Decision-Making in Jointly Owned Properties in Urban Transformation

---

What is the decision-making process for jointly owned properties in urban transformation projects?

In urban transformation projects involving jointly owned properties, decision-making refers to the majority and method by which decisions are made regarding the demolition of a building after its identification as a risky structure, land reassessment, contractor selection, construction contracts in exchange for land shares, establishment of a revenue-sharing model, transfer of land shares, construction of new buildings, sale of shares, consolidation, subdivision, relinquishment, creation of new properties, and title deed transactions in properties with multiple owners or co-owners.

The urban transformation process for jointly owned properties is much more complex than for properties with a single owner. This is because each co-owner may have different economic expectations, preferences for the independent unit they want to acquire in the new project, contractor preferences, expectations for rental assistance, views on title transfer, and risk perceptions. One co-owner may want to start the project quickly, while another may find the contractor's offer insufficient. Some co-owners may want the land sold, while others may want to acquire an independent unit in the new building. Therefore, in urban transformation projects involving jointly owned properties, decision-making rules are of great importance in preventing the process from stalling and simultaneously protecting the property rights of minority co-owners.

The purpose of Law No. 6306 is to determine the procedures and principles for improvement, demolition, and renewal in order to create healthy and safe living environments in areas at risk of disaster and in properties containing risky structures. To this end, the law provides for special majority and sales mechanisms for decision-making in jointly owned properties.

What does jointly owned real estate mean?

Shared ownership of a property means that more than one person has ownership rights over a single property. In urban transformation projects, this situation usually manifests in two ways: co-ownership and joint ownership.

In co-ownership, each co-owner has a specific share in the property. For example, person A might own 1/2, person B 1/4, and person C 1/4 of a property. In this case, each co-owner's share is considered separately in decision-making processes. Similarly, in urban transformation projects, when calculating the simple majority, the land share or share ratio is used as the basis, rather than the number of individuals.

In joint ownership, the shares are not defined. Inheritance partnership is the most common example. When a person dies, the immovable property passes to their heirs; however, before the inheritance is divided, the heirs become joint owners of the entire property. In this case, it is generally not possible for a single heir to independently sign a construction contract, transfer a share of the land, or perform any transaction involving the property.

This distinction is extremely important in urban transformation. While calculating the simple majority is easier in shared ownership, joint ownership can present additional challenges such as inheritance certificates, title transfers, representation authority, power of attorney, and, if necessary, the appointment of a representative for the joint inheritance. Before initiating the urban transformation process for jointly owned properties, it is necessary to clarify the title deed, land shares, inheritance status, and owner list.

What is a simple majority in urban transformation?

In urban transformation projects, a simple majority is defined not by the number of property owners, but by the majority of more than half of the owners voting in favor, based on their shares or land portions. In practice, this ratio is often expressed as "%50+1"; however, legally, what matters is securing a majority of more than half of the total shares.

For example, an apartment building might have 10 owners. Six owners might have accepted the transformation decision; however, if their total land share is 45%, a simple majority is not achieved. On the other hand, if 4 owners own 55% of the total land share, a simple majority may be achieved despite the small number of individuals, based on their respective shares.

According to Law No. 6306 and its implementing regulations, "a simple majority of shareholders in proportion to their shares" is the basis for many fundamental transactions. The Urban Transformation Presidency's guide on the simple majority sales process also clarifies that a simple majority is determined based on shareholders owning more than half of the land area or shares.

Therefore, in jointly owned properties, the first step is to calculate the share ratios, not the number of co-owners. An incorrect majority calculation can render the validity of decisions, contractor contracts, land share sales, building permit processes, and title deed transactions questionable.

Transition from 2/3 Majority to Simple Majority

While urban transformation legislation previously required a two-thirds majority for some decisions, the current system stipulates that a simple majority, proportional to the shares held, is sufficient for many transactions. The amendments to Law No. 7471 significantly altered the decision-making structure in Law No. 6306, bringing the principle of a simple majority to the forefront. The current text stipulates that the land shares of those who do not agree with the decision, taken by a simple majority of shareholders proportional to their shares, may be sold through an auction process at a price not less than the market value.

Furthermore, the Regulation Amending the Implementing Regulation of Law No. 6306 was published in the Official Gazette dated February 4, 2026, and numbered 33158. These amendments are particularly important in terms of decision-making procedures, meeting invitations, sales files, title deed transactions, and share sale processes.

These changes are of great importance in practice. Because in the old system, the transformation process could be stalled due to the inability to achieve a two-thirds majority, and a small number of owners could prevent the renovation of the building for a long time. The simple majority system, on the other hand, aims to speed up the transformation process. However, the property rights of the minority owners are not completely eliminated; the owner who did not participate in the decision must be notified of the offer, a market value must be determined, and an auction procedure must be carried out.

In which matters can decisions be made by a simple majority?

In urban transformation projects involving jointly owned properties, the range of decisions that can be made by simple majority is quite broad. In projects concerning parcels with risky buildings, risky areas, and reserve building areas, the following actions may be considered: reconstruction of buildings, sale of shares, construction contracts in exchange for land, establishment of revenue-sharing models, consolidation of parcels, zoning applications, subdivision, partition, relinquishment, creation of new land, and registration in the land registry.

The comparative regulation text showing the 2026 changes also shows that the regulations regarding decisions to be made by a simple majority of shareholders in proportion to their shares have been expanded in terms of applications to be made in parcels containing risky structures, risky areas, and reserve building areas.

What is important at this point is that the content of the simple majority decision is clear. Property owners should not simply make a general decision such as "urban transformation should be carried out." The decision should clearly state the following points:

The method by which the property will be valued,
whether a contractor has been selected,
whether the construction will be based on a land-for-construction model or revenue sharing,
the basic terms of the contractor's offer,
how the land share transfer will be carried out,
rental assistance and delivery time,
technical specifications,
security deposit,
sale of the contractor's shares, and
the offer to be presented to the owners who did not participate in the decision.

The more uncertain the decision, the greater the likelihood of subsequent cancellations, objections, and share sale disputes.

What should the meeting procedure be?

For a sound decision-making process in jointly owned properties, owners must be properly summoned to meetings. With the regulation amendment dated 2026, it was clarified that in parcels containing risky buildings, all owners can be summoned to a meeting at the request of one of them to make decisions regarding the planned applications; the meeting place and time can be notified to the owners by filling out the form stipulated in the regulation and posting it at the relevant mukhtar's office or, if the risky building has not yet been demolished, on the building door/notice board for 15 days, or through a notary public.

The meeting procedure is not simply a formal requirement. It gives the owners the opportunity to be informed of the meeting, examine the proposals, object, and participate in the decision-making process. Especially considering that the shares of owners who do not participate in the decision may be subject to sale, properly notifying the meeting is a serious safeguard for property rights.

The decisions made at the meeting must be recorded in minutes. These minutes should include the date and location of the meeting, the method of calling the meeting, the names of the participating owners, their land shares, the votes for and against, the content of the decision, the contractor's offer, the contract terms, and signatures. If an owner participated through a representative, a copy of the power of attorney should be included in the file. For company owners, signature circulars and representation authority should be checked. For properties inherited through inheritance, the inheritance certificate and transfer of ownership status should also be examined.

How should a decision report be prepared?

In urban transformation projects involving jointly owned properties, the most important document regarding the decision is the minutes of the meeting. If these minutes are incomplete or unclear, serious problems may arise later in the sales process, title deed procedures, licensing stages, or litigation.

The minutes of the meeting should first list the property's block, parcel number, address, and title deed information. Then, the names of the owners who attended the meeting and their respective land shares should be indicated. It should clearly show which owners agreed with the decision, which owners opposed it, and which owners did not attend the meeting.

The decision text should not be general and abstract. For example, the phrase "it was decided to reach an agreement with the contractor" is insufficient. Which contractor, which contract draft, which sharing ratio, which rental assistance, which delivery time, which guarantee, which technical specifications, and which land share transfer plan were accepted? These should be clearly stated.

The content of any subsequent offer to shareholders who did not agree with the decision must also be consistent with that decision. If there is a discrepancy between the terms agreed upon in the decision minutes and the offer communicated to the shareholders who did not agree, the share sale process may become unlawful.

Notification to Owners Who Do Not Agree with the Decision

A decision made by a simple majority does not mean that minority property owners have no rights. Property owners who did not agree with the decision should be informed of the decision and the terms of the agreement. In urban transformation projects, property owners who did not agree with the decision need to know which conditions the majority accepted and to consider whether or not to agree to those conditions.

The Urban Transformation Directorate's guide to the area-based simple majority sale process states that property owners who do not agree with the decision will be notified of the offer containing the terms of the decision and agreement, and if this is not accepted, the share sale process can be initiated.

It is not sufficient to simply state "you are requested to agree to the majority decision" in this notification. The entire offer must be shown to the owner who does not agree with the decision. The contractor contract, the division of independent units, rental assistance, delivery time, transfer of land share, security deposit, technical specifications, penalty clause, and other important conditions must be clearly presented.

The notification method is also important. Notary notification, electronic notification, village headman's announcement, or announcement methods specified in the regulations should be evaluated according to the nature of the specific case. Requesting the sale of shares without notification or without clearly stating the content of the offer may render the sale transaction open to a lawsuit for annulment.

Can the share of an owner who does not agree with the decision be sold?

Yes. Under Law No. 6306, the land shares of owners who do not agree with a decision made by a simple majority of shareholders in proportion to their shares can be sold through an auction at a price not less than the market value. Priority is given to selling to the other shareholders who have reached an agreement. The legislation also includes continuation mechanisms such as purchase by the Presidency, the Administration, or TOKİ in risky areas and reserve building areas if a sale cannot be made.

However, the sale of shares is not automatic. A valid simple majority decision is required for the sale. Shareholders who do not agree with the decision must be notified of the decision and offer in accordance with the procedure. A valuation report must be obtained. A sales file must be prepared, and a preliminary review must be conducted by the relevant administration or directorate. The auction process must be conducted in accordance with the legislation.

The sale of shares constitutes a serious interference with property rights. Therefore, procedural deficiencies must be taken seriously. Incorrect majority calculations, incomplete notifications, vague offers, low market value, erroneous valuation reports, signatures of unauthorized persons, or exclusion of heirs can all lead to a lawsuit to annul the share sale.

What documents are required for a share sale?

The most important documents in the share sale process are: documents showing that the shareholders were invited to the meeting, the meeting minutes, the minutes of the decision showing that an agreement was reached by a simple majority in proportion to their shares, copies of the contracts or power of attorney belonging to the shareholders who agreed, offer notifications sent to the shareholders who did not participate in the decision, and valuation documents. The comparative regulation text dated 2026 also shows that invitation documents to the meeting, meeting minutes, decision minutes, or copies of contracts/power of attorney gain importance in terms of the sale file.

In addition, the following documents should be included in the file: current land registry records, encumbrance certificates, owner list, land share table, inheritance certificate, trade registry and representation documents for company owners, valuation report, village headman's announcement records, notary notifications, and electronic notification records, if any.

If a sales request is submitted with missing documents, the sales file may be rejected or the transaction may be cancelled later. Document verification is especially important for properties subject to inheritance, seizure, mortgage, or joint ownership.

How should land share and fraction calculations be made?

In jointly owned properties, the most critical point in the decision-making process is the calculation of the land share. In buildings subject to condominium ownership, each independent unit has a land share. The simple majority is calculated based on these land shares. In co-ownership, however, the share ratios recorded in the land registry are taken as the basis.

For example, if the total land share in a plot is considered to be 100, then for a simple majority, more than 50 shares must support the same decision. 50 shares are not sufficient because they are exactly half; more than half of the shares are required. Therefore, although the expression "%50+1" is used in practice, mathematically, the essential requirement is more than half of the shares.

The following points should be considered when calculating land share:

The most up-to-date land registry records must be used.
The heirs of deceased owners must be identified.
If a share transfer has occurred, the new owner must be taken into consideration.
Liens or mortgages do not eliminate ownership shares; however, they may affect the sale price.
In cases of joint ownership, representation and transfer procedures must be examined separately.
For company owners, the signature of an authorized representative must be required.
Power of attorney documents must specifically authorize transactions related to urban transformation.

Incorrect share calculation is one of the easiest grounds for overturning a majority decision.

Decision Making in Joint Ownership

The process becomes more delicate when a jointly owned property is inherited and becomes jointly owned. In joint ownership, heirs cannot dispose of their independent shares individually, as if they were co-owners. Rights over the estate are exercised jointly. Therefore, a decision by one heir to unilaterally decide on a transformation, sign a contractor's contract, or transfer a share of the land can create serious validity issues.

In this case, the inheritance certificate must first be obtained and the title deed transferred. If necessary, joint ownership should be converted to co-ownership. If there is a disagreement among the heirs, legal avenues such as appointing a representative for the joint inheritance, dissolving the joint ownership, or transitioning to co-ownership should be considered.

In urban transformation projects, relying solely on a simple majority system when disagreements arise among heirs is not always safe. First, the heirs' representation rights, share ratios, powers of attorney, and title deed status must be clarified. Otherwise, the decision may be challenged or deemed invalid by the heirs in the future.

Choosing a Contractor for Jointly Owned Properties

In urban transformation projects involving jointly owned properties, one of the most contentious issues is the selection of a contractor. While one group of owners may prefer a contractor offering higher square footage or rental assistance, another group may want to work with a more secure, guaranteed, and established company.

A simple majority may suffice for contractor selection; however, this decision must be objective and verifiable. The selection of a contractor should not be based solely on the number of independent units offered. The contractor's financial strength, previous projects, whether they have provided a bank guarantee letter, building completion insurance, delivery time, rental assistance, delay penalties, technical specifications, occupancy permit obligations, title transfer stages, and termination clauses should all be considered together.

In jointly owned properties, the contractor's contract should not be a vague document imposed by the majority on the minority. The draft contract should be presented to all owners and clearly communicated so that owners who do not agree with the decision can review it. Otherwise, an owner who does not agree with the decision may object to the sales process by saying, "It was not clear what conditions I was asked to accept.".

Decisions on Land-for-Share and Revenue Sharing

The most common models for urban transformation in jointly owned properties are construction in exchange for land shares and revenue sharing. In construction in exchange for land shares, the contractor builds the building and receives a certain number of independent units or a share of the land in return. In revenue sharing, the income generated from the sale of the project is shared with the owners in certain proportions.

Choosing which of these models to use is a crucial decision in jointly owned properties. The land-for-construction model directly provides independent units to the owners. Revenue sharing, on the other hand, can be economically advantageous, especially in large projects; however, it can lead to disputes if income calculations, sales prices, costs, and control mechanisms are not well established.

The model for a decision to be made by simple majority must be clearly stated. A vague decision such as "evaluation of the property" is insufficient. It must be clear whether it will be done through a land-for-construction agreement, revenue sharing, sale, barter, by a contractor, or by the owners themselves.

The phased transfer of title should be added to the decision

In jointly owned properties, the procedure for transferring title must be clearly defined during the decision-making process. Transferring land shares to a contractor upfront eliminates the most important safeguard for the co-owners. If the contractor abandons the project, sells the shares to third parties, or goes bankrupt, the burden of legal action on the co-owners increases significantly.

Therefore, the decision and contract must be based on a simple majority vote and a phased transfer of title. For example, a limited share can be transferred when the permit is obtained, a certain share when the foundation is completed, a certain share when the rough construction is finished, a certain share when the finishing works are completed, and the remaining share when the occupancy permit is obtained. Thus, the contractor acquires title rights as they fulfill their obligations.

The regulatory system also supports this guarantee logic by linking the sale of contractor shares to the construction progress level and administrative approval. Sources including the 2026 amendments indicate that administrative approvals and progress level monitoring are gaining importance in the sale of independent units allocated to the contractor.

What avenues can a landlord pursue who disagrees with the decision?

If a landowner who disagrees with the decision believes that the simple majority decision is unlawful, they can pursue various legal avenues. First, they should examine whether the decision was made in accordance with proper procedure. Was a meeting called? Is the land share calculation correct? Is the decision minutes clear? Were the landowners notified of the offer? Is the valuation report accurate? Is the sales file complete?

If a low market value is determined during the share sale process, the owner should obtain an independent valuation report and support their objection with comparable sales. If the sale was conducted irregularly, an annulment lawsuit may be filed in administrative courts. If the title deed registration has taken place, claims for cancellation and re-registration of the title deed, annulment of the transaction, or compensation may be evaluated separately depending on the specific circumstances.

A property owner who disagrees with the decision cannot simply obstruct the process by saying "I don't want it." However, the majority decision must be legally valid. While the legislation grants strong authority to the simple majority, it also provides minority property owners with guarantees regarding notification, offers, valuation, auction, and legal action.

The Most Common Mistakes in the Decision-Making Process

The most common mistake in jointly owned properties is focusing on the majority of owners while neglecting the land share. However, decisions are made by a simple majority proportional to the shares held.

The second mistake is that the meeting notice was not issued properly. Property owners should be clearly informed of the meeting place, time, and agenda.

The third mistake is the vague preparation of the decision report. The contractor must clearly state the contract terms, the profit-sharing ratio, and the content of the offer.

The fourth error is the incomplete listing of heirs. If the title deed transfer has not been completed or the certificate of inheritance has not been obtained, the decision-making process may be flawed.

The fifth mistake is failing to adequately inform the owners who do not agree with the decision about the offer. The offer should include all the terms of the contract.

The sixth error is the inadequacy of the valuation report. If the fair market value does not reflect the reality, the sale of shares will lead to serious disputes.

The seventh mistake is transferring the title deed to the contractor prematurely and without collateral. This puts all stakeholders at serious risk.

The eighth mistake is confusing joint ownership with co-ownership. Issues of special representation and transfer of ownership must be resolved in properties with joint inheritance.

Conclusion

In urban transformation projects involving jointly owned properties, decision-making is a crucial legal process, both for the majority of owners to advance the transformation process and for the protection of the property rights of the minority owners. In the current system, a simple majority of shareholders, proportional to their shares, is the basis for many transactions. This system aims to prevent transformation projects from being indefinitely blocked by a small number of owners. However, a simple majority does not confer arbitrary decision-making authority.

For a valid decision, the land registry records and land shares must first be accurately determined. Owners must be duly summoned to a meeting, the decision must be clearly and concretely recorded in the minutes, the terms of the agreement must be determined, and owners who do not agree with the decision must be notified of the offer in accordance with the procedure. If a share sale is necessary, the fair market value must be accurately determined, the auction procedure must be conducted in accordance with the legislation, and the sales file must be prepared completely.

In jointly owned properties, particularly inheritance cases, co-ownership, incomplete power of attorney, representation authority of company owners, encumbrances such as mortgages and liens, low valuation reports, and premature title transfers pose significant risks. Therefore, the decision-making process in urban transformation should not be viewed solely as the collection of signatures among the owners. This process is a comprehensive legal undertaking with dimensions encompassing land registry law, contract law, inheritance law, administrative law, and zoning law.

In conclusion, the most appropriate method for a successful urban transformation in jointly owned properties is to conduct an up-to-date analysis of title deeds and land shares, clarify the list of owners, carry out meetings and decision-making procedures in accordance with the legislation, compare contractor offers from a technical and financial perspective, implement phased title transfers and strong guarantee provisions, present open offers to owners who do not participate in the decision, and fully comply with procedural safeguards in the share sale process. When such a system is established, both the majority's will for transformation is preserved and the property rights of minority owners are legally secured.