Construction Servitude Status: Risk Review
A risk review of a property registered under kat irtifakı should not begin with the assumption that the status is inherently defective. The risk depends on the stage of the project, the accuracy of the unit-to-project match, the licensing position and whether the file can progress to kat mülkiyeti when the legal and administrative conditions are met. An organized construction project with a clearly registered future unit is very different from a long-completed, occupied building whose continuing kat irtifakı status cannot be explained. The purpose of the review is to identify which uncertainty affects the right the buyer will acquire.
Risk 1: the physical apartment is not the registered unit
The most serious identity risk arises when the apartment shown to the buyer cannot be connected to a specific independent unit in the registry and approved project. Different sales and registry numbering can be harmless if the mapping is documented, but unexplained differences in unit number, block, floor, intended use, appurtenances or land share may indicate that the buyer is reviewing the wrong legal unit. An identity discrepancy is not a minor paperwork issue because it concerns the object of the purchase itself.
Risk 2: a completed building remains under kat irtifakı without a documented reason
Kat irtifakı is expected to exist before a building is completed. When a building has long been completed and occupied, continued construction-servitude status deserves a specific explanation. The right question is not whether kat irtifakı is a lawful title concept; it is why this building or unit has not moved to kat mülkiyeti. Verify the occupancy permit and any unresolved project, registration or administrative issue. The reason may be procedural, but it may also reveal a mismatch that requires further investigation. Appearance and long-term occupation do not resolve that question.
Risk 3: reliance on a sales plan rather than the approved project
When plans differ, the approved project and official records control the verification. Additional enclosed space, incorporation of common areas, changes of use or significant internal alterations may create a mismatch even if the apartment is commercially attractive. A valid kat irtifakı entry does not legalize later physical changes. A material discrepancy should be traced through the competent authority so the buyer understands whether it is approved, correctable, or an obstacle to later registration.
Risk 4: unfinished-project performance
For an unfinished development, title status and construction-performance risk must be separated. Kat irtifakı can establish a registered connection to a future independent unit, but it does not guarantee completion date, workmanship, specification or delivery. Those matters depend on the contract, project financing and performance. If the project fails to reach the administrative stage needed for occupancy or conversion, the buyer may hold a registered right while still not receiving the completed legal and physical position expected at purchase.
Risk 5: treating future conversion as automatic
TKGM provides a formal route for conversion to kat mülkiyeti after the applicable conditions are met, but that does not mean every unit converts automatically on a promised date. Check the actual documents. If the seller says the occupancy permit has been issued, verify it with the competent authority. If conversion is described as a mere formality, confirm that project, independent-unit and land-share data are consistent with the registration process and that there is no outstanding discrepancy.
Risk 6: stale evidence
Time affects evidential quality. An old title image does not prove that ownership or entries remain unchanged; a valid building permit does not prove that every later alteration was approved; and an old promise of conversion does not establish that conversion occurred. Material evidence should therefore be refreshed for the decision date. This is especially important when significant time has passed between reservation, contract signing and title transfer.
Practical risk grading
Risk is relatively controlled when the independent unit has one consistent identity across title and project, the current licensing position is documented, the construction stage is understood and there is no unexplained barrier to conversion when conversion is due. Risk rises with undocumented numbering changes, unauthorized physical differences, missing municipal evidence or oral promises about delivery and conversion. The risk becomes unacceptable when the legal unit cannot be identified with confidence or the purchase decision requires assuming that a material unresolved fact is true.
Primary sources
The review should use TKGM’s current registry information and official kat irtifakı/kat mülkiyeti guidance, plus the approved project, permit and occupancy records of the competent authority. Sales opinions and market descriptions may provide context but are not evidence that resolves these title and licensing risks.
Additional questions and context
How recent should the evidence for Kat İrtifakı construction servitude be before signing?
Risks include treating Kat İrtifakı as equivalent to Kat Mülkiyeti, buying a unit that differs from the approved project, delayed/missing occupancy permit, or a completed building remaining in servitude status for years. Investigate the reason and present facts rather than judging from the label alone. Risks include treating Kat İrtifakı as equivalent to Kat Mülkiyeti, buying a unit that differs from the approved project, delayed/missing occupancy permit, or a completed building remaining in servitude status for years. Investigate the reason and present facts rather than judging from the label alone. This record applies that evidence specifically to Kat İrtifakı construction servitude, and should be reconciled to the exact property rather than generalized from another unit.
Which part can change between reservation and closing — Kat İrtifakı construction servitude?
Risks include treating Kat İrtifakı as equivalent to Kat Mülkiyeti, buying a unit that differs from the approved project, delayed/missing occupancy permit, or a completed building remaining in servitude status for years. Investigate the reason and present facts rather than judging from the label alone. Risks include treating Kat İrtifakı as equivalent to Kat Mülkiyeti, buying a unit that differs from the approved project, delayed/missing occupancy permit, or a completed building remaining in servitude status for years. Investigate the reason and present facts rather than judging from the label alone. For Kat İrtifakı construction servitude, preserve the current official record, its date and the identifiers used to reach the conclusion.
What should be rechecked on transfer day — Kat İrtifakı construction servitude?
Risks include treating Kat İrtifakı as equivalent to Kat Mülkiyeti, buying a unit that differs from the approved project, delayed/missing occupancy permit, or a completed building remaining in servitude status for years. Investigate the reason and present facts rather than judging from the label alone. Risks include treating Kat İrtifakı as equivalent to Kat Mülkiyeti, buying a unit that differs from the approved project, delayed/missing occupancy permit, or a completed building remaining in servitude status for years. Investigate the reason and present facts rather than judging from the label alone. For Kat İrtifakı construction servitude, an unresolved conflict remains a transaction condition until the competent record or authority resolves it.