Official facts that control the topic
The first substantive rule for “Source Freshness Review — Condominium ownership status” is this: Kat mülkiyeti is condominium ownership of an independent unit in a completed building; the independent-unit number, related arsa payı and registry entry are central.
Applied specifically through the “Source Freshness Review” lens to Condominium ownership status, the official position is more precise: TKGM explains that a building with kat irtifakı and a Yapı Kullanma İzin Belgesi can transition to kat mülkiyeti under the statutory mechanism, including ex officio conversion in specified cases. A kat mülkiyeti entry describes the legal form of ownership but does not by itself prove that the unit is free of mortgages, annotations, debts or technical defects.
What this review changes
Source freshness for Condominium ownership status is not satisfied merely because a website is official; the particular information must still apply to the period and facts on which the decision will rely. An old rule may be historically accurate yet unusable today.
Check the publication or verification date, then refresh these items for the current property and period: registry status, independent-unit number, floor/type, arsa payı, block/parcel, occupancy permit where relevant to conversion and latest registration date. If a figure, tariff or deadline changes by year, use the correct year’s version.
Documents and data that must reconcile
For “Source Freshness Review”, the key evidence is: registry status, independent-unit number, floor/type, arsa payı, block/parcel, occupancy permit where relevant to conversion and latest registration date
Scope boundary
Because this record is limited to “Source Freshness Review”, its boundary matters: Kat mülkiyeti does not automatically mean every alteration is permitted or that the building is free of technical risk.
Record-specific applied review
Source freshness matters for condominium ownership because the procedural framework should not be read from an old circular in isolation. On 2 July 2026, TKGM published an amendment concerning Circular 2021/4 on construction servitude and condominium ownership. A verification file should therefore record when the guidance was retrieved and which version or amendment was relied upon, rather than treating a locally saved copy from earlier years as permanently current.
At property level, freshness also means obtaining the current registry evidence showing whether the right is registered as kat mülkiyeti, together with the independent-section number and associated arsa payı. That current entry should be reconciled with relevant building documents, especially when conversion from kat irtifakı to kat mülkiyeti forms part of the property history. If an older screen capture or deed copy shows a different legal form, the discrepancy should be preserved and explained by the date and basis of the conversion instead of selecting whichever document appears more convenient.
A strong freshness test asks three separate questions: is the source issued by the competent authority, does it reflect the latest available registry or procedural position, and does it identify the same independent unit? This prevents “condominium ownership” from becoming a marketing label. It remains a verifiable legal status supported by current registry evidence and the TKGM guidance in force at the time of review.
Official source
TKGM — Kat İrtifakı ve Kat Mülkiyeti 2021/4
Freshness of condominium-ownership status
Condominium status should be checked against a current registry source because it can change through conversion from construction servitude to condominium ownership or through later registration action. Start by identifying whether the unit is presently recorded as an independent unit and what form of right is registered, then compare that state with the older documents in the file. A project label or a seller’s statement that “the title is ready” is not enough.
Freshness matters particularly for newer buildings, projects that have moved from construction to use, or records affected by later registration practice. Record the retrieval date and source and compare unit identity, the registered right, share and relationship to the main property as shown in the record. Keep current status separate from a promise that a conversion will happen in the future.
If an older document states Kat İrtifakı while the current source shows Kat Mülkiyeti, or vice versa, the difference is not a translation issue; it is a legal-status change requiring a date and explanation. A defensible conclusion identifies the current status from recent evidence and checks whether the contract, valuation and marketing material use the same legal description correctly.