Buying Property in Turkey: Conditions, Limits and Checks

Foreign individuals may buy property in Turkey if they are nationals of countries designated by the President and meet the statutory conditions. Article 35 of Law No. 2644 governs eligibility and acquisition limits. The reciprocity requirement was abolished in 2012; nationality eligibility must be assessed under the framework that replaced it.

The assessment also covers area limits, military and security zones, project obligations for undeveloped land, and existing rights over the property. The land register must be examined alongside restrictions that may apply without an entry, including the family-home consent requirement discussed below.

1. Which Version of Article 35 Is in Force?

Article 35 was re-enacted in full on 3 May 2012 by Law No. 6302. On 2 July 2018, references to the Council of Ministers were replaced by references to the President. The 2012 amendment removed reciprocity, so earlier commentary must be read against the text then in force. The Article’s Constitutional Court partial-annulment records refer to pre-2012, and in part pre-2005, paragraph numbering. Their scope must be checked against the relevant version rather than inferred from the current numbering.

2. Who Can Buy Property in Turkey?

The framework of acquisition is in Article 35:

2644 sayılı Tapu Kanunu m.35 — Acquisition by foreign real persons

“Kanuni sınırlamalara uyulmak kaydıyla, uluslararası ikili ilişkiler yönünden ve ülke menfaatlerinin gerektirdiği hallerde Cumhurbaşkanı tarafından belirlenen ülkelerin vatandaşı olan yabancı uyruklu gerçek kişiler Türkiye’de taşınmaz ve sınırlı ayni hak edinebilirler.”

(2644 sayılı Tapu Kanunu m.35)

Unofficial translation: “Subject to compliance with statutory limits, and where international bilateral relations and the country’s interests so require, foreign real persons who are nationals of countries determined by the President may acquire real estate and limited rights in rem in Türkiye.”

The key point is that acquisition is available to nationals of countries determined by the President. So not every foreigner may automatically acquire; the nationality must fall within this framework.

3. Does Reciprocity Still Apply?

Reciprocity is no longer a condition of property acquisition under the current framework. The Court of Cassation identified the date of the change:

“davacı İsveç vatandaşı olup yabancı uyruklu gerçek kişilerin ülkemizde taşınmaz edinmesinde karşılıklılık şartı aranması uygulaması, 18 Mayıs 2012 tarihinde terkedilmiştir.”

(Yargıtay 7. Hukuk Dairesi, E. 2024/3682, K. 2025/1832, T. 09.04.2025 — bozma)

Unofficial translation: “the claimant being a Swedish national, the practice of requiring the condition of reciprocity for the acquisition of immovable property in our country by foreign real persons was abandoned on 18 May 2012.”

Practical consequence: the question does my country sell real estate to Turkish nationals is no longer decisive. What is decisive is whether the person’s nationality falls within the acquisition framework (among the designated countries). Assessments made on the old reciprocity logic can be misleading. As the same decision shows, the point is still being litigated as late as 2025.

4. Area Limits: Ten Percent and Thirty Hectares

Acquisition is not unrestricted but limited in amount:

2644 sayılı Tapu Kanunu m.35 — Area limits

“Yabancı uyruklu gerçek kişilerin edindikleri taşınmazlar ile bağımsız ve sürekli nitelikteki sınırlı ayni hakların toplam alanı, özel mülkiyete konu ilçe yüz ölçümünün yüzde onunu ve kişi başına ülke genelinde otuz hektarı geçemez. Cumhurbaşkanı kişi başına ülke genelinde edinilebilecek miktarı iki katına kadar artırmaya yetkilidir.”

(2644 sayılı Tapu Kanunu m.35)

Unofficial translation: “The total area of real estate and independent and permanent limited rights in rem acquired by foreign real persons may not exceed ten percent of the privately owned area of the district, nor thirty hectares per person nationwide. The President is empowered to increase the amount that may be acquired per person nationwide up to twofold.”

Two limits operate together: the total area foreigners may acquire in a district may not exceed ten percent of that district’s privately owned area; and the area one person may acquire nationwide may not exceed thirty hectares, an amount the President may double. Note which of the two you cannot check yourself. The thirty-hectare cap is personal and you know your own holdings; the ten-percent cap is a district-level ceiling that depends on what every other foreign buyer in that district has already acquired, and it is the land registry that knows whether it has been reached.

5. Why the Country List Can Change: The President’s Power to Restrict

The eligible-country framework is not static, and the Law says so expressly:

2644 sayılı Tapu Kanunu m.35 — The President’s power to restrict

“Cumhurbaşkanı, ülke menfaatlerinin gerektiği hallerde yabancı uyruklu gerçek kişiler ile yabancı ülkelerde kendi ülkelerinin kanunlarına göre kurulan tüzel kişiliğe sahip ticaret şirketlerinin taşınmaz ve sınırlı ayni hak edinimlerini; ülke, kişi, coğrafi bölge, süre, sayı, oran, tür, nitelik, yüzölçüm ve miktar olarak belirleyebilir, sınırlandırabilir, kısmen veya tamamen durdurabilir veya yasaklayabilir.”

(2644 sayılı Tapu Kanunu m.35)

Unofficial translation: “Where the country’s interests so require, the President may determine, restrict, partly or wholly suspend, or prohibit acquisitions of real estate and limited rights in rem by foreign real persons and by commercial companies with legal personality established abroad under the laws of their own countries — by country, person, geographical region, term, number, ratio, type, quality, area and amount.”

This is the provision that makes a transaction-date check mandatory rather than advisable: eligibility, ratios and even a full suspension can be changed by presidential decision. A list that was accurate when an article was written is not evidence of what applies on the day of the transfer.

6. Military Prohibited Zones: An Outright Bar

For individuals this is not a permission question but a prohibition:

2565 sayılı Askeri Yasak Bölgeler ve Güvenlik Bölgeleri Kanunu m.9/b — Second-degree land military prohibited zones

“b) Yabancı gerçek ve tüzelkişiler bu bölgede taşınmaz mal edinemezler. Yabancılara ait bölgedeki taşınmaz malların tasfiyesine karar vermeye, tasfiye şekil ve şartlarını tespite Cumhurbaşkanı yetkilidir.”

(2565 sayılı Askeri Yasak Bölgeler ve Güvenlik Bölgeleri Kanunu m.9)

Unofficial translation: “(b) Foreign real and legal persons may not acquire immovable property in this zone. The President is empowered to decide on the liquidation of immovable property in the zone belonging to foreigners and to determine the form and conditions of liquidation.”

The reach is not limited to zones already designated as military:

2565 sayılı Askeri Yasak Bölgeler ve Güvenlik Bölgeleri Kanunu m.28 — Areas determined on strategic grounds

“Askeri yasak bölgelere yakınlığı veya diğer stratejik nedenlerle tespit edilecek bölgelerde yabancıların taşınmaz mal edinemeyeceklerine ve izin alınmadıkça kiralayamayacaklarına, Cumhurbaşkanınca karar verilebilir.”

(2565 sayılı Askeri Yasak Bölgeler ve Güvenlik Bölgeleri Kanunu m.28)

Unofficial translation: “The President may decide that, in areas to be determined by reason of proximity to military prohibited zones or on other strategic grounds, foreigners may not acquire immovable property and may not lease it without permission.”

Note what Article 28 adds: it is not only acquisition that can be barred in such areas, but leasing without permission as well. A buyer who assumes the zone question is irrelevant because the transaction is a lease rather than a purchase has read only half the rule.

7. Vacant Land: The Two-Year Project Obligation

Buying undeveloped land carries an obligation that buyers frequently discover too late:

2644 sayılı Tapu Kanunu m.35 — Project obligation on undeveloped land

“Yabancı uyruklu gerçek kişiler ve yabancı ülkelerde kendi ülkelerinin kanunlarına göre kurulan tüzel kişiliğe sahip ticaret şirketleri, satın aldıkları yapısız taşınmazda geliştireceği projeyi iki yıl içinde ilgili Bakanlığın onayına sunmak zorundadır. İlgili Bakanlıkça başlama ve bitirilme süresi belirlenerek onaylanan proje tapu kütüğünün beyanlar hanesine kaydedilmek üzere taşınmazın bulunduğu tapu müdürlüğüne gönderilir. Onaylanan projenin süresi içinde gerçekleştirilip gerçekleştirilmediği ilgili Bakanlıkça takip edilir.”

(2644 sayılı Tapu Kanunu m.35)

Unofficial translation: “Foreign real persons and commercial companies with legal personality established abroad under the laws of their own countries must submit the project they will develop on the undeveloped immovable they have purchased to the approval of the relevant Ministry within two years. The project approved by the relevant Ministry, with the periods for commencement and completion determined, is sent to the land registry directorate where the immovable is located to be recorded in the declarations section of the land register. Whether the approved project is realised within its period is monitored by the relevant Ministry.”

The buyer must submit the project for Ministry approval within two years. The approved project is recorded in the register and monitored by the Ministry. Failure to apply or complete the project in time is subject to the liquidation provisions discussed below.

8. Individuals and Companies: Two Separate Regimes

The rules differ for foreign individuals, companies formed abroad and companies established in Türkiye with foreign capital. Article 35 addresses companies formed abroad as follows:

2644 sayılı Tapu Kanunu m.35 — Commercial companies established abroad

“Yabancı ülkelerde kendi ülkelerinin kanunlarına göre kurulan tüzel kişiliğe sahip ticaret şirketleri ancak özel kanun hükümleri çerçevesinde taşınmaz ve sınırlı ayni hak edinebilirler. Bu ticaret şirketleri dışındakiler taşınmaz edinemez ve lehlerine sınırlı ayni hak tesis edilemez. Bu ticaret şirketleri ile yabancı uyruklu gerçek kişiler lehine taşınmaz rehni tesisinde bu maddede yer alan sınırlamalar uygulanmaz.”

(2644 sayılı Tapu Kanunu m.35)

Unofficial translation: “Commercial companies with legal personality established abroad under the laws of their own countries may acquire real estate and limited rights in rem only within the framework of special law provisions. Entities other than those commercial companies may not acquire real estate, and no limited right in rem may be established in their favour. The limits in this Article do not apply to the establishment of a mortgage over immovable property in favour of those commercial companies and of foreign real persons.”

Three distinct rules sit in that one paragraph. Commercial companies formed abroad acquire only within the framework of special law provisions. Those other than those commercial companies (the provision’s own phrase, which is not limited to any particular category of entity) may not acquire, and no limited right in rem may be established in their favour. And mortgages in favour of both those companies and foreign individuals are carved out of the Article’s limits entirely, which is why financing structures are treated differently from ownership.

A company established in Türkiye with foreign capital is a different case again, governed by Article 36:

2644 sayılı Tapu Kanunu m.36 — Companies established in Türkiye with foreign capital

“29/5/2009 tarihli ve 5901 sayılı Türk Vatandaşlığı Kanununun 28 inci maddesi kapsamındaki kişiler hariç olmak üzere yabancı uyruklu gerçek kişilerin, yabancı ülkelerin kanunlarına göre kurulmuş tüzel kişilerin ve uluslararası kuruluşların yüzde elli veya daha fazla oranda hissesine sahip oldukları veya yönetim hakkını haiz kişilerin çoğunluğunu atayabilme veya görevden alabilme yetkisine sahip oldukları Türkiye’de kurulu tüzel kişiliğe sahip şirketler, ana sözleşmelerinde belirtilen faaliyet konularını yürütmek üzere taşınmaz mülkiyeti veya sınırlı ayni hak edinebilir ve kullanabilirler.”

(2644 sayılı Tapu Kanunu m.36)

Unofficial translation: “Except for persons within the scope of Article 28 of Law No. 5901 on Turkish Citizenship of 29/5/2009, companies with legal personality established in Türkiye in which foreign real persons, legal persons established under the laws of foreign countries and international organisations hold fifty percent or more of the shares, or have the power to appoint or dismiss the majority of the persons holding management rights, may acquire and use ownership of immovable property or limited rights in rem in order to carry out the activities stated in their articles of association.”

The limiting factor here is not an area cap but the company’s stated purpose: acquisition must serve the activities in the articles of association. Two consequences follow. Blue Card holders under Article 28 of Law No. 5901 are expressly carved out of the fifty-percent test. And in military and security zones these companies are not barred outright, but permitted only with consent:

2644 sayılı Tapu Kanunu m.36 — Permission requirement in military and security zones

“18/12/1981 tarihli ve 2565 sayılı Askeri Yasak Bölgeler ve Güvenlik Bölgeleri Kanunu hükümleri saklı kalmak kaydıyla bu şirketlerin, askeri yasak bölgeler, askeri güvenlik bölgeleri ve aynı Kanunun 28 inci maddesi çerçevesinde belirlenen bölgelerdeki taşınmaz mülkiyeti edinimleri Genelkurmay Başkanlığının ya da yetkilendireceği komutanlıkların; özel güvenlik bölgelerindeki taşınmaz mülkiyeti edinimleri ise taşınmazın bulunduğu yerdeki valiliğin iznine tabidir. Bu fıkra kapsamında yapılacak değerlendirmelerde, edinimin ülke güvenliğine uygunluğu esas alınır.”

(2644 sayılı Tapu Kanunu m.36)

Unofficial translation: “Without prejudice to the provisions of Law No. 2565 on Military Prohibited Zones and Security Zones of 18/12/1981, acquisitions of immovable property ownership by these companies in military prohibited zones, military security zones and areas determined within the framework of Article 28 of the same Law are subject to the permission of the General Staff or of the commands it authorises; acquisitions of immovable property ownership in special security zones are subject to the permission of the governorship of the place where the immovable is located. In assessments to be made under this paragraph, the suitability of the acquisition for national security is taken as the basis.”

Note that the two provisions do not describe the same territory. Article 9(b) of Law No. 2565 speaks of second-degree land military prohibited zones; Article 36(3) of Law No. 2644 speaks of military prohibited zones, military security zones and areas determined under Article 28 of that Law. Where the zone descriptions do overlap, the regimes differ in kind: a flat bar for the foreign individual, a permission requirement for the Turkey-established foreign-capital company. Whether a specific parcel falls inside either description is a question for the enquiries described below, not one to be settled from the map. Choosing the acquisition vehicle is therefore a legal question before it is a tax question. If the vehicle is to be a Turkish company, its formation and the activity clauses in its articles of association are covered in setting up a company in Türkiye as a foreigner.

9. Before You Sign: The Two Enquiries a Court Requires

The 2025 decision quoted above did not turn on reciprocity in the end. It was set aside because the required enquiries had not been made:

“Mahkemece, 18.05.2012 tarihli 6302 sayılı Kanunla değişik 2644 sayılı Tapu Kanununun 35. maddesi uyarınca davacının Türkiye’de mülk edinmesine engel bir durum olup olmadığının İlçe Tapu Sicil Müdürlüğü ile Tapu ve Kadastro Genel Müdürlüğünden (Yabancı İşler Dairesi Başkanlığı ) sorularak bununla birlikte 2565 sayılı Askeri Yasak Bölgeler ve Güvenlik Bölgeleri Kanununa göre de inceleme ve araştırma yapılarak sonucuna göre bir karar verilmesi gerekirken eksik araştırma ve inceleme ile yazılı şekilde karar verilmesi doğru görülmemiş, hükmün bu sebeple bozulması gerekmiştir.”

(Yargıtay 7. Hukuk Dairesi, E. 2024/3682, K. 2025/1832, T. 09.04.2025 — bozma)

Unofficial translation: “It was not found correct that the court decided as written on the basis of incomplete research and examination, whereas it should have asked the District Land Registry Directorate and the General Directorate of Land Registry and Cadastre (Department of Foreigners’ Affairs) whether there was any impediment to the claimant’s acquisition of property in Türkiye under Article 35 of Law No. 2644 as amended by Law No. 6302 of 18/05/2012, and should also have carried out an examination and research under Law No. 2565 on Military Prohibited Zones and Security Zones, and decided according to the result; the judgment must therefore be set aside.”

Read as a checklist, this gives two enquiries that a court itself treats as indispensable: the land registry channel (District Directorate plus the Department of Foreigners’ Affairs at the General Directorate) and the Law No. 2565 channel. A buyer who obtains both answers before signing is standing where the Court of Cassation says the file should be.

Note the limit of this checklist, however. Both enquiries go to whether this foreigner may acquire this parcel, considering nationality eligibility and zone status. Neither of them tells you anything about the condition of the property itself, who else has rights over it, or whether the seller is free to sell. Those are separate questions, and the sections that follow are about them.

10. Reading the Land Register: Three Columns, Three Effects

The land register contains registration, annotation and declaration entries with different legal effects. Reviewing ownership alone does not establish the position of other rights and restrictions.

Registration is where rights in rem are created:

4721 sayılı Türk Medeni Kanunu m.1008 — Tescil

“Taşınmaza ilişkin aşağıdaki haklar, tapu kütüğüne tescil edilir: 1. Mülkiyet, 2. İrtifak hakları ve taşınmaz yükleri, 3. Rehin hakları.”

(4721 sayılı Türk Medeni Kanunu m.1008)

Unofficial translation: “The following rights relating to immovable property are registered in the land register: 1. Ownership, 2. Easements and land charges, 3. Rights of pledge.”

Ownership, usufruct, rights of way and mortgages are entered here, and registration creates the right. A mortgage over the property you are buying is not a footnote; it is a right in rem that survives the change of owner.

Annotation is a different column with a different function. It does not create a right; it makes an existing personal right effective against third parties. The Court of Cassation sets out its three functions:

“Şahsi hakların kuvvetlendirilmesini, malikin tasarruf yetkisinin sınırlandırılmasını ve muvakkat (geçici) tescilin tapu kütüğüne yazılmasını sağlar.”

(Yargıtay 14. Hukuk Dairesi, E. 2015/17370, K. 2016/9162, T. 07.11.2016 — bozma)

Unofficial translation: “It serves to strengthen personal rights, to restrict the owner’s power of disposal, and to enter provisional registration in the land register.”

The practical consequence for a buyer is sharp. A sale-promise annotation in favour of someone else means that person’s personal claim can be asserted against you. The Court of Cassation has treated a purchaser who bought while such an annotation was visible as not a good-faith third party. Nor does the passage of time clear the column by itself. Article 26 of Law No. 2644 provides that the annotation is struck off if no sale takes place within five years, but the General Assembly of Civil Chambers does not read that as automatic:

“Tüm bu düzenlemeler birlikte değerlendirildiğinde Tapu Kanununun 26. maddesindeki düzenleme şerhin malikin istemi üzerine terkin edilebileceği şeklinde anlaşılmalıdır. Taşınmaz maliki tarafından terkini talep edilmediği için tapu sicilinde varolmaya devam eden şerh etkisini devam ettirecektir.”

(Yargıtay Hukuk Genel Kurulu, E. 2015/12, K. 2016/1005, T. 02.11.2016 — bozma)

Unofficial translation: “When all these provisions are assessed together, the arrangement in Article 26 of the Land Registry Law must be understood to mean that the annotation may be struck off upon the owner’s request. An annotation that continues to exist in the land register because the owner of the immovable has not requested its cancellation will continue to have effect.”

So an expired-looking annotation is still an annotation. A buyer who sees one dated more than five years ago and assumes it has lapsed is making exactly the assumption this decision rejects.

Declaration is the third column, for informative entries:

4721 sayılı Türk Medeni Kanunu m.1012 — Beyan

“Bir taşınmazın eklentileri, malikin istemi üzerine kütükteki beyanlar sütununa yazılır. Bu kaydın terkini, kütükte hak sahibi görünen bütün ilgililerin rızasına bağlıdır.”

(4721 sayılı Türk Medeni Kanunu m.1012)

Unofficial translation: “The appurtenances of an immovable are entered in the declarations column of the register upon the owner’s request. Cancellation of this entry depends on the consent of all interested parties appearing as rights holders in the register.”

Public-law restrictions (zoning, cultural-property status, forest status and transfer bans arising from special laws) are as a rule entered in this declarations column. So is the approved project annotation for undeveloped land described above. Calling all of these “şerh” in everyday speech is the single most common source of confusion, and it matters because the columns carry different consequences.

11. The Family Home: A Consent That Does Not Appear on the Register

The family-home consent requirement may apply even when no annotation appears in the land register. The property’s use as a family home must therefore be assessed separately from its register entries.

4721 sayılı Türk Medeni Kanunu m.194 — Aile konutu

“Eşlerden biri, diğer eşin açık rızası bulunmadıkça, aile konutu ile ilgili kira sözleşmesini feshedemez, aile konutunu devredemez veya aile konutu üzerindeki hakları sınırlayamaz.”

(4721 sayılı Türk Medeni Kanunu m.194)

Unofficial translation: “Neither spouse may, without the express consent of the other, terminate the lease relating to the family home, transfer the family home, or limit the rights over the family home.”

The decisive point is that the protection does not depend on an annotation being placed. The General Assembly of Civil Chambers is explicit:

“TMK’nın 194. maddesinde öngörülen sınırlandırma, taşınmazın tapu kaydına aile konutu şerhi konulduğu için değil, konut aile konutu vasfı taşıdığı için getirilmiştir. Bu sebeple taşınmazın tapu kaydında aile konutu şerhi bulunmasa bile o konut aile konutu özelliğini taşır. Nitekim aile konutu şerhi kurucu değil açıklayıcı niteliktedir.”

(Yargıtay Hukuk Genel Kurulu, E. 2017/2809, K. 2021/367, T. 30.03.2021 — onama)

Unofficial translation: “The restriction envisaged in Article 194 of the Turkish Civil Code was introduced not because a family home annotation was placed in the land register, but because the dwelling bears the character of a family home. For this reason, even where there is no family home annotation in the land register, that dwelling retains the quality of a family home. Indeed, the family home annotation is declaratory, not constitutive.”

And the same decision removes the buyer’s usual fallback:

“Bu nedenle işlem tarafı üçüncü kişinin iyi niyetli olup olmamasının önemi bulunmamaktadır. Başka bir ifade ile TMK’nın 194. maddesine dayalı davalarda; işlem tarafı üçüncü kişi konumunda bulunan davalının iyi niyet iddiasına dayanak, ipotek işleminin tesis edildiği tarihte taşınmazın tapu kaydında aile konutu şerhi bulunmadığı savunması önemini kaybetmiş, madde metninde yer alan “açık rıza” koşulu davalıya ispat külfeti olarak yüklenmiştir.”

(Yargıtay Hukuk Genel Kurulu, E. 2017/2809, K. 2021/367, T. 30.03.2021 — onama)

Unofficial translation: “For this reason it is of no importance whether the third party to the transaction acted in good faith. In other words, in claims based on Article 194 of the Turkish Civil Code, the defendant third party’s defence that there was no family home annotation in the land register on the date the mortgage was created has lost its significance, and the condition of ‘express consent’ in the text of the Article has been placed on the defendant as a burden of proof.”

Two further points make this directly relevant to buyers who live abroad. First, the same body has held that continuous occupation is not required, and has said so in terms that describe exactly the holiday-home pattern:

“…yurt dışında yaşayan bir ailenin, Türkiye’ye geldiğinde kullandığı tek konutu, diğer unsurların da bulunması koşuluyla, aile konutu olarak kabul edilmelidir.”

(Yargıtay Hukuk Genel Kurulu, E. 2013/473, K. 2014/92, T. 12.02.2014 — bozma)

Unofficial translation: “…the sole dwelling used by a family living abroad when it comes to Türkiye must, provided the other elements are also present, be accepted as a family home.”

Second, consent is not subject to any particular form, but it must be express:

“Türk Medeni Kanunu’nun 194. maddesi yetkili eşin izni için bir geçerlilik şekli öngörmemiştir. Bu nedenle söz konusu izin bir şekle tabi olmadan, sözlü olarak da verilebilir. Ancak maddenin ifadesinden de anlaşılacağı üzere, iznin “Açık” olması gerekir.”

(Yargıtay 2. Hukuk Dairesi, E. 2020/3829, K. 2020/5916, T. 19.11.2020 — kısmen bozma, kısmen onama)

Unofficial translation: “Article 194 of the Turkish Civil Code does not prescribe any form of validity for the consent of the entitled spouse. For this reason that consent may be given without being subject to any form, including orally. However, as is clear from the wording of the Article, the consent must be ‘express’.”

The judgments have not always taken the same approach. In a 2015 decision the General Assembly accepted in principle that, absent an annotation, a good-faith third party could rely on Article 1023 of Law No. 4721, and in that case the bank lost only because it had not acted prudently (HGK, E. 2015/247, K. 2015/2323, T. 21.10.2015 — onama). The 2021 decision took the good-faith debate out of the picture and has been followed since. Older sources describing a different framework are describing that earlier position.

The practical consequence is not that the risk is unmanageable, but that it is not a register question. It is a question about the seller’s marital status and the use of the dwelling, and the burden of proving express consent falls on the party defending the transaction.

12. Kat İrtifakı or Kat Mülkiyeti: What the Deed Says About the Building

A title deed for an apartment will say one of two things, and the difference is not formal.

634 sayılı Kat Mülkiyeti Kanunu m.10 — Genel kural

“Kat mülkiyeti ve kat irtifakı resmi senetle ve tapu siciline tescil ile doğar. Anagayrimenkulün tümünün mülkiyeti (Kat mülkiyeti) ne çevrilmeden o gayrimenkulün yalnız bir veya birkaç bölümü üzerinde kat mülkiyeti kurulamaz.”

(634 sayılı Kat Mülkiyeti Kanunu m.10)

Unofficial translation: “Condominium ownership and condominium easement arise by official deed and registration in the land register. Condominium ownership may not be established over only one or several parts of an immovable without the ownership of the whole main immovable being converted into condominium ownership.”

Both are registered rights, so both appear on a genuine title deed. What separates them is the documentation the Law requires for the second:

634 sayılı Kat Mülkiyeti Kanunu m.12 — İstem ve belgeler

“Kat mülkiyetinin kurulması için, anagayrimenkulün kat mülkiyetine çevrilmesi hususunda o gayrimenkulün maliki veya bütün paydaşlarının aşağıda yazılı belgeler ile birlikte tapu idaresinde istemde bulunması gerekir:”

(634 sayılı Kat Mülkiyeti Kanunu m.12)

Unofficial translation: “For condominium ownership to be established, the owner or all co-owners of the immovable must apply to the land registry administration for the conversion of the main immovable into condominium ownership, together with the documents listed below:”

The documents the Law then requires include the architectural project prepared by its author and approved by the competent public authority, the occupancy permit, and a management plan signed by the owner or owners establishing the condominium. That is why the distinction is informative rather than technical: a deed that still reads kat irtifakı tells you the conversion has not been completed, and the occupancy permit is part of what completes it. It is a fact about the building’s regulatory status that is visible on the deed itself, and it is free to check.

13. Buying Off-Plan: Contract and Delivery Requirements

A consumer buying a prepaid home must consider the building permit, pre-contractual information, contract form and delivery obligations under Articles 40–44 of Law No. 6502. The foreign buyer’s right to acquire the property and the seller’s obligations under the purchase contract are separate enquiries.

The off-plan property buying guide explains registered sales and notarial sale promises, the fourteen-day withdrawal right, later withdrawal, compensation limits and refunds. It also distinguishes an ordinary delay from the ceased-activity situation considered by the Court of Cassation.

14. Inheritance: Which Law Governs Your Turkish Property

Buyers routinely plan the purchase and not the succession, and the two are governed differently. A single estate can be subject to more than one law at the same time:

5718 sayılı MÖHUK m.20 — Miras

“MADDE 20 – (1) Miras ölenin millî hukukuna tâbidir. Türkiye’de bulunan taşınmazlar hakkında Türk hukuku uygulanır. (2) Mirasın açılması sebeplerine, iktisabına ve taksimine ilişkin hükümler terekenin bulunduğu ülke hukukuna tâbidir. (3) Türkiye’de bulunan mirasçısız tereke Devlete kalır. (4) Ölüme bağlı tasarrufun şekline 7 nci madde hükmü uygulanır. Ölenin millî hukukuna uygun şekilde yapılan ölüme bağlı tasarruflar da geçerlidir. (5) Ölüme bağlı tasarruf ehliyeti, tasarrufta bulunanın, tasarrufun yapıldığı andaki millî hukukuna tâbidir.”

(5718 sayılı MÖHUK m.20)

Unofficial translation: “ARTICLE 20 – (1) Succession is governed by the national law of the deceased. Turkish law applies to immovables situated in Türkiye. (2) The provisions concerning the grounds for the opening of the succession, its acquisition and its division are governed by the law of the country where the estate is situated. (3) An estate without heirs situated in Türkiye passes to the State. (4) Article 7 applies to the form of a disposition upon death. Dispositions upon death made in a form compliant with the national law of the deceased are also valid. (5) Capacity to make a disposition upon death is governed by the national law of the disposing party at the time the disposition is made.”

The second sentence of the first paragraph is the one that concerns the property you buy. Succession is in principle governed by the deceased’s national law, but that connecting factor is displaced for immovables situated in Türkiye, which are governed by Turkish law. The criterion is not the type of asset but its location: the provision does not say “immovables”, it says “immovables situated in Türkiye”, so a property abroad does not fall within the sentence.

The Court of Cassation states the three rules together, in a case where a lower court had refused a certificate-of-inheritance request on the footing that the deceased was a foreign national:

“4721 sayılı Türk Medeni Kanunu’nun 598. maddesi hükmünde başvurusu üzerine yasal mirasçı oldukları belirlenenlere Sulh Mahkemesi’nce mirasçılık sıfatlarını gösteren bir belge verileceği, 5718 sayılı Yasa’nın 20. maddesinde mirasın ölenin milli hukukuna tabi olduğu, Türkiye’deki taşınmaz mallar hakkında Türk hukukunun uygulanacağı, mirasın açılmasına, iktisabına ve taksimine ilişkin hükümlerin ise terekenin bulunduğu yer hukukuna tabi olduğu hükme bağlanmıştır.”

(Yargıtay 8. Hukuk Dairesi, E. 2013/8074, K. 2013/18753, T. 10.12.2013 — bozma, oy birliği)

Unofficial translation: “Under Article 598 of the Turkish Civil Code No. 4721, a document showing their status as heirs is issued by the Magistrates’ Court to those determined, upon their application, to be statutory heirs; Article 20 of Law No. 5718 provides that succession is governed by the national law of the deceased, that Turkish law applies to immovable property in Türkiye, and that the provisions concerning the opening, acquisition and division of the estate are governed by the law of the place where the estate is situated.”

A will made abroad is likewise not disqualified merely for failing Turkish formalities. The form of a disposition upon death is connected alternatively, and compliance with one of the three options is enough:

“Bu kapsamda 5718 sayılı MÖHUK’un 20 nci maddesine göre, ölüme bağlı tasarrufun şekli, tasarrufun yapıldığı yer hukukuna veya işlemin esasına uygulanan hukuka veya ölenin milli hukukuna tabidir. Bu üç seçimli şekil kuralından amaç, ölenin son arzularının sonucu olan işlemin geçerliliğini sağlamaktır.”

(Yargıtay 3. Hukuk Dairesi, E. 2020/398, K. 2020/8049, T. 22.12.2020 — bozma)

Unofficial translation: “In this context, under Article 20 of Law No. 5718, the form of a disposition upon death is governed by the law of the place where the disposition was made, or the law applicable to the substance of the transaction, or the national law of the deceased. The purpose of this three-way alternative rule on form is to secure the validity of the transaction that results from the deceased’s last wishes.”

On the acquisition side, the reciprocity point that was abolished for purchases was already settled for inheritance:

“Bu durumda, yukarıdaki kanuni düzenlemeler ve kararlar uyarınca karşılıklılık ilkesinin uygulanmasında veraseten intikallere bir engel olmadığı açıktır.”

(Yargıtay 1. Hukuk Dairesi, E. 2016/13307, K. 2019/5882, T. 18.11.2019 — bozma)

Unofficial translation: “In this situation, it is clear under the legal provisions and decisions referred to above that, in the application of the principle of reciprocity, there is no obstacle to transmissions by inheritance.”

⚠ That case concerned the pre-2012 period, when reciprocity was still applied; it tells you how reciprocity interacted with inheritance, not that inheritance is unregulated today. Note also that inheritance is expressly named in the breach provision below: inherited immovables beyond the first-paragraph limits fall into the liquidation regime.

Everything that follows once Turkish law applies is a separate subject and is set out in Turkish inheritance law for foreigners: who the statutory heirs are and in what shares, the reserved share and abatement, why a foreign grant of probate cannot be recognised here, why a foreign heir cannot obtain a certificate of inheritance from a notary, the three-month period for disclaiming, the rule that heirs must act together, and inheritance tax.

15. Selling Later: The Five-Year Rule on Capital Gains

The timing and manner of disposal affect the capital-gains assessment when property is sold. Repeated Article 80 provides the relevant rule:

193 sayılı Gelir Vergisi Kanunu mükerrer m.80 — Değer artışı kazançları

“6. İktisap şekli ne olursa olsun (ivazsız olarak iktisap edilenler hariç) 70 inci maddenin birinci fıkrasının (1), (2), (4) ve (7) numaralı bentlerinde yazılı mal (gerçek usulde vergiye tâbi çiftçilerin ziraî istihsalde kullandıkları gayrimenkuller dahil) ve hakların, iktisap tarihinden başlayarak beş yıl içinde elden çıkarılmasından doğan kazançlar”

(193 sayılı Gelir Vergisi Kanunu mükerrer m.80)

Unofficial translation: “6. Gains arising from the disposal, within five years from the date of acquisition, of the property (including immovables used in agricultural production by farmers taxed on a real basis) and rights listed in subparagraphs (1), (2), (4) and (7) of the first paragraph of Article 70, whatever the manner of acquisition (except those acquired gratuitously).”

Three features of that subparagraph decide most cases. The period runs from the date of acquisition, so the relevant date is the registration of the purchase, not the date of the decision to sell. Property acquired gratuitously is carved out of the subparagraph, which is why property that came to the owner by inheritance is treated differently from property that was bought. And the list it refers to in Article 70 is the one that covers land and buildings.

The Law also defines the operative verb broadly, which closes several routes that are sometimes assumed to fall outside it:

“Bu maddede geçen “elden çıkarma” deyimi, yukarıda yazılı mal ve hakların satılması, bir ivaz karşılığında devir ve temliki, trampa edilmesi, takası, kamulaştırılması, devletleştirilmesi, ticaret şirketlerine sermaye olarak konulmasını ifade eder.”

(193 sayılı Gelir Vergisi Kanunu mükerrer m.80)

Unofficial translation: “The term ‘disposal’ in this Article means the sale of the property and rights listed above, their transfer and assignment for consideration, their exchange, their barter, their expropriation, their nationalisation, and their contribution to commercial companies as capital.”

So transferring the property into a company as capital contribution, or exchanging it, is a disposal for these purposes in the same way a sale is.

The Article also provides an annual exempt amount for capital gains. That figure is revalued and the applicable number is the one in force for the year of the sale, so it should be verified against the legislation current at that time rather than taken from any article, including this one. Where the sale is made to obtain an exemption-linked benefit, separate holding periods can apply as well: a property acquired under the value-added tax exemption for sales to non-residents, or counted towards exceptional citizenship, may carry its own transfer restriction annotated on the register. The thresholds and the no-sale annotation on the citizenship route are set out in Turkish citizenship by investment.

16. Consequence of Breach: Liquidation and Conversion into Money

The Law does not leave a non-compliant acquisition standing:

2644 sayılı Tapu Kanunu m.35 — Consequence of breach (final paragraph)

“Bu madde hükümlerine aykırı olarak edinilen, edinim amacına aykırı kullanıldığı ilgili Bakanlık ve idarelerce tespit edilen, süresi içinde ilgili Bakanlığa başvurulmayan veya süresi içinde projeleri gerçekleştirilmeyenler ile bu maddenin birinci fıkrası kapsamındaki sınırlamalar dışında miras yoluyla edinilen taşınmazlar ve sınırlı ayni haklar, Maliye Bakanlığınca verilecek bir yılı geçmeyen süre içinde maliki tarafından tasfiye edilmediği takdirde tasfiye edilerek bedele çevrilir ve bedeli hak sahibine ödenir.”

(2644 sayılı Tapu Kanunu m.35)

Unofficial translation: “Immovables and limited rights in rem that are acquired contrary to the provisions of this Article, that the relevant Ministry and administrations determine to be used contrary to the purpose of acquisition, for which the relevant Ministry was not approached within the period, or whose projects were not realised within the period, together with those acquired by inheritance outside the limits within the scope of the first paragraph of this Article, are — if not liquidated by the owner within a period not exceeding one year to be given by the Ministry of Finance — liquidated and converted into money, and the price is paid to the entitled person.”

Five separate triggers sit in that sentence: acquisition contrary to the Article; use contrary to purpose; failure to apply to the Ministry in time; failure to realise the project in time; and inheritance beyond the first-paragraph limits. The owner is given a period of up to one year to liquidate, and if that period passes the property is liquidated and converted into money, with the price paid to the entitled person.

17. Property, Residence and Citizenship

Property acquisition matters not only for ownership but also for status:

• Residence permit: owning real estate in Türkiye may support a short-term residence permit (Article 31 of Law No. 6458). The permit types and their conditions are set out in residence permit types in Türkiye.
• Citizenship: real estate investment of a certain amount and on certain conditions may be taken into account for exceptional citizenship (Article 12 of Law No. 5901). However, those amounts and conditions are set by secondary legislation and change over time; the current threshold must be verified at the time of the transaction. Old figures should not be relied on. The thresholds, the no-sale annotation and the certificate of conformity are covered in Turkish citizenship by investment; investment is only one route among several, and all of them, including descent and marriage, are compared in how to get Turkish citizenship.