Developer delivery-history checks: do not assess an off-plan project from the sales brochure alone
When buying property under construction, a material part of the risk is the developer’s ability to complete what was promised, on time, at the represented quality and with the required legal close-out. A large brand name or polished sales office does not prove that the company signing the buyer’s contract is the same legal entity that completed earlier projects. Convert the claim “we have delivered dozens of projects” into a verifiable list of companies, projects, dates, occupancy/title status and post-handover performance.
Identify the contracting legal entity
Record the full company name, trade-registry details, MERSİS number where available, address and authorised signatory. A group may use separate special-purpose companies for different projects, so brand reputation must not be confused with the liability of the company receiving the money and promising delivery. Review the trade registry and current representation authority rather than relying only on the logo.
Build a list of genuinely completed projects
Ask for names, locations, unit counts, construction start dates, promised completion dates and actual delivery dates for past projects. Do not accept photographs or logos as the only evidence. Visit several older developments where practical and speak with building management or owners. An older completed project allows the buyer to see how façades, lifts, waterproofing, landscaping and common systems have aged.
Compare promised dates with actual delivery
One delay can have exceptional causes; a recurring pattern is more informative. For each project, identify the original promised date, documented extensions and actual handover or first occupancy. Old advertisements alone are not enough. Cross-check official announcements, documents, management records, press items or owner evidence where available. Record both the length of delay and whether the developer communicated and managed it consistently.
Check occupancy and title completion after construction
A project can look physically complete while legal and administrative close-out remains unfinished. Investigate whether prior developments obtained the required Yapı Kullanma İzin Belgesi/iskan and how quickly kat irtifakı was converted to kat mülkiyeti or final title processes were completed where applicable. Repeated delay at this stage can reveal weak closing discipline even when buyers are already living in the buildings.
Inspect post-handover quality
Build quality should be judged after the first winters and summers, not only on handover day. Ask about leaks, façade problems, acoustic or thermal insulation, lifts, heating systems, garages, pools and shared mechanical equipment. Compare delivered materials with sales descriptions. Speak to several owners rather than relying on one enthusiastic or angry customer. Look for repeated patterns and for the developer’s response to them.
Evaluate snagging and defect correction
Even good developments can have handover defects. The important distinction is whether there is an organised process to record snags, assign responsibility, respond within a reasonable period and close defects. Ask for an example handover protocol and warranty process. Repeated complaints that nobody responds or that responsible staff constantly change are meaningful operational warning signs.
Review complaints and litigation carefully
An online complaint does not prove the developer is at fault, and the absence of complaints does not prove quality. Search consumer platforms, press reports and public litigation information where lawfully available and speak with resident management. Classify the subject of complaints: delay, area mismatch, materials, fees, title, payment or after-sales service. Repetition of the same issue across several projects is more informative than a single hostile review.
Understand partnerships and project structures
Some developments are joint ventures with a landowner, another developer or a public body. Identify who was responsible for construction and closing in each reference project. Do not attribute an entire project’s success to a brand that only marketed or held a minority role. Changes in project companies, shareholders or major contractors also matter when judging whether old performance is transferable to the current project.
Look for financing and encumbrance signals
A buyer normally cannot see the developer’s complete financing structure, but can review important signals: land ownership, registered mortgages or other encumbrances, construction progress, known project financing and the contractual process for releasing security from the unit. A mortgage is not automatic evidence of distress, but the path to release it before or at title delivery must be clear and documented.
Match the scale of past capability to the new promise
A developer that has delivered several 300-unit towers has more directly relevant evidence for a similar project than a company whose only completed work is a small building but now promises a 3,000-unit complex. Compare size, height, phasing, common facilities and infrastructure complexity. Also check whether the management team and main contractor are substantially the same as those behind earlier successes.
Do not let a strong history replace current-project due diligence
Even an excellent developer can face a problem with a specific site, permit, financing structure or contract. Independently review land ownership, building permit, approved plans, encumbrances, payment schedule and current sale agreement. Delivery history reduces uncertainty; it does not remove the need to investigate the property being purchased now.
Finish with a decision-ready record
Summarise how many prior projects were independently verified, typical delay, occupancy/title completion, post-handover quality, recurring complaints and legal close-out strength. Label evidence as official, independently verifiable or marketing-only. A strong developer is not simply one that claims many deliveries; it is one whose path from promise to construction, handover, title and stable occupation can be followed across multiple developments.
2026 investment decision update — Developer Delivery History Check
Delivery history should be built from projects attributable to the same legal entity where possible, with contract date, promised handover, actual handover, occupancy/title close-out and post-handover issues. A branded photo list is insufficient. Repeated schedule variance and close-out behaviour matter more than one successful project.
The Ministry of Trade describes MERSİS as the central system through which company registrations, amendments and deletions are processed and registrable commercial-record information is stored electronically. Developer due diligence should therefore start with the legal entity and registry record, not the brand name alone.
TKGM’s Web Tapu supports electronic applications for sale, mortgage and other land-registry transactions. Investment due diligence should reconcile the registered owner, independent unit, restrictions and representation data to the official record rather than treating a listing or marketing contract as a substitute.
Formula / decision check: Delivery variance = actual/verified handover date - contractual handover date; track separately for each prior project of the same legal entity, not just the brand group.