Cross-Party Consistency Check — Construction servitude status
Core question
Do not confuse a familiar term with current evidence. For “Cross-Party Consistency Check — Construction servitude status”, begin with construction and servitude and make sure both relate to the same asset, party and review date.
Independent check
Check cross independently from the person or document that supplied construction. If it conflicts with party, identify the authoritative owner of the fact and obtain a fresh record.
Practical cure
Required evidence
Build the evidence set around construction, servitude, cross, party, consistency and official. Mark each as verified, conflicting, stale or unavailable.
- cross
- source
- servitude
- party
- official
- construction
Decision rule
Failure scenario
Failure example: construction looks correct, but consistency belongs to a different date, unit or transaction. Keep the issue open and record whether it affects price, payment, use, finance, possession or registration.
- cross
- consistency
- source
- party
- servitude
- official
Audit trail
Record-specific evidence matrix
| Item | Cross-check | Status |
|---|---|---|
| construction | cross | Open / Verified |
| source | official | Open / Verified |
| party | date | Open / Verified |
Official sources
Practical FAQ built from the record’s verified facts
What official fact about construction servitude (Kat İrtifakı) should a buyer verify when seller, bank and other parties disagree?
Kat İrtifakı is a construction-servitude regime linked to a project and future/under-construction independent units; it is not automatically equivalent to Kat Mülkiyeti. Compare the same identifiers across seller, buyer, agent, bank, valuer and municipality/management where relevant. A mismatch in owner name, block/parcel, independent-unit number or share across party files should stop reliance until the authoritative value is identified.
Which document fields or legal details on construction servitude (Kat İrtifakı) matter most when seller, bank and other parties disagree?
Compare the same identifiers across seller, buyer, agent, bank, valuer and municipality/management where relevant. A mismatch in owner name, block/parcel, independent-unit number or share across party files should stop reliance until the authoritative value is identified. Kat İrtifakı is a construction-servitude regime linked to a project and future/under-construction independent units; it is not automatically equivalent to Kat Mülkiyeti. TKGM guidance links this status to architectural projects, units and land shares; since the nationwide 3D-building-model rollout in 2025, digital model consistency has become increasingly important.
What can go wrong with construction servitude (Kat İrtifakı) when seller, bank and other parties disagree, and what evidence resolves it?
TKGM guidance links this status to architectural projects, units and land shares; since the nationwide 3D-building-model rollout in 2025, digital model consistency has become increasingly important. Compare the same identifiers across seller, buyer, agent, bank, valuer and municipality/management where relevant. A mismatch in owner name, block/parcel, independent-unit number or share across party files should stop reliance until the authoritative value is identified.
Sources for this section were reviewed on 16 August 2026.
- TKGM — Kat İrtifakı ve Kat Mülkiyeti Genelgesi
- TKGM — 3D Building Model Project
- TKGM — Hatay 3B Kadastro Bilgilendirme
Cross-party consistency check
Evidence and decision plan for Cross-Party Consistency Check — Construction servitude status
When reviewing “Cross-Party Consistency Check — Construction servitude status”, the file should compare the same names, property identifiers, amounts, dates and obligations across every relevant party and document. This makes the article useful at the point of commitment because unresolved facts are separated from verified facts instead of being buried in narrative.
Evidence to assemble
- For “Cross-Party Consistency Check — Construction servitude status”, match the property and party identifiers in the evidence to the asset and people actually involved; a correct document for the wrong unit or person does not close the check.
- For “Cross-Party Consistency Check — Construction servitude status”, record issuer, source, issue or retrieval date and version where available, then distinguish an original/current record from a scan, translation, draft, expired copy or superseded version.
- For “Cross-Party Consistency Check — Construction servitude status”, compare documentary status with the physical, payment or operational reality relevant to the topic and write down every unexplained difference before commitment.
- For “Cross-Party Consistency Check — Construction servitude status”, convert each unresolved difference into a named condition: evidence required, person responsible, deadline and the consequence if the condition is not satisfied.
Official reference to recheck
The source register for “Cross-Party Consistency Check — Construction servitude status” includes TKGM — Tapu ve Kadastro Genel Müdürlüğü (https://www.tkgm.gov.tr/anasayfa). Use that source for the matters within its authority and recheck it when timing or rules are material; it does not replace a registry, engineering, tax, banking or contractual record that the specific decision separately requires.
Decision boundary
A defensible conclusion on “Cross-Party Consistency Check — Construction servitude status” records both what was verified and the limits of that verification. If a missing fact could change ownership, legality, safety, cost or payment security, it should block the related commitment until resolved.
Cross-party consistency of kat irtifakı status
Compare the registry description with the contract, developer, valuer and lender. If one party calls the unit kat mülkiyeti while the registry shows kat irtifakı, that is not a translation nuance; it is a material inconsistency. Also confirm that unit number, share and project identity remain the same across versions.
Create a simple source/date/status matrix and let the controlling registry resolve the current legal state. Any promise of future conversion belongs in a separate field and should not be used to rewrite the description of the present status.