Apartment Alterations in Turkey: Balconies, Common Areas and Written Consent

Can an owner or tenant alter an apartment without other approvals?

Owning or renting an apartment is not unrestricted permission to alter the building. Identify the independent unit, common parts, approved project and proposed work. Article 19 of the Condominium Law regulates specified common-area works and the building’s protection. A tenant also needs the landlord’s written consent under Article 321 of the Code of Obligations. Municipal and technical requirements remain separate checks.

Have a general question about this article? Ask anonymously

Visit our English legal services homepage for information about our Mersin-based practice, Istanbul and Mersin offices, and representation throughout Türkiye within the agreed mandate.

Key distinctions

1. Identify the work before asking for a vote

Apartment alterations in Turkey range from replacing a kitchen unit to removing a wall, enclosing a balcony or occupying a shared terrace. Those acts do not raise identical questions. Describe the location, dimensions, materials and intended result before asking whether a manager can approve the work. A contractor’s description of a project as decoration does not determine its legal or structural character.

A useful first file contains the current title information, approved architectural project, management plan and a marked drawing of the proposal. Distinguish what exists now from what the owner proposes to add or remove. Photographs show the physical condition, but they do not by themselves establish ownership boundaries or project approval. An apartment advertised with a terrace does not necessarily give its purchaser ownership of the entire roof.

Record separately any immediate safety issue. Suspected damage to a load-bearing element requires appropriate technical and emergency attention, not an informal vote in a residents’ messaging group. A legal review coordinates the documentary and procedural questions; it does not replace an engineer’s determination of structural safety.

2. Separate the independent unit from common parts

Articles 4 and 16 of the Condominium Law identify common parts and the owners’ corresponding rights. Foundations, main walls, shared installations, roofs and other specified elements require a different analysis from a movable cupboard inside an apartment. The approved project and relevant records help establish which part the works affect.

Physical access is not decisive. A roof reached only through one unit can still require common-property analysis. A garden used by a ground-floor owner can be subject to a use arrangement without having become that owner’s unrestricted private building plot. Examine the title, project and management arrangements rather than infer ownership solely from who has the key.

Similarly, the fact that work begins inside a private apartment does not mean it affects only that apartment. Altering a shared pipe, a load-bearing wall or a structural floor can affect common elements and neighbouring units. Identify these connections before ordering demolition or signing a fixed completion date with the contractor.

3. Apply Article 19 to the particular common-area work

Article 19 requires the written consent of four-fifths of all unit owners for the specified construction, repair, installations and different-colour exterior painting undertaken by an owner in common parts. The reference is not simply to four-fifths of the people who happen to attend a meeting. Identify the legally relevant owners and representation before assessing the consent record.

The written approval should identify the proposal actually authorised. A general statement supporting improvements does not necessarily approve a specific balcony enclosure, air-conditioning location or change to the façade. Attach the reviewed drawing and describe material conditions such as dimensions, appearance, drainage, contractor access and responsibility for damage. Keep the version approved rather than substitute a more extensive plan afterwards.

Do not turn the four-fifths rule into a universal permission for every transaction involving shared property. A disposal, change of allocated purpose or other act can engage different ownership and planning rules. The legal classification must come first. The İzmir municipality’s published assessment illustrates this distinction by examining common-garden ownership, the Civil Code and planning consent together for a proposed pool.

4. Do not treat the manager’s approval as every owner’s consent

A manager can organise communications, collect documents and coordinate authorised work. That practical role does not itself replace a statutory consent requirement. Ask what authority the manager relies on, which decision was taken and whether the approval concerns the actual alteration. Permission to use a service lift for materials is not permission to change a common façade.

Keep meeting minutes, attendance records and any written individual consents distinct. A management decision and a statement signed by an owner have different evidential roles. The validity of a meeting decision is a separate topic from whether the particular construction satisfies Article 19. Do not assume that a majority vote about general management automatically supplies every consent needed for physical works.

Where someone signs for an absent owner, check the authority covering that decision. A neighbour collecting signatures should not invent approval from an owner who has not responded. For a person abroad, provide the drawing and an understandable explanation before obtaining a signature. Silence or membership of a residents’ group is not a substitute for a documented legal basis.

5. Keep project and municipal requirements separate

Private consent and administrative approval answer different questions. An agreement among owners does not automatically authorise a departure from the approved project, while an administrative document does not settle every private ownership dispute. Ask the competent authority what the specific proposal requires, including any amended project or permit process, rather than rely on another building’s experience.

The published municipal assessment of the proposed pool explains why planning provisions on project approval and owner consent must be considered alongside condominium ownership. It concerns its particular proposal and is not a blanket ruling that every minor internal repair requires all owners’ signatures. Use it to understand the separate tracks, then obtain the records and current requirements for the actual property.

Describe the works accurately in applications. Calling a permanent enclosure removable or omitting structural changes from a drawing does not create a safe approval route. A contractor’s willingness to proceed without paperwork is not evidence that paperwork is unnecessary. Resolve the requirement before committing to irreversible work and record any limitation in the authority’s response.

6. Examine balcony enclosures and façade changes on their facts

A balcony dispute often begins with the assertion that every other resident has installed glass. Existing alterations elsewhere do not establish that a new enclosure complies with the project or has the required consent. Obtain the approved appearance and identify whether the proposal changes the façade, use, area or other relevant feature. Distinguish a photograph of a neighbouring balcony from an actual approval.

The product’s commercial name is not conclusive. Sliding glass, fixed frames, roof additions and floor extensions can present different technical and legal questions. Provide the proposed installation method and drawings. Do not promise that a product advertised as temporary avoids every condominium or planning requirement.

For an air-conditioning unit, identify where it will be fixed, how condensate drains and whether noise, access or shared systems are affected. Even where a particular installation is otherwise permissible, it should not be presented as permission to damage another unit or obstruct shared access. The rights and condition of neighbouring property remain part of the review.

7. A tenant needs a separate written arrangement with the landlord

Article 321 of the Code of Obligations permits tenant alterations with the landlord’s written consent. It also regulates return to the former condition and claims for added value. A landlord consenting to works cannot demand reinstatement unless that was agreed in writing; the tenant cannot claim the resulting increase in value unless a contrary written agreement exists.

Specify the authorised works, cost responsibility, materials, reinstatement and any reimbursement before starting. Permission to repaint a room should not silently become permission to move a bathroom or cut a new exterior opening. Keep approved variations and an exit record so the later deposit account does not depend entirely on conflicting recollections.

The landlord’s consent is not a replacement for the other owners’ rights or municipal requirements. Article 18 of the Condominium Law extends relevant duties to tenants and specified continuing users. A tenant should therefore ask the landlord for the necessary building and project position, while the landlord should not authorise an alteration beyond their own legal powers.

8. Distinguish urgent preservation from discretionary improvements

Article 19 contains a specific exception where a court establishes the relevant damage and urgent need for repair of common parts or installations, or the necessity of strengthening the main structure. In that situation, the specified repair or strengthening is carried out according to its project and technique without requiring the ordinary owner consent. The conditions and authorised work must remain identifiable.

An owner’s own statement that an upgrade is urgent is not the same as the judicial finding described by the statute. Nor does an urgent repair provide unlimited permission to add unrelated improvements. Keep the technical findings, decision, approved scope and expenditure records together.

Immediate danger must still receive appropriate emergency attention. Do not delay a necessary safety response merely to wait for an ordinary management meeting. Once the immediate situation is controlled, preserve the evidence and obtain advice about the proper route for further repair, access and cost allocation. Emergency protection and the final financial account are related but different tasks.

9. Preserve evidence before demanding restoration

A complaint should identify the affected part, the alleged departure and the remedy sought. Keep the project, earlier photographs, current condition, notices and relevant approvals. An engineer or architect can compare the actual work with the documents and explain technical effects. A legal allegation that something is unauthorised should not be presented as a technical conclusion that the entire building is unsafe.

Where the physical condition is likely to change, consider proportionate evidence preservation before extensive restoration. Record what is observed without trespassing, secretly entering another apartment or taking unrelated personal documents. A court evidence-preservation process and the substantive restoration claim are different steps.

Ask for specific relief. Stopping a particular operation, restoring a façade, permitting inspection and recovering documented damage are not interchangeable requests. Identify the responsible people and distinguish the unit owner, tenant and contractor. A manager’s involvement in arranging access does not automatically establish liability for every defective act performed on site.

10. Do not assume an old alteration becomes lawful on purchase

A buyer can inherit the practical problem of an existing enclosure or altered layout without having commissioned it. Before purchase, compare the unit with the approved documents and request the relevant permissions. A title transfer does not itself approve every physical condition visible during the viewing. The seller’s explanation should be preserved, but it is not a substitute for the official and ownership records.

Responsibility for restoration, damage and any claim against the seller requires examination of the particular obligation and transaction. Do not promise that the buyer can always ignore the alteration because the previous owner made it. Equally, do not assume that every cost automatically belongs to the new buyer without examining the cause, notice and contract.

A due-diligence report should mark unresolved differences precisely. For example, state that an enclosed area appears on the physical inspection but not in the project supplied, and identify what further record is needed. That is more useful than an unsupported statement that the entire apartment is illegal or that every discrepancy can certainly be regularised.

A hypothetical consent record and a changed design

Assume a simple building with twenty independent units, each belonging to a different sole owner, and a proposed common-façade alteration falling within Article 19’s four-fifths written-consent rule. Sixteen properly documented consents would satisfy the numerical starting point in that simplified example. Twelve votes from twelve attendees would not become sufficient merely because every person present agreed. Joint ownership, multiple units held by one person and representation require separate examination in a real file.

Now assume the signatures referred to a drawing for a narrow installation, but the contractor later proposes a wider structure covering a shared access opening. The existing signature sheet does not answer whether the changed design was authorised. Compare the approved attachment with the revision and obtain the necessary fresh review before proceeding. Numerical support for one proposal is not unrestricted approval of future variants.

The example does not establish that sixteen signatures make the works permissible in every other respect. Project approval, technical safety and any different legal classification remain separate. If the proposed act transfers a common space into exclusive ownership rather than merely performing the specified works, its governing rule must be identified anew. These are invented facts used to explain the sequence of checks, not a legal conclusion about a particular building.

11. Choose a lawful resolution and keep its terms executable

A negotiated solution might involve an amended design, removal of a particular element, access for inspection or a documented repair contribution. Identify who can agree each part and whether administrative approval remains necessary. Neighbours cannot privately promise the issue of a permit that only the competent authority can determine.

Condominium-law disputes fall within the relevant pre-action mediation framework under Article 18/B of Law No. 6325. Urgent protection and the exact claim still require their own procedural assessment. A municipal complaint and a private restoration or damages claim are not the same proceeding and should not be treated as substitutes for one another.

A settlement should state the work, responsible person, completion date, inspection standard and consequences of non-performance. Do not sign a declaration that every defect has already been remedied when restoration remains outstanding. For an owner abroad, agree how completion will be evidenced through dated records and appropriate inspection rather than a single message from the contractor saying the job is finished.

12. Coordinate alterations from abroad without granting unrestricted authority

An overseas owner should give the coordinating person a defined role: obtaining project records, attending inspection, communicating with management or signing an approved document. Those tasks do not automatically include authority to concede a claim, pay an unlimited repair cost or approve a different alteration. Keep decisions attached to the relevant drawing and version.

Bakırcı & Keskin Law Office has offices in Istanbul and Mersin. Our Mersin-based practice coordinates matters throughout Türkiye with an Istanbul and Mersin focus, subject to the applicable jurisdiction, procedure and agreed mandate. Local inspection and technical work are arranged within that defined scope.

The final file should distinguish owner consent, administrative documents, technical findings, executed work and any remaining obligation. None of those milestones should be reported as another. A completed signature collection is not a structural report, and a completed repair is not proof that every historic claim or cost dispute has been settled.

Frequently asked questions

Does owning the apartment permit every alteration?

No. Common parts, structural protection, the approved project and other legal requirements remain relevant.

Is four-fifths of meeting attendees always enough?

Article 19 refers to the written consent of four-fifths of all unit owners for the works it specifies. Identify the legally relevant owners and authority.

Can a manager replace the required written consents?

Not merely by being the manager. Examine the actual authority and the statutory requirement.

Does landlord consent settle the condominium issue?

No. A tenant’s written landlord approval does not override other owners’ rights or administrative requirements.

Can a tenant always reclaim the cost of improvements?

Article 321 makes added-value reimbursement dependent on a contrary written agreement. The individual bargain and work still require review.

Are existing balcony enclosures proof that a new one is lawful?

No. Check the approved project, relevant consents and proposed installation separately.

Should dangerous work remain untouched until a meeting?

No. Obtain appropriate emergency and technical assistance, while preserving evidence as far as practicable.

Can the work be reviewed while I live abroad?

Yes. Supply the project, proposed works and existing correspondence; formal authority and local inspection needs are assessed separately.

Related English guides

Unfinished renovation and contractor refunds · Property authority and document checks · Challenging a site-management decision · Preserving evidence before proceedings · Mediation settlement terms and enforcement

Official legal sources

Condominium Law No. 634; Municipal reproduction of Articles 4, 16, 18 and 19; İzmir municipality: common-property and planning consent assessment; Code of Obligations, Article 321; and Ministry of Justice mediation guidance. This page provides general English-language information, not an official translation or an individual case assessment. Applicable legislation and the actual documents control.