature of the completed transaction of each comparable must be checked. If the old plan value is accepted as low and the new plan value as unrealistically high, the difference may be artificially inflated. Taking the wrong parcel or surface area into account also directly affects the amount. The objection should document these concrete errors.
The Regulation provides an additional review mechanism where the difference between the report values exceeds 20 percent and where there is an assessment that the values do not reflect reality. This rate does not mean that an owner may sue only for errors exceeding 20 percent. A smaller error may also have legal effect on the act. An expert opinion helps frame the questions to be examined by the court-appointed expert.
Which exemptions and transitional provisions matter?
Risk areas, reserve areas and parcels with a risky building
Risk areas and reserve building areas fall within the exemption provision of the Regulation. For individual parcels with a risky building, a different system applies: an exemption is provided for changes up to a maximum 20 percent increase in the construction area on which the floor area ratio is based, and the portion above that may become subject to the share. These concepts should not be treated as the same.
Public investments and other exemptions
Public investments and publicly owned areas, areas of administered and affiliated foundations (mazbut and mülhak vakıf), and the other special cases listed in the Regulation must be examined separately. Some corrections of building lines and setback distances may remain outside the scope only if density and the other conditions are maintained. Calling a correction a “technical procedure” does not create an exemption unless the conditions are investigated.
The effect of the application and assessment dates
There are separate transitional provisions for certain plan proposals officially registered before February 20, 2020, for assessments before and after July 4, 2024, and for risky building applications before December 12, 2024. These dates relate to different legal subjects. The application date, plan approval, risky building annotation and assessment date should be shown on the same chart. In this way, the new rate is not applied to an old debt, and the old exemption is not applied to a new application.
The seven-day objection and notice of payment
Under Article 12 of the current Regulation, the determined value increase and the share are served on the person concerned. Within 7 days, the owner notifies in writing its objection to the amount and/or its choice to pay in full or in instalments. The commission evaluates the objection within 7 days and notifies the final result. This administrative stage does not replace judicial review.
If the final amount is not accepted or it is notified that the share will not be paid, the Regulation provides for the start of the procedures for returning to the previous plan. Therefore, merely not paying is not an objection method that preserves the plan right. The owner should state clearly which act it seeks protection against and what protection it wants. An objection to the amount, an objection to the plan itself and an objection to the decision to return to the previous plan may lead to different results.
If a change is made because of an objection filed during the plan display period, the valuation and the assessment must also be revised. There are provisions on issuing a new assessment for material errors, such as the inclusion of an extra parcel or the entry of a wrong amount into the system. For this reason, the consistency between the report and the figures on the payment screen should also be checked.
Payment in full, instalments and the land registry annotation
The Regulation provides for a 10 percent discount for payment in full within the time limit and for a total of four instalments. The first payment is made within one month following the assessment; for later instalments, the monthly TÜFE increases in the regulation are taken into account. If the payment method is not notified in time or payment lapses, different consequences arise for the discount and the update.
Until the share is paid in full, there are restrictions on sale, transfer, gift, land and plot readjustment at request, and on documents forming the basis of the permit and on building permit transactions. The annotation in the land registry is therefore important in its own right. Challenging the debt in court or paying part of it does not by itself lift all the restrictions. After payment, the administration’s notification to the land registry for the removal of the annotation should be followed up.
The competent court and the time limit to sue
Because the value increase share is collected in money, it does not automatically fall within the jurisdiction of the tax court. There is a current judicial approach that disputes arising from zoning legislation are heard in the administrative court. The place where the property is located is important for Article 34 of the Administrative Procedure Law (İYUK). However, it must first be determined whether the letter is in fact a DAP assessment, another fee or a separate collection act.
Where there is no special time limit for a DAP act, the general period before the administrative court is 60 days. The 7-day objection to the amount in the Regulation should not be confused with this period. The service of the final act and the effect on the time limit of an application within the scope of Article 11 of the İYUK are calculated in the specific file. It should not be assumed that 60 days will start afresh after every rejection of an administrative objection.
A stay of execution may be requested together with the annulment claim, if the conditions are met. In addition to manifest unlawfulness, the concrete harm of a blocked land registry transfer or permit must be shown. A claim for refund and interest for the amount already paid should be framed separately; the liability of the administrations in proportion to their shares under Article 13/4 of the Regulation should be taken into account.
Constitutional Court decision: Annulment of the former 100 percent rule
In its decision of May 18, 2023, E.2020/42, K.2023/99, the Constitutional Court annulled the wording in the former provision that provided for collecting the whole of the increased value. While accepting the legitimate aim of the public sharing in the increase in value, the Court assessed the collection of the whole increase as an excessive burden on the owner.
This decision does not mean that the value increase share was abolished altogether or that the later 90 percent provision was itself automatically annulled. For current transactions, the new statutory provision and the 2025 Regulation apply. For assessments from the earlier period, the date of the act, the effect of the annulment decision on entry into force and the transitional provisions are examined separately. The Court’s proportionality assessment should be kept apart from today’s concrete calculation of the amount.
Conclusion
In an objection to the value increase share, the first question is not only the size of the amount: is the act within scope, is there an exemption, which dated rules are being applied and has the increase been calculated correctly? The comparison of the values under the old and the new plan, the commission’s reasoning and the payment schedule should be examined together. Tracking the seven-day administrative stage and the time limit to sue separately helps protect the plan right and the financial obligation together.
Related articles: Objection to a decision on a reserve building area
Frequently Asked Questions
Is 90 percent of the property’s value collected?
No. The calculation is made on the value increase arising from the plan amendment within scope, not on the total property value.
If I miss the seven-day objection, is the right to sue lost for good?
The administrative objection and the time limit to sue are different. The date of the final act and of service is examined and the judicial time limit is determined separately; an assessment without delay is needed.
Is nothing paid at all because of the Constitutional Court decision?
The annulment of the former 100 percent rule does not remove the current DAP obligation altogether. The date of the act and the new provisions are examined together.
Can I sell the property while paying in instalments?
The Regulation restricts sale and some other transactions until the share is paid in full. Acceptance of instalments does not, by itself, mean that the annotation is removed.
Sources
- Zoning Law No. 3194 — additional Article 8.
- Regulation on the Implementation of the Value Increase Share Resulting from Zoning Plan Amendments, November 22, 2025, Official Gazette No. 33085.
- Constitutional Court E.2020/42, K.2023/99 — decision and access page.
- Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577.
- A review reporting current decisions on the competent court — Att. Arb. Aynur Oğuz Ekmekçi, May 7, 2026. Because the decisions reported in this secondary source could not all be accessed directly, it is not presented here as a separately verified full analysis of the decisions.