Earthquake risk screening Red Flags Guide
Why this issue fails deals
High-risk inconsistencies
- AFAD site hazard
- building age/system
- alterations
- technical reports
- Riskli Yapı records
How to test the red flags
For red flags, test the strongest claim first. If alterations conflicts with technical reports, preserve both pieces of evidence and identify the reason for the conflict before treating the file as complete.
Stop conditions
Evidence to retain
Transaction example
Checklist before closure
- AFAD site hazard
- building age/system
- alterations
- technical reports
- Riskli Yapı records
Trigger catalogue
Residual concern
False-positive screen
Test risk independently before using flags as supporting evidence. This prevents a secondary document from validating an incorrect primary assumption.
Escalation path
Payment freeze
Evidence that clears the flag
Earthquake risk screening — Red flags
This guide focuses on red flags for Earthquake risk screening.
Source-grounded facts
How to use these facts
Primary sources
- AFAD
- AFAD
- AFAD
What the record proves
Red flags: unexplained structural cracks, open/soft ground floor or major alterations, undocumented strengthening, known earthquake damage, project-to-reality mismatch, an anonymous report, or a “100% safe” marketing claim without building-specific engineering evidence.
Required reconciliation
Limits and exceptions
Decision consequence
2026 update
FAQ
How can earthquake hazard versus building-specific risk affect future resale?
AFAD’s current hazard map was published on 18 March 2018 and entered into force on 1 January 2019. AFAD explicitly says it is a hazard map, not a building-risk map; the interactive map also excludes local-site effects such as liquefaction, amplification and differential settlement. Red flags: unexplained structural cracks, open/soft ground floor or major alterations, undocumented strengthening, known earthquake damage, project-to-reality mismatch, an anonymous report, or a “100% safe” marketing claim without building-specific engineering evidence. Apply the evidence specifically to earthquake hazard versus building-specific risk and reconcile it to the exact property rather than generalizing from another unit.
Which document will a later buyer ask for — earthquake hazard versus building-specific risk?
Red flags: unexplained structural cracks, open/soft ground floor or major alterations, undocumented strengthening, known earthquake damage, project-to-reality mismatch, an anonymous report, or a “100% safe” marketing claim without building-specific engineering evidence. For earthquake hazard versus building-specific risk, preserve the current official record, its date and the identifiers used to reach the conclusion.
What correction is easier to solve before purchase than after it — earthquake hazard versus building-specific risk?
Red flags: unexplained structural cracks, open/soft ground floor or major alterations, undocumented strengthening, known earthquake damage, project-to-reality mismatch, an anonymous report, or a “100% safe” marketing claim without building-specific engineering evidence. For earthquake hazard versus building-specific risk, an unresolved conflict remains a transaction condition until the competent record or authority resolves it.
Primary sources
Official source: AFAD Hazard Map
Verified information for Earthquake risk screening
compare documentary status with the physical, payment or operational reality relevant to the topic and write down every unexplained difference before commitment.
convert each unresolved difference into a named condition: evidence required, person responsible, deadline and the consequence if the condition is not satisfied.