Learn how Turkish condominium law handles common area disputes involving parking, roofs, terraces, corridors, gardens, shared spaces, manager powers, owner obligations, and mediation.
Introduction
In Turkey, many apartment and site disputes do not start inside the independent section. They start outside it, in the places everyone uses, everyone sees, and no one fully controls alone. Parking areas, roofs, terraces, stairwells, corridors, gardens, technical shafts, storage corners, and similar spaces are where condominium conflicts become personal very quickly. The legal reason is simple: under the Condominium Law, apartment owners do not own only their own units. They also hold rights over common areas, but those rights are exercised within a collective legal structure rather than through unlimited private control. The law expressly treats items such as staircases, elevators, corridors, common garages, roofs, chimneys, general roof terraces, and rain gutters as common areas.
That legal structure is what makes common area disputes in Turkey so persistent. A person may use a parking spot for years and still not acquire an exclusive legal right to it. A top-floor owner may enjoy practical access to a terrace and still not become sole owner of that terrace. A resident may think a corridor niche, a roof corner, or a shared storage area belongs naturally to the closest unit, but the statute may classify that place as a common area from the beginning. In Turkish condominium law, long use and legal entitlement are not the same thing.
This article explains how Turkish law approaches common area disputes involving parking, roofs, terraces, and other shared spaces. It focuses on the current framework of the Condominium Law, the role of the management plan, owners’ cost-sharing duties, board decision rules, manager powers, judge intervention, and the current mediation requirement for disputes arising from the Condominium Law.
What Counts as a Common Area in Turkey?
The most important starting point is classification. Article 4 of the Condominium Law states that common areas may be designated by agreement, but it also says that certain places are in any case treated as common areas under the law. These include foundations, main walls, load-bearing columns and beams, common separating walls, ceilings and floors, courtyards, main entrances, halls, staircases, elevators, landings, corridors, janitor areas, common laundry and drying areas, common coal storage, common garages, boiler rooms, wells, water tanks, shelters, roofs, chimneys, general roof terraces, rain gutters, and fire escape stairs.
That statutory list matters because it prevents many private appropriation arguments before they even begin. If a place falls into one of these categories, the legal presumption strongly favors common-area status. This is why roof disputes, terrace disputes, and garage disputes are so common in Turkey. Owners often assume that physical proximity or habitual use creates exclusivity, while the statute begins from the opposite direction and treats those places as belonging to the common structure of the building.
Article 16 then adds the ownership and use dimension. It states that apartment owners are owners of all common areas of the main immovable in proportion to their land shares, under the rules of co-ownership. It also states that they have a right to use common areas, and that in places such as common coal storage, garages, terraces, laundries, and drying areas, the extent of that right is, unless otherwise agreed, proportional to each owner’s land share. That means common area use exists as a right, but it is a shared right shaped by law and agreement, not a private extension of a single flat.
Why Parking Disputes Are So Frequent
Parking is one of the most practical and emotionally charged common area conflicts in Turkish residential life. The statute explicitly lists common garages among the common areas, and Article 16 expressly refers to garages when describing shared use rights. That means the legal starting point is not “whoever has parked there longest owns the spot,” but rather “how is this garage or parking area classified and regulated under the law, title records, and management plan?”
In many buildings and sites, parking disputes arise because practice develops faster than law. Residents begin to treat certain spaces as private, management informally tolerates that use, and years later a new owner challenges the arrangement. Turkish law does allow the use right in common areas to be shaped “unless otherwise agreed,” which means title records, allocation documents, or the management plan may matter. But absent a valid legal basis, informal occupation of a parking place does not automatically convert a common area into an exclusive one.
Parking disputes also quickly connect to common expense disputes. Article 20 states that owners cannot avoid common expenses by claiming they have given up their use right over a common area or that their independent section does not need that area. In practical terms, even an owner who says “I do not use the garage” cannot ordinarily escape the legally allocated common expense burden merely by relying on non-use. This becomes especially contentious in large sites with closed parking, open parking, guest parking, and block-specific parking arrangements.
Roof Disputes: Protection, Repairs, and Unauthorized Interference
The roof is one of the clearest examples of a space that residents often misread. Article 4 expressly lists roofs and general roof terraces as common areas. That means a roof is not simply the private concern of the top-floor owner. Legally, it belongs to the common structure of the building, and disputes involving leakage, insulation, unauthorized installations, satellite units, solar panels, or structural interventions must be analyzed from that starting point.
Article 19 reinforces this by stating that apartment owners must carefully preserve the building’s maintenance condition, architectural appearance, beauty, and safety. It further states that no owner may carry out construction, repairs, installations, or different-colored exterior painting in common areas without the written consent of four-fifths of all apartment owners, unless there is a court-established urgent repair need or mandatory strengthening requirement. So a resident cannot lawfully treat the roof as a private platform for unilateral works merely because the roof is closest to that resident’s unit.
This is why roof disputes in Turkey often have two layers. The first is a rights dispute: who may use or access the roof, and to what extent? The second is a repair-and-cost dispute: who must pay for leakage, waterproofing, insulation, or emergency structural intervention? Article 20 answers part of that second question by requiring contribution to insurance premiums, maintenance, strengthening, and repair of all common areas in proportion to land share, unless there is a different valid arrangement. Roof repairs therefore usually belong to the common expense structure, not to the top-floor owner alone.
Terrace Disputes: Use Is Not the Same as Exclusive Ownership
Terraces generate some of the most difficult arguments because they sit between ordinary common areas and visually “attached” spaces. Article 4 treats general roof terraces as common areas. Article 16 also specifically mentions terraces when describing common-area use rights and says that, unless otherwise agreed, the measure of that use is proportional to the owner’s land share. In other words, Turkish law already anticipates that terrace conflicts will happen and classifies them through the common-area framework.
A common practical mistake is to assume that the unit nearest to a terrace has a natural exclusive right over it. That may be true only if a valid title-based, annex-based, or management-plan-based arrangement supports that conclusion. Otherwise, the top-floor owner’s convenience does not displace the statutory status of the terrace as a shared legal space. For this reason, terrace enclosure, privatization, planting, storage, pergola installation, or access-control measures often become dispute triggers.
Article 19 is again central here. If the intended terrace work changes the common area physically, affects the building’s appearance, or amounts to construction or installation in the common area, the four-fifths written-consent rule may be engaged. A resident who installs permanent structures or substantially alters a terrace without the required consent risks not only neighbor conflict but also a clear legal challenge.
Corridor, Stairwell, Garden, and Storage Conflicts
Not every common area dispute is dramatic. Many arise from everyday encroachments into corridors, landings, stairwells, entrances, gardens, and building service areas. Article 4 expressly classifies corridors, staircases, main entrances, courtyards, and several technical and storage-related spaces as common areas. That means shoe cabinets, bicycles, personal storage, decorative structures, private benches, planters, cabinets, or ad hoc barriers placed there are not neutral acts. They involve shared legal space.
Article 18 then provides the behavior rule. Owners must use their independent sections, annexes, and common areas according to good faith, must not disturb one another, must not violate each other’s rights, and must comply with the management plan. The same obligations also bind tenants and long-term users, and those persons become jointly liable with the owner if they fail to comply. This matters greatly in shared-space disputes because many of them are less about title and more about misuse, nuisance, obstruction, or disregard of the internal rules of the complex.
Where a common-area issue also involves access for repairs, Article 23 becomes relevant. It states that if repair, removal of a defect, rebuilding of facilities, or technical safety inspections require entering another independent section, the owner or occupant of that section must permit access and tolerate the necessary work. The article further states that damage caused by this compulsory access must be compensated immediately by those benefiting from the permission. This is especially important in disputes involving pipes, drainage, roof leaks, façade systems, or technical lines running through private units but serving common building functions.
The Management Plan: The First Document to Read
In Turkish common area disputes, the law is usually the first step, but the management plan is often the second and sometimes decisive step. Article 28 states that the management plan regulates the management style, purpose and manner of use, manager and auditor fees, and other management matters. It further states that the management plan has the force of a contract binding on all apartment owners, and that where it is silent, disputes are resolved under the Condominium Law and general law. It also says that amendment of the management plan requires the vote of four-fifths of all apartment owners and that the plan and its amendments bind owners, successors, managers, and auditors.
This is why common area disputes so often turn into management plan disputes. Parking rotation systems, terrace-access rules, garden use, social-facility restrictions, internal circulation rules, and certain shared-space allocations may all depend on what the management plan validly says. An owner who ignores the management plan and relies only on habit, brochures, or site custom often litigates from a weaker position.
The same is even more true in large sites. Article 70 states that for mass structures there is a single management plan covering the whole structure, that it binds all apartment owners within the mass structure, and that amendment requires the votes of representatives corresponding to four-fifths of the total independent sections they represent. In other words, in large Turkish residential complexes, the management plan becomes the internal constitutional map of the site.
Board Decisions, Voting, and Manager Powers
Common area conflicts are often handled first through the apartment owners’ board. Article 29 requires the board to meet at least once a year at the time shown in the management plan, and extraordinary meetings may be called for important reasons with prior notice. Article 30 says the board meets with more than half of the owners in both number and land share and makes decisions by majority, while Article 31 grants each owner one vote regardless of land share, subject to special rules for owners with multiple units and proxy limits.
These rules matter because many common area disputes ultimately become procedural disputes. Was the meeting properly convened? Was the quorum met? Was the vote valid? Could one large owner dominate the outcome? Turkish law answers those questions in detail, and a substantively reasonable parking or terrace rule may still become vulnerable if the board process was defective.
The manager also plays a critical role. Article 35 requires the manager to implement board decisions, take measures for proper use, preservation, maintenance, and repair of the building, collect advances, receive payments, pursue claims against owners who fail to perform condominium obligations, and call the board to meeting. In practice, this means managers are not passive recordkeepers. They are expected to intervene when common spaces are obstructed, expenses are unpaid, or shared facilities require legal or operational action.
Repairs, Improvements, and Accessibility in Shared Spaces
Not every change to a common area is forbidden. Article 42 states that apartment owners cannot make changes to common areas on their own initiative, but useful innovations and additions that improve the proper use of common areas or increase their benefit may be carried out if approved by a majority in both number and land share. The same article also contains an accessibility mechanism: where disability makes modification necessary, the issue must be discussed within three months, and if the meeting is not held or the request is rejected, works may still proceed based on the required technical and administrative approvals.
This is particularly relevant for parking and shared-access disputes. For example, adding a ramp, reorganizing a parking layout, improving circulation, marking spaces, or making a common entrance more usable may fall into the category of useful improvements rather than prohibited unilateral appropriation. But the legal route still matters. A good purpose does not authorize private action without the decision-making path the law requires.
Cost Sharing and Why “I Don’t Use It” Usually Fails
A classic defense in common area disputes is simple: “I do not use that space, so I should not pay.” Article 20 rejects that argument in broad terms. It requires participation in key common expenses and states that owners cannot avoid paying by saying they have waived their right to use the common area or do not need it because of the condition of their unit. It also allows the manager or any owner to bring suit or enforcement proceedings against a non-paying owner, and imposes monthly 5% delay compensation for late payment.
This rule becomes even more important in large residential sites. Article 72 states that expenses relating to common places or facilities assigned to one building or a few buildings within a mass structure are borne by the owners in those buildings, while expenses relating to places and facilities assigned to the use of all independent sections are borne by all owners. That means cost-sharing in Turkish residential complexes is not random; it depends on the legal allocation of the shared facility.
Judicial Remedies: Annulment, Judge Intervention, and Mediation
When common area disputes cannot be solved internally, Article 33 provides the main judicial route. It states that an owner who attended the board meeting and voted against the decision may bring an annulment action within one month from the decision date. An owner who did not attend may sue within one month of learning of the decision and, in any event, within six months of the decision date. No time limit applies where the decision is null or absolutely void. The same article also allows an owner harmed by another owner’s or long-term occupant’s failure to perform obligations to apply to the civil peace court and request judicial intervention. The judge must decide according to the Condominium Law, the management plan, and, where those are silent, general law and equity.
In addition, current mediation law matters. Article 18/B, as quoted in the official TKGM circular, lists disputes arising from the Condominium Law No. 634 among the disputes for which applying to a mediator before filing suit is a precondition. This means that many condominium disputes, including common area disputes, now have a mediation layer before court litigation fully begins.
The Extreme Remedy: Transfer of the Problem Owner’s Unit
Turkish condominium law even contains an extreme remedy for severe and intolerable conduct. Article 25 states that if an owner violates obligations to a degree that makes life intolerable for the others, the other owners may seek judicial transfer of that owner’s independent section to themselves, subject to the statutory conditions. The article then lists situations where intolerability is conclusively presumed, including where enforcement or litigation for common expense debts had to be initiated three times within two calendar years, where the owner persistently ignored a judicial order under Article 33 for one year, or where the independent section was used as a brothel, gambling house, or similar immoral place.
This is not an everyday remedy, but it shows how seriously Turkish law treats repeated condominium misconduct. Common area disputes may begin with a parking spot or a terrace barrier, but the statute makes clear that persistent disregard of condominium obligations can eventually trigger much more serious consequences.
Conclusion
Common area disputes in Turkey are rarely just neighbor quarrels. They are legal conflicts about how shared ownership works in a condominium system. Parking areas, roofs, terraces, corridors, shared garages, and gardens are often common areas by statute, and apartment owners hold rights over them only within the limits created by the Condominium Law, the management plan, and valid board decisions. Unilateral appropriation, private alteration, or refusal to contribute to shared costs usually collides with that framework.
The practical lesson is simple. In Turkey, the first question is not “Who has used this place the longest?” but “What is this place legally?” Once that classification is clear, the next questions are whether the management plan says anything specific, whether a valid board decision exists, whether cost-sharing rules apply, and whether the dispute must pass through mediation or the civil peace court. Owners who treat parking, roofs, terraces, and other shared spaces as purely informal matters often discover too late that Turkish condominium law has already given those spaces a strict legal structure.
Yanıt yok