Expiry of a Construction Permit: Renewal, the 2026 Amendment and Acquired Rights

In a construction permit, the two-year commencement period and the five-year completion period matter; the expiry of the period does not produce the same renewal result in every file. A renewal application made in time, when the building actually began, its state of completion and any subsequently changed plan must be examined together. The July 1, 2026 amendment has also differentiated the rules applicable to buildings requiring a new permit according to whether construction began within two years.

For this reason, holding a permit issued years ago does not by itself show that construction can be continued today. Likewise, the expiry of a permit does not mean that all acquired rights disappear in every case. The right answer rests on an examination of the documents and dates.

How many years is a construction permit valid?

Under Article 29 of the Zoning Law No. 3194, construction must begin within two years from the date of the permit. The building must, as a rule, be completed within five years, including the commencement period. For buildings that are not begun or completed in time, the permit’s lapse and the need for a new permit come into question.

There are two separate checks here: Did construction begin on time? Was the building completed within the total period? A positive answer to the first question does not mean that the second period is unlimited. The special provisions of the Regulation on renewal, the addition of time and completed buildings are assessed separately.

How is it proved that construction began?

Fencing the plot, preparing the project or buying materials is not the same as beginning construction of the permitted building. Building inspection (yapı denetim) records, on-site findings, site minutes, the relevant technical documents and dated photographs should be examined together. The date on which the construction level was reached should be established, as far as possible, with contemporaneous records rather than a general letter prepared afterwards.

If the administration’s file contains a wrong or incomplete level determination, it should be challenged with a technical explanation. If the dispute goes to court, an on-site inspection and an expert examination can allow the current condition to be compared with past-dated documents. The role of the technical expert is not to decide in the court’s place on time limits and rights.

Why does a renewal application before expiry matter?

The third paragraph of Article 54 of the Regulation on Planned Areas Zoning (Planlı Alanlar İmar Yönetmeliği) attaches a special consequence to a renewal application made within the permit period. Under this condition, regardless of the date on which the administration carries out the renewal, a five-year extension may apply on the basis of the plan and legislation in force on the date of the original permit. An extension of time in this way may be made at most twice.

The record showing that the application was made in time is therefore critical. An oral discussion or making an appointment should not be treated as a substitute for a properly made renewal application. The scope of the application file, notices of missing documents and completions should be kept.

If the administration is late, does the application date lose its importance?

The Regulation separately protects the fact that the application was made in time. However, whether construction may continue before the permit procedure is completed should be assessed on the status of the existing permit and the specific decisions. The conclusion “I applied, so I can now continue every kind of activity” should not be drawn.

Failing to file a renewal application in time should be distinguished from a timely application that the administration concludes late. Where the reasoning for the rejection rests only on the expiry of the period on the date of the decision, the application record becomes particularly important.

What did the July 1, 2026 amendment bring?

With the amendment published in Official Gazette No. 33297 of July 1, 2026, new sentences were added to the fifth paragraph of Article 54 of the Regulation. For buildings requiring a new permit, a distinction was drawn between those on which construction began in the first two years and those on which it did not. The provision entered into force on the date of its publication.

Buildings on which construction began within two years

For buildings that require a new permit and whose construction began within the first two years, the measures required by the relevant legislation in force are sought with respect to fire, earthquake, thermal and water insulation, and environmental and energy efficiency. In other matters, the measures required by the legislation on the date the building received its permit are taken as the basis.

This distinction shows that current safety requirements cannot be wholly excluded by relying on an old permit. At the same time, it is not correct to assess every file in all respects solely under the new rules. The effect of a plan amendment should be considered together with the other paragraphs of Article 54 of the Regulation and the special plan provisions.

Buildings on which construction did not begin within two years

For buildings whose construction did not begin in the first two years, the new permit is issued in accordance with the plan and legislation in force. The fact that the old permit had a higher floor area ratio (emsal) or a different use does not by itself preserve them. The correct determination of the fact of commencement in the file produces not only a technical but also a direct legal consequence.

The existence of this new provision calls for care in using decisions on renewing older permits. Applying the short summary of a decision given under the earlier legislation to a current file as it stands may be misleading.

If the building was completed but no occupancy permit was obtained, is a new permit required?

The seventh paragraph of Article 54 of the Regulation governs a special situation. For buildings completed in accordance with the permit and its annexes whose permit lapsed because no occupancy permit was issued within the permit period, an occupancy permit certificate may be issued without issuing a new permit, provided there is the necessary inspection report and an examination of the file and on site by the administration.

Therefore, requiring a new permit from scratch in every file with an expired permit may not be correct. However, the building must actually have been completed and be in conformity with its permit. Unauthorized additions or deviations from the project are not cured merely by the explanation “the building was already finished.”

Are completion and being put into use the same?

Being in actual use is not conclusive proof of completion in accordance with the permit or of the conditions for an occupancy permit. The technical report, the projects and the administration’s on-site examination are important. Records such as electricity or water subscriptions may help; on their own they do not verify all zoning conditions.

How are a plan amendment and acquired rights assessed?

Article 29 of Law No. 3194 reserves acquired rights in construction that has begun. However, an acquired right is not the same as an expectation on paper alone. A lawful permit, the level of construction, timely commencement, the renewal application and subsequent administrative or judicial decisions must be assessed together.

Article 54 of the Regulation separately contains provisions for plan amendments and for cases of allocation to public service. Features such as falling on a road or technical infrastructure area, an expropriation decision and becoming co-owned as a result of parcelling may change the outcome. For this reason, there is no rule that “the first permit freezes all rights indefinitely.”

Annulment of a permit and expiry of its period are different

The annulment of a permit on the ground that it was unlawful from the outset is a different problem from the mere expiry of its period. The effects of a plan or permit annulled by a court should not be reduced to the ordinary renewal regime in this article. If there are additional acts, such as sealing the construction, withdrawing the permit or implementing a court decision, the legal consequence of each is determined separately.

Why should the old Council of State decision be read together with the current rule?

The decision of the Council of State 6th Chamber of January 26, 2004, E.2002/3991, K.2004/418 concerns a permit renewal request made after the period had expired and changed plan conditions. The Chamber reversed an annulment decision that had been given on the ground of an acquired right under the rules of that date.

The decision is a historical example showing the importance of the time of application and of a plan amendment. However, because of the July 1, 2026 amendment, this decision cannot today be presented as meaning that only the new plan and legislation apply to all permits whose period has expired. In a current file, commencement in the first two years and the applicable technical safety rules in particular must be assessed separately. Full text of the decision.

What route is followed against a refusal of renewal?

Against a final refusal decision, unless there is a special provision, an annulment action within the general 60-day period before the administrative court comes into question. A timely application under Article 11 of the İYUK is different from an Article 10 application in a file where no act has yet been taken. It should not be assumed that every new petition will give a fresh 60 days.

Filing a lawsuit does not give permission to continue construction. For a stay of execution, manifest unlawfulness and harm that is difficult to remedy must be shown together. A stay of the refusal decision likewise does not mean that the court itself issues a new permit; the administration must act in line with the court’s reasoning.

The provisions of the Regulation on periods in which construction was stopped by a court, the Ministry or the administration must be assessed separately. Not every commercial delay or financing problem produces the same result. The basis for a period that is to be added to the time limit must be shown with a document.

Conclusion

There is no single automatic renewal rule when a construction permit’s period expires. A timely application, commencement in the first two years, the completed-building exception and plan amendments must each be assessed separately. The 2026 amendment introduced an important distinction, especially for buildings that require a new permit. The preparation of an application should be done by examining the permit and the building inspection archive together.

Related articles: Refusal of a subdivision and consolidation application; Annulment of a construction permit and acquired rights; Failure to issue an occupancy permit and routes to court

Frequently Asked Questions

What happens if I do not begin within two years after obtaining the permit?

The permit’s lapse and the need for a new permit come into question. Under the current rule, the new permit is issued according to the plan and legislation in force.

Does it make a difference to ask for renewal before the five years expire?

Yes. Article 54/3 of the Regulation provides special protection for a timely application. The records of the application should be kept.

Does an old permit provide an exemption from earthquake and fire rules?

No. The 2026 provision separately requires current safety and environmental measures in the relevant new-permit files.

If the building is completed, must a new permit always be obtained?

No. For buildings completed in accordance with their permit, an occupancy permit may be issued without issuing a new permit if the conditions of Article 54/7 are met.

Can I continue construction when I file an annulment action?

Filing a lawsuit does not by itself constitute permission. The legal status of the existing permit and of any stop decision must be examined separately.

Sources

• Zoning Law No. 3194, Arts. 29–31. Current text.
• Regulation on Planned Areas Zoning, especially Art. 54. Consolidated article text.
• Official Gazette No. 33297 of July 1, 2026, Regulation Amending the Regulation on Planned Areas Zoning, Arts. 5 and 9. Text of the amendment.
• Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577, Arts. 7, 10, 11, 27 and 28. Current text.
• Council of State 6th Chamber, January 26, 2004, E.2002/3991, K.2004/418. Used in a historical legislative context. Full text.