Official facts that control the topic
The first substantive rule for “Audit Trail Reconstruction — Construction servitude status” is this: Kat irtifakı is a construction-servitude regime linked to a land share and a planned independent unit during construction or before conversion to kat mülkiyeti; it is not the same as final condominium ownership.
Applied specifically through the “Audit Trail Reconstruction” lens to Construction servitude status, the official position is more precise: TKGM guidance ties establishment of kat irtifakı to documents such as the architectural project, management plan and building permit. Once construction is complete and a Yapı Kullanma İzin Belgesi is obtained, the conditions for conversion to kat mülkiyeti can arise, so a completed building that still shows kat irtifakı deserves an explanation of its occupancy-permit and conversion status.
What this review changes
Reconstructing the audit trail for Construction servitude status means explaining how the current position was reached, not simply sorting files by upload date. Event date, document-issue date and file-entry date are different things.
To build the timeline, start with these items: title status, planned independent-unit number, arsa payı, architectural project, building permit, completion status, occupancy permit and conversion status to kat mülkiyeti. Connect each change to the issuing authority and triggering event, and explain any gap or version without a clear predecessor.
Documents and data that must reconcile
For “Audit Trail Reconstruction”, the key evidence is: title status, planned independent-unit number, arsa payı, architectural project, building permit, completion status, occupancy permit and conversion status to kat mülkiyeti
Scope boundary
Because this record is limited to “Audit Trail Reconstruction”, its boundary matters: Kat irtifakı does not prove that construction is complete or that an occupancy permit has been issued.
Record-specific applied review
Reconstructing the audit trail for kat irtifakı requires showing how the construction servitude was created and tied to a specific project and land share; it should not be treated as if it were already final condominium ownership. The chronology begins with the parcel, owners and shares, then the approved architectural project and building permit used for the servitude process, and then the planned independent section and its associated arsa payı. This chain matters because construction servitude belongs to a project stage and does not by itself establish that the completed building has reached kat mülkiyeti status.
The historical review should preserve every material change in the project, independent-section number, land share or rights holder and identify the official document that caused the change. If the building is completed, occupancy evidence is issued and the registry later converts to kat mülkiyeti, that conversion date does not erase the servitude stage; it becomes the dated endpoint of that stage in the audit trail. Current TKGM procedure, including the July 2026 amendment concerning Circular 2021/4, should be used when interpreting the procedural steps applicable at review time.
If the registry still shows kat irtifakı, the reason should not be guessed from the label. The reviewer may need to check construction progress, occupancy permission and whether conversion conditions were met or a registration step remains outstanding. A defensible reconstruction is a dated line linking parcel, project, construction servitude, independent unit and any later conversion, while clearly separating confirmed evidence from questions that still require a fresh official record.
Official source
TKGM — Kat İrtifakı / Kat Mülkiyeti guidance
Reconstructing the Kat İrtifakı status trail
Reconstruction begins with the main property and the project on which the construction servitude was created, then identifies when Kat İrtifakı was established, the units and shares attached to it, and every later amendment. Each stage needs registry or documentary evidence showing that the right belongs to the same project and unit. A sale contract or marketing plan alone should not be used to infer registered status.
Next trace whether the servitude remained in place or converted to Kat Mülkiyeti, and when that occurred. If a conversion took place, connect the old and new records so that the independent unit does not appear to emerge without provenance. If the servitude remains, keep that current fact separate from an expectation that conversion may occur after project conditions are met.
Use the chain to test consistency among the contract, valuation and current registry. A difference in unit number, share or type of right requires explanation. The objective is not to judge construction quality; it is to prove the history of the registered right and identify its present status accurately so that the construction-stage right is not confused with completed condominium ownership.