Zoning and Planning Law

That a property appears as a plot in the land registry does not by itself show that a building of a certain size can be built. The environmental plan (çevre düzeni planı), master and implementation zoning plans, plan notes, legend and explanatory reports are read together. Scales of 1/5,000 for master plans and 1/1,000 for implementation plans are generally encountered; special scales and competence rules are examined separately. The consistency between a higher-scale plan and a lower-scale decision and the competent approving authority are checked.

• Purpose of use, floor area ratio (emsal/KAKS), building footprint ratio (TAKS), height, number of floors and building order.
• Setbacks, parcel size, street frontage, parking and infrastructure conditions.
• Geological-geotechnical survey, disaster risk, protection decision, annotations and plan restrictions.

A permit issued for a neighboring parcel or the square-meter figure in a real estate listing does not prove that the same building right exists. The plan and legislation in force on the date for which the zoning status was issued are determined.

For revision, supplementary, site-specific (mevzi) and conservation-oriented plans as well, the type of act and its legal basis are determined. The lawfulness of the plan is examined in terms of urban planning principles, planning rules, public interest, higher-scale decisions and competence and procedural rules. Increases in population and building density, the balance of social and technical infrastructure, transportation, the removal of public amenity areas or a privilege granted to a particular parcel are assessed on technical grounds.

The personal, legitimate and current relationship of interest between the person filing the action and the plan is explained. The position of an owner, a neighbor and a professional chamber is not the same. Which scale, plan note and implementation act will be the subject of the action is determined separately in terms of competent authority and time limit. A decline in the property’s value alone cannot be accepted as sufficient for annulling a plan in every file.

Under the general plan procedure of Law No. 3194, plans are displayed for one month and objections can be made within this period. One month and thirty days are not the same calculation. The function of the municipality or Ministry notice and of the e-Plan or PARSİD records is verified against the relevant legislation and official records. The records of the start and end of the display, the online notice, the registration date of the objection, the decision of the competent board and its notification should be kept together.

A special objection during the display period and an application under Article 11 of the Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 (İYUK) are not treated as the same in every case. Where expedited proceedings or a special planning regime applies, the time limit and the effect of the application are assessed separately. Waiting indefinitely for a reply to an objection, or assuming that a new petition will in every case restart a time limit for filing an action that has already run, can lead to a loss of rights.

Changing the use designation or the building conditions is not a right acquired solely by the owner’s request. Plan integrity, scientific grounds, infrastructure, public interest, ownership status and the planning competence of the competent administration are taken into account. The scope of the request file and the route against a rejection or non-response are determined separately.

As to the share in increased value, the type of amendment, the persons making requests, the scope and the exceptions are examined, together with valuation, assessment, payment and the related land registry and permit acts. Acts that do not give rise to a share are not generalized with amendments that are subject to it. The economic outcome is not an assurance that the plan will be approved or that the requested density will be granted.

Under Article 18 of Law No. 3194, land and plots can be arranged to form new zoning parcels. The review is not based solely on the surface area of the new parcel; the readjustment boundary, the plan on which the implementation is based, the allocation site, the assignment of co-ownership shares, equivalence and the grounds for the distribution are important.

• Coordinates, location and entitlement relationship of the old and new parcels.
• Summary, distribution and allocation schedules; readjustment calculation and agency opinions.
• The condition of existing buildings, the rights to be protected and the previous implementation.

Annulment of the parcellation and annulment of the underlying plan are not the same request. After annulment, restoration and re-implementation are planned separately, together with the land registry records.

Land readjustment contribution share (DOP) has a statutory upper limit of forty-five percent. That the deduction is below this limit does not by itself show that the act is lawful in other respects. The needs of the readjustment area, the deduction calculation, the purpose of allocation, the exceptions and the effect on the owners are reviewed. How closed roads, Treasury properties and areas outside the registry were included in the calculation is also investigated.

The relationship between previous parcellation, transfer without compensation, donation, expropriation and the new implementation is investigated. Under what conditions a share can again be taken from a parcel from which a deduction was previously made is determined according to the current provisions. The DOP rate and the loss of location or value of the parcel given to the owner are different subjects of review; a comparison of surface area alone may not be sufficient.

Whether a parcel can be divided, parcels merged or an act concerning a road area carried out depends on the zoning plan, the parcellation status and the technical conditions. A sale of shares does not replace a subdivision that complies with the zoning legislation. The termination of co-ownership in the land registry and divisibility under zoning law are not the same subject.

The minimum size, frontage, depth, road connection and location of buildings are checked together with agency approvals and ownership conditions. The grounds for the rejection decision, the legal basis of the dedication request, the ownership of the created area (ihdas) and the registration process are examined. The effect on new parcel acts of an implementation annulled by a court decision is also investigated.

For parcels that cannot be built on because they are designated for public services, a transfer of development rights may be assessed within the framework of the current conditions of Law No. 3194. It is not assumed that the requested amount of rights can be moved to another parcel; the suitability of the transferring and receiving parcels, competence, the plan decision and valuation are examined together.

As to the framework introduced by Law No. 7534, the calculation of the right to be transferred, the statutory limits on the receiving parcel, licensed valuation reports, the value difference and the conditions for transfer to the public are important. A transfer of development rights is not presented as a mandatory and sole solution in every case in place of expropriation or the possibility of compensation.

The zoning status certificate or the zoning status map (imar çapı) shows the plan decision and the building conditions of the property. Where the certificate is not issued, contains incorrect information, conflicts with the plan or the application is not concluded, the application file, the administration’s grounds and the judicial route are assessed.

Planned areas, unplanned areas, village or rural settlements and properties under special laws are not subject to the same permit regime. Being within a metropolitan municipality boundary or being registered as a field in the land registry does not by itself explain all the conditions. The statutory scope of an exemption claim, the boundary of the settled area and the competence of the administration concerned are checked on the specific parcel.

In applications for new construction, substantial alteration and permit renewal, ownership, zoning status, architectural, structural and installation projects and permits relating to building inspection are assessed together. Simple repairs that do not require a permit are distinguished from changes that are subject to a permit; a general exemption is not assumed for enclosing a balcony or changing the use.

The time limits for starting and completing work, the need for renewal, the validity of the permit, deficiencies in the application and the grounds for rejection are examined. The Zoning Regulation for Planned Areas in force on the date of the act and its transitional provisions form the basis; the effect on the specific project of later regulations, including the amendment dated July 1, 2026, is checked separately.

The occupancy permit is the administrative document relating to the use of the completed building in accordance with the permit and its annexes. That a building is in actual use, has been given utility subscriptions or has an independent unit in the land registry does not in every case show that an occupancy permit was obtained. The scope of the application, the possibility of a partial occupancy permit and the grounds for rejection are examined together.

Deviations from the permit or project, technical deficiencies, building inspection, infrastructure and other documents required by the legislation are assessed. The contractor’s contractual obligation to obtain the occupancy permit and the municipality’s conditions for granting it are separate subjects. Price and damage claims between the owner and the contractor may require a private law review alongside the administrative permit action.

The use of the basement, roof, terrace, balcony, mezzanine, common area or independent unit is compared with the approved project and the alteration history. As well as the area calculation, the purpose of use, the load-bearing system, fire safety and the character of the common area are also important.

• Construction permit, additional projects, alteration permits and occupancy documents.
• On-site measurement, dated photographs and previous findings.
• Records of when and by whom the deviation was made.

Conformity under zoning law does not by itself resolve the consent of the unit owners or liability under private law. For the same change, a municipal act, a neighbor claim and a condominium dispute may arise together.

In the record drawn up under Article 32 of Law No. 3194, the situation without a permit or in deviation from the permit and its annexes must be concretely demonstrated. The date of the finding, the competent officials, the condition of the building, the location and scope of the deviation and the notification procedures are examined.

The record, photographs, measurements and approved projects are assessed together. Not every deficiency is regarded as an automatic ground for annulment; it is important that the deviation and the area it affects can be verified with the technical data in the file. The bases and the separate application periods of the demolition and fine decisions taken after the record are also checked.

In sealing and stoppage acts, the method of service, the posting of the record on the building and the related notifications are assessed under the procedure in the law. It is not assumed that personal service by mail can be expected in every case. The possibility of bringing the building into line with a permit or of remedying the deviation is addressed together with the time limit and the decision of the competent administration.

Continuing to work without the seal being lifted may separately have consequences under criminal law. Filing an objection or an action does not give authority to act on the seal. After the building is brought into compliance, the administration’s re-examination and a proper permit process are required; a de facto correction does not by itself eliminate all previous sanctions.

In a demolition order, the competent authority, the applicable law, the position of the building owner, the finding of the deviation, the opportunities that must be granted and the scope of the order are examined. Whether the whole building or only a certain part of it is to be removed must be explained technically. Situations that cannot be brought into line with a permit are assessed separately from deviations that can be remedied.

The need for a stay of execution together with the annulment action is substantiated by the implementation schedule, the harm that would arise and the grounds of unlawfulness. Demolition under Law No. 3194, a risky building under Law No. 6306 and removal acts based on other special laws are not regarded as subject to the same procedure. The demolition cost and the later collection act may also require a separate review.

In a fine under Article 42 of Law No. 3194, the type of violation, the date it occurred, the building class or group, the area calculation, the unit amount applied and the grounds for increases are reviewed. The existence of a calculation schedule is not sufficient; the connection of each element to the specific building and act must be explained.

• The right addressee and personal liability of the building owner, contractor or responsible technical supervisor (fenni mesul).
• The area affected by the violation, duplicate calculation and grounds for increases.
• The separate consequences of the decision, service, reduction or payment, assessment and collection acts.

The route of application against the fine is determined together with the basis of the decision and the related acts. For every administrative fine, application is not automatically made to the same authority within the same period; payment alone does not bring the building into compliance with the law either.

The building registration certificate (yapı kayıt belgesi) is not a general and unlimited construction permit or document of ownership. The date of application, the statutory scope of the building, the accuracy of the declarations, the excluded areas and the effect of the certificate are examined. Work or changes made later are not automatically protected by the certificate.

The annulment of the certificate, demolition or fine, refund and other administrative acts are assessed separately. If there is an allegation of causing zoning pollution (imar kirliliği) or breaking a seal, the criminal process under Articles 184 and 203 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK) is addressed separately. The outcome of the administrative action and criminal liability do not replace each other; lawfulness and favorable outcomes depend on the conditions of the file.

An act concerning a hazardous or derelict building under Law No. 3194 differs from the determination of a risky building under Law No. 6306. The competent agency, technical report, notification, objection and the time limit for eviction or demolition vary according to which legal regime applies.

Without seeing the basis of the act, the general zoning action time limit is not relied on. If there is a building safety risk, protective physical measures and notification to the competent units should not be delayed. For the relationship between the determination of a risky building, strengthening, eviction and transformation, urban transformation and risky building services are assessed separately.

That a permit has been issued does not give rise to an unlimited vested right in the face of every change. The legal basis of the permit, its period of validity, the stage the construction has reached, the dates of application and acts, the good faith of the person concerned and the scope of the court decision are examined together.

There is a relationship between the annulment of the underlying plan and the status of the construction permit; however, the same automatic result cannot be established for every file. Withdrawal of the permit, suspension, renewal or acts of alignment with a new plan are assessed separately. The conditions and time limits of the full remedy action are also checked for damage claimed to have arisen from an erroneous administrative act.

The coastal edge line, the coastal strip, natural or archaeological protected sites, conservation areas and conservation-oriented plans can affect the use of a property. Private ownership in the land registry does not remove the special conservation rules. Board or commission decisions, registration boundaries and transitional period conditions are investigated.

Plan, permit and conservation decisions may be taken by separate competent authorities; the application and the subject of the action are determined accordingly. Before construction, alteration, a change of use or excavation, the required permits are checked. A change in or annulment of the conservation status does not mean that the other permits are deemed to have been obtained automatically.

The forest boundary, the cadastral history, the class of the agricultural land, the permit for non-agricultural use and the settlement status are part of the assessment of building rights. It cannot be said that a structure described as prefabricated or removable is exempt from permit obligations in every case.

The land registry record, the plan decision and the permits are read together. Dividing agricultural land, selling it or changing its use are different acts from constructing a building. If there is a claim of forest or public property, or a special environmental protection or water basin restriction, the relevant special legislation applies separately; a letter obtained from the municipality alone does not mean that all risks have been eliminated.

In tourism investments, industrial facilities, organized industrial zones, and energy, mining and logistics projects, planning competence and permits and operating licenses may be subject to special regulations. The relationship of allocation, environmental impact assessment, conservation, infrastructure and sectoral permits to the zoning process is assessed.

A permit from one agency does not replace other permits. In particular, separate routes of application and the possibility of expedited proceedings are checked for the environmental impact assessment (ÇED) decision, the permit and the plan decision. The project schedule is not built on the assumption that the administration will definitely grant a permit on a certain date; the legal stages that must be completed before the investment decision are explained.

A property’s designation for a school, park, road or another public service and the de facto taking of the property into use are not the same situation. The duration of the plan restriction, the implementation program, the responsible administration, expropriation and previous applications are investigated.

Options of plan amendment, transfer of development rights, expropriation or compensation are distinguished within the framework of current legislation and case law. Not every plan decision immediately gives rise to the same claim for payment; the distinction between de facto and legal encroachment may also affect the competent judicial route. For the related requests, a linked review is carried out together with expropriation and de facto encroachment services.

Before a purchase or investment decision, the land registry and encumbrances are reviewed together with the zoning file. The purpose of use, saleable area or permit promise in a sales presentation is compared with the plan in force, the technical project and the permits. The scope of the review is determined according to the transaction and the nature of the property.

• Existing plans, pending plan actions and the parcellation history.
• Permit, occupancy permit, actual deviations, fines and demolition decisions.
• Special status, infrastructure, access, dedication or deduction and additional permit obligations.

The conditions of acquisition, the representation documents and the need for translation for foreign investors’ real estate and company transactions in Türkiye are also assessed. A legal risk review does not replace a technical feasibility study or an official valuation report.