Buying Property in Turkey: Pitfalls, Limits and Checks

Note on sources. The official legal texts of Türkiye are in Turkish. Each provision below is quoted verbatim in Turkish (the authoritative text) and followed by an unofficial English translation for convenience only. Where exact wording matters, the Turkish text governs.

Short Answer

Foreigners may buy property in Turkey, and the framework is not the obstacle most buyers expect. Under Article 35 of Law No. 2644 (Land Registry Law), acquisition is open to nationals of countries determined by the President, and the reciprocity requirement was abolished in 2012 — a rule still repeated online years after it stopped applying.

The real pitfalls sit elsewhere. Some are on the face of the statute: a thirty-hectare per-person cap and a ten percent per-district cap, an outright bar on acquisition by foreign individuals in second-degree land military prohibited zones, and a two-year project obligation on undeveloped land whose breach leads to liquidation. Others are on the land register but outside the ownership line — mortgages, annotations and public-law restrictions sit in different columns. And one of the most serious is not on the register at all: a spouse’s consent to the sale of a family home, which the Court of Cassation treats as required whether or not an annotation exists.

The Pitfalls, Grouped

The recurring problems divide into four groups, and each has a section below.

1. Eligibility that is assumed rather than checked. Reciprocity is gone, but the eligible-country framework replaced it and the President may restrict, suspend or prohibit acquisitions at any time. Eligibility is a transaction-date question, not a settled fact.

2. Statutory ceilings and zone bars. Area limits, military and security zones, and the project obligation on undeveloped land. These are not permit problems to be negotiated; two of them are flat prohibitions and one is a deadline.

3. What the land register does and does not show. Registration, annotation and declaration are three separate columns with three different legal effects. Beyond them, the family-home restriction binds without appearing anywhere in the register.

4. What happens after the purchase. Off-plan delivery, inheritance, and eventual sale each have their own regime, and each is where buyers most often discover a rule too late.

Which Version of Article 35 Is in Force?

Before anything else, a dating point that most sources omit. Article 35 was re-enacted in full on 3 May 2012 by Law No. 6302, and on 2 July 2018 the words “Bakanlar Kurulu” (Council of Ministers) were replaced by “Cumhurbaşkanı” (President) throughout. That matters twice over. It is the amendment that removed reciprocity — and it means older commentary is addressed to a text that has since been rewritten. A related caution belongs here rather than in a footnote: Article 35 carries Constitutional Court partial-annulment records, but those records are keyed to the paragraph and sub-paragraph numbering of the pre-2012 (and in part pre-2005) wording. Because the Article was re-enacted in full, that numbering does not map onto the current text, and the scope of those annulments has to be checked against the wording in force rather than assumed to have lapsed. Everything quoted below is the wording currently in force.

Can a Foreigner Acquire? (The Core Rule)

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.

Reciprocity Abolished: A Common Misconception

The most frequently repeated error — online and by word of mouth — is that a reciprocity requirement still applies to property acquisition. This is not current. The Court of Cassation put a date on 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 — and, as the same decision shows, the point is still being litigated as late as 2025.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

Two years, an approved project, an annotation on the register, and Ministry monitoring — and, as the section on breach below shows, failure to apply in time or to realise the project feeds directly into the liquidation regime. This is the pitfall that most resembles a trap, because nothing goes wrong at the moment of purchase: the buyer acquires validly, and the consequence arrives two years later.

Individuals and Companies: Two Separate Regimes

A frequent and expensive confusion is to read Article 35 as if it governed companies. It does not govern them all, and it says so:

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.

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 — 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.

Reading the Land Register: Three Columns, Three Effects

The most common omission in a cross-border purchase is to treat the land register as a single statement of ownership. It is not. Entries sit in different columns and the column determines the legal effect.

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, 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.

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

This is the risk that most deserves a foreign buyer’s attention, precisely because due diligence on the register will not reveal it.

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’.”

An honest boundary. This line is settled today but was not always uniform. 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.

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.

Buying Off-Plan: What Law No. 6502 Requires

Off-plan purchase is where a foreign buyer is most exposed commercially and, as it happens, most protected legally. The protections are statutory and several of them are conditions of validity rather than remedies after the fact.

6502 sayılı Tüketicinin Korunması Hakkında Kanun m.40 — Ön ödemeli konut satış sözleşmesi

“MADDE 40- (1) Ön ödemeli konut satış sözleşmesi, tüketicinin konut amaçlı bir taşınmazın satış bedelini önceden peşin veya taksitle ödemeyi, satıcının da bedelin tamamen veya kısmen ödenmesinden sonra taşınmazı tüketiciye devir veya teslim etmeyi üstlendiği sözleşmedir.”

(6502 sayılı Tüketicinin Korunması Hakkında Kanun m.40)

Unofficial translation: “ARTICLE 40- (1) A pre-paid housing sales contract is a contract under which the consumer undertakes to pay the sale price of an immovable intended for residential use in advance, in a lump sum or in instalments, and the seller undertakes to transfer or deliver the immovable to the consumer after the price has been paid in whole or in part.”

The remaining paragraphs of Article 40 require a pre-contractual information form to be given at least one day before the contract, and provide that no off-plan contract may be made without a building permit. That last point converts a commercial question into a documentary one: a seller who cannot show the building permit cannot lawfully be at the contract stage at all.

The form requirement is stricter still, and it protects the buyer asymmetrically:

6502 sayılı Tüketicinin Korunması Hakkında Kanun m.41 — Şekil şartı

“MADDE 41- (1) Ön ödemeli konut satışının tapu siciline tescil edilmesi, satış vaadi sözleşmesinin ise noterde düzenleme şeklinde yapılması zorunludur. Aksi hâlde satıcı, sonradan sözleşmenin geçersizliğini tüketicinin aleyhine olacak şekilde ileri süremez. (2) Satıcı, geçerli bir sözleşme yapılmış olmadıkça tüketiciden herhangi bir isim altında ödeme yapmasını veya tüketiciyi borç altına sokan herhangi bir belge vermesini isteyemez.”

(6502 sayılı Tüketicinin Korunması Hakkında Kanun m.41)

Unofficial translation: “ARTICLE 41- (1) Registration of the off-plan housing sale in the land register is compulsory, and the sale promise contract must be drawn up as a notarial deed. Otherwise the seller may not subsequently invoke the invalidity of the contract to the detriment of the consumer. (2) The seller may not require the consumer to make any payment under any name, or to give any document placing the consumer under an obligation, unless a valid contract has been concluded.”

The Court of Cassation has confirmed that this is the special provision governing such disputes:

“Kanun’un 41/1. maddesinde şekil şartı düzenlenmiş ve ön ödemeli konut satışının tapu siciline tescil edilmesi, satış vaadi sözleşmesinin ise noterde düzenleme şeklinde yapılmasının zorunlu olduğu, aksi hâlde satıcının, sonradan sözleşmenin geçersizliğini tüketicinin aleyhine olacak şekilde ileri süremeyeceği belirtilmiştir.”

(Yargıtay 3. Hukuk Dairesi, E. 2022/6985, K. 2022/8516, T. 07.11.2022 — gerekçesi düzeltilerek onama)

Unofficial translation: “Article 41(1) of the Law regulates the formal requirement and provides that registration of the off-plan housing sale in the land register and the drawing up of the sale promise contract as a notarial deed are compulsory, failing which the seller may not subsequently invoke the invalidity of the contract to the detriment of the consumer.”

Delivery is also capped in absolute terms:

6502 sayılı Tüketicinin Korunması Hakkında Kanun m.44 — Devir veya teslim süresi

“MADDE 44- (1) Ön ödemeli konutun sözleşmede taahhüt edilen süre içinde tüketiciye teslim edilmesi zorunludur. Bu süre her hâlükârda sözleşme tarihinden itibaren kırk sekiz ayı geçemez. Kat irtifakının tüketici adına tapu siciline tescil edilmesiyle birlikte zilyetliğin devri hâlinde de devir ve teslim yapılmış sayılır.”

(6502 sayılı Tüketicinin Korunması Hakkında Kanun m.44)

Unofficial translation: “ARTICLE 44- (1) The off-plan dwelling must be delivered to the consumer within the period undertaken in the contract. This period may in no case exceed forty-eight months from the date of the contract. Where possession is transferred together with registration of the condominium easement in the land register in the consumer’s name, transfer and delivery are also deemed to have been made.”

Two readings of that provision are worth separating. The forty-eight months is an outer limit, not a default entitlement: it does not extend a shorter delivery undertaking written into the contract. And the second sentence defines when delivery is deemed to have occurred, which is why the earlier distinction between kat irtifakı and kat mülkiyeti reappears here.

Exit rights are graduated. There is a fourteen-day right of withdrawal without reason or penalty under Article 43. Beyond that:

6502 sayılı Tüketicinin Korunması Hakkında Kanun m.45 — Sözleşmeden dönme

“MADDE 45- (1) Ön ödemeli konut satışında sözleşme tarihinden itibaren yirmidört aya kadar tüketicinin herhangi bir gerekçe göstermeden sözleşmeden dönme hakkı vardır. Sözleşmeden dönülmesi durumunda satıcı; konutun satışı veya satış vaadi sözleşmesi nedeniyle oluşan vergi, harç ve benzeri yasal yükümlülüklerden doğan masraflar ile sözleşme tarihinden itibaren ilk üç ay için sözleşme bedelinin yüzde ikisine, üç ila altı ay arası için yüzde dördüne, altı ila oniki ay arası için yüzde altısına ve oniki ila yirmidört ay arası için de yüzde sekizine kadar tazminatın ödenmesini isteyebilir.”

(6502 sayılı Tüketicinin Korunması Hakkında Kanun m.45)

Unofficial translation: “ARTICLE 45- (1) In off-plan housing sales the consumer has the right to withdraw from the contract without giving any reason for up to twenty-four months from the date of the contract. Where the contract is withdrawn from, the seller may request payment of the costs arising from taxes, fees and similar legal obligations incurred by reason of the sale or the sale promise contract, together with compensation of up to two percent of the contract price for the first three months from the date of the contract, four percent for between three and six months, six percent for between six and twelve months, and eight percent for between twelve and twenty-four months.”

Period from the contract date	Ceiling on the compensation that may be claimed
First three months	2% of the contract price
Three to six months	4% of the contract price
Six to twelve months	6% of the contract price
Twelve to twenty-four months	8% of the contract price

Read the table as what it is: a set of ceilings on compensation, applying to a withdrawal for no reason. It is not an automatic deduction, and it is separate from the taxes and fees the same paragraph addresses. Where the seller is the one at fault, a different paragraph applies and the arithmetic does not:

“(2) Satıcı, yükümlülüklerini hiç ya da gereği gibi yerine getirmezse tüketiciden herhangi bir bedel talep edemez.”

(6502 sayılı Tüketicinin Korunması Hakkında Kanun m.45)

Unofficial translation: “(2) If the seller does not perform its obligations at all or properly, it may not claim any payment from the consumer.”

Finally, the refund timetable has a limit that is easy to misread as a shield for the developer. Article 45(3) allows one hundred and eighty days from the withdrawal notice for the money and documents to be returned. The Court of Cassation has held that this period is addressed to companies that are still operating:

“Bu durumda 6502 sayılı TKHK’ın 45/3 maddesinde, sözleşmeden dönme halinde ödemenin iadesi için getirilen sürenin ancak faaliyetleri devam eden şirketler hakkında uygulanacağı, davalı şirketin faaliyetlerini tamamen durdurmuş olduğundan 6502 sayılı TKHK’ın 45/3 maddesinin davalı şirket için uygulama alanı bulamayacağı, 6098 sayılı TBK’nın 124. maddesindeki süre verilmesini gerektirmeyen durumun var olduğu kabul edilerek değerlendirme yapılması gerekirken İstanbul Bölge Adliye Mahkemesi 45. Hukuk Dairesince 6502 sayılı TKHK’ın 45/3 maddesi gereğince takip tarihi itibariyle alacak henüz muaccel olmadığı gerekçesiyle davanın reddine karar verilmesi doğru olmamış, kararın bozulması uygun bulunmuştur.”

(Yargıtay 6. Hukuk Dairesi, E. 2021/5766, K. 2022/5594, T. 01.12.2022 — bozma)

Unofficial translation: “In that case it should have been assessed on the footing that the period introduced in Article 45(3) of Law No. 6502 for the refund of payment upon withdrawal from the contract applies only to companies whose activities are continuing; that since the defendant company had completely ceased its activities Article 45(3) of Law No. 6502 could find no field of application for the defendant company; and that the situation in Article 124 of Law No. 6098, which does not require the granting of a period, was present. It was not correct for the 45th Civil Chamber of the Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal to dismiss the case on the ground that the claim was not yet due as at the date of enforcement under Article 45(3) of Law No. 6502; it was found appropriate to set the judgment aside.”

That decision does not remove the waiting period generally. It was reached where construction had stopped altogether, and the court assessed the state of performance on technical evidence. A general allegation of delay is not the same finding.

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.

Selling Later: The Five-Year Rule on Capital Gains

The exit is the part of the plan most often left unexamined at purchase, and it has a date in it.

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.

An as-of caution. 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.

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 sanction is not nullity in the abstract — 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.

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.

Common Mistakes

• Looking for reciprocity. The practice was abandoned on 18 May 2012 (7th Civil Chamber, E. 2024/3682, K. 2025/1832); what is decisive is the list of countries determined by the President (Article 35).
• Treating the country list as permanent. Article 35 lets the President restrict, suspend or prohibit acquisition by country, region, ratio and amount — so eligibility is a transaction-date question.
• Ignoring the area limits. The thirty-hectares-per-person and ten-percent-per-district limits may not be exceeded (Article 35), and only the land registry knows whether the district ceiling has been reached.
• Assuming a military zone is a permission problem. For foreign individuals in second-degree land military prohibited zones it is a flat bar (Article 9(b) of Law No. 2565), not a permit to be sought — and Article 28 can bar leasing without permission as well.
• Buying vacant land without planning the project. The project must go to the Ministry within two years, and failure feeds the liquidation regime (Article 35).
• Reading only the ownership line of the register. Registration, annotation and declaration are three columns with three effects (Articles 1008 and 1012 of Law No. 4721), and a sale-promise annotation older than five years has not lapsed by itself.
• Assuming the register shows every restriction. The family home rule binds without an annotation, and the third party’s good faith is not decisive (General Assembly of Civil Chambers, E. 2017/2809, K. 2021/367).
• Paying an off-plan developer before a valid contract exists. Article 41 of Law No. 6502 requires registration or a notarial sale promise and bars payment demands before a valid contract; Article 40 bars the contract itself without a building permit.
• Treating forty-eight months as the delivery date. It is an outer limit under Article 44 of Law No. 6502 and does not extend a shorter undertaking in the contract.
• Confusing real persons with companies — and companies with each other. Article 35(2) governs companies formed abroad; Article 36 governs Turkey-established foreign-capital companies, with a purpose limit rather than an area limit.
• Planning the purchase but not the succession. Turkish law governs the immovable situated in Türkiye regardless of the owner’s nationality (Article 20 of Law No. 5718).
• Overlooking the five-year point on exit. Disposal within five years of acquisition brings the gain into capital gains under repeated Article 80 of Law No. 193, and “disposal” covers exchange and capital contribution, not only sale.
• Relying on old figures. Amounts for citizenship or residence via property, and the annual capital gains exemption, all change and must be checked for the relevant date.

Summary

• Foreign real persons may acquire real estate in Türkiye subject to statutory limits, provided they are nationals of countries determined by the President (Article 35 of Law No. 2644, in its 2012 wording).
• Reciprocity was abandoned on 18 May 2012; the Court of Cassation confirmed the date as recently as 2025.
• Acquisition is capped per person (thirty hectares) and per district (ten percent), and the President may restrict, suspend or prohibit acquisitions by country, region, ratio or amount at any time.
• Second-degree land military prohibited zones are barred to foreign individuals outright (Article 9(b) of Law No. 2565); Turkey-established foreign-capital companies may acquire there only with permission (Article 36(3) of Law No. 2644).
• Undeveloped land carries a two-year project-approval obligation, and breach of the Article’s conditions — including inheritance beyond the limits — leads to liquidation and conversion into money.
• Before the title deed transaction, the two enquiries a court expects are the land registry channel and the Law No. 2565 channel; neither of them addresses the condition of the property or competing rights over it.
• The register speaks in three columns, and the family home restriction binds even when it says nothing at all.
• Off-plan purchases carry statutory form requirements, a forty-eight-month outer delivery limit and graduated withdrawal rights under Law No. 6502.
• Turkish law governs the succession of an immovable situated in Türkiye, and property situated in Türkiye is within the scope of inheritance and transfer tax whatever the parties’ nationality.
• Selling within five years of acquisition brings the gain within capital gains, and the exempt amount must be checked for the year of sale.