Earthquake-risk screening before buying property in Türkiye
Earthquake due diligence is not a yes-or-no question about whether a neighbourhood is seismic. A Turkish property review should separate at least three layers: the seismic ground-motion hazard at the location, local soil behaviour and the ability of the specific building to withstand that demand. AFAD expressly explains that the Turkish Earthquake Hazard Map is not a risk map for buildings and people. Its interactive interface also warns that the map is based on a reference soil condition and does not itself include local hazards such as liquefaction, amplification and differential settlement. A map colour is therefore not a building-safety certificate.
1. Locate the property accurately on the official hazard map
Start with a verified address and, where possible, parcel data or reliable coordinates. Use the official AFAD map to understand the site hazard values. The current map was published in the Official Gazette on 18 March 2018 and entered into force on 1 January 2019. It replaced the old earthquake-zone concept with parameters such as peak ground acceleration. Save a dated map output or record for the acquisition file, but label it correctly as a hazard input rather than a structural conclusion.
2. Separate regional hazard from local soil conditions
Two nearby buildings can experience different site effects because of soil. AFAD states that the public map does not include local effects such as liquefaction, amplification and differential settlement. Review municipal geological and geotechnical studies, planning geology and the projects soil-and-foundation investigation where available. Reclaimed land, soft deposits, valleys, stream corridors and coastal areas may justify closer site-specific review. A district-level hazard value should never substitute for the actual foundation and ground conditions of the parcel.
3. Record the permit and construction era without treating age as a verdict
Construction date matters because it helps identify the regulatory framework under which the building was designed, but age alone is not a performance test. AFAD states that the current Turkish Building Earthquake Code was published in 2018 and entered into force on 1 January 2019 after earlier generations of seismic rules. A newer building may benefit from a newer code yet suffer poor execution or later alteration. An older building may have good construction or documented strengthening. Use age as a screening variable that determines how much engineering evidence is appropriate.
4. Collect the available structural and administrative file
Seek the building permit, approved structural project where obtainable, soil and foundation reports, occupancy permit, strengthening or major repair documents and prior technical reports. Reconcile storey count, use and independent-unit configuration with the current building. Removal of walls, a heavily opened ground floor, added storeys or large penetrations may warrant structural review. Do not assume that every alteration described as interior decoration is non-structural.
5. Investigate damage and repair history
Ask about earthquakes experienced by the building, official damage assessments, evacuation decisions, settlement, cracking, insurance claims and repairs to columns, beams or walls. Fresh paint is not structural evidence. Where a prior damage report exists, identify its category, date and recommendations and determine whether the specified repair or strengthening was completed and documented. Distinguish earthquake damage from unrelated moisture, corrosion, settlement or construction defects.
6. Distinguish buyer screening from a formal Riskli Yapı determination
Law No. 6306 and its implementing regulation define a riskli yapı through a formal scientific and technical determination of a building that has completed its economic life or carries a risk of collapse or severe damage. That statutory process is not the same as a private engineers acquisition review or a quick visual screening. If a formal determination exists, obtain the decision, supporting documents, objections and current procedural stage. If none exists, do not write that the building is safe merely because there is no 6306 record.
7. Do not use DASK as structural evidence
A DASK compulsory earthquake policy is an insurance instrument. It does not mean that an engineer has tested the columns, foundations or building performance. Policy issuance and insured amount are not structural ratings. Keep DASK verification in the insurance file and structural safety in an engineering file. Both may matter to the transaction, but they answer different questions.
8. Know when screening should escalate to engineering review
Escalate where the building is old and poorly documented, the ground floor is unusually open, structural alterations are visible, diagonal or recurring cracks exist, settlement is evident, concrete is spalling or reinforcement is corroded, repairs lack records, approved drawings differ materially from reality, soil conditions raise concern or there is a damage history. At that point a buyer should not rely on a general viewing. A competent engineer should define the inspection and testing scope. Screening cannot predict with certainty how a building will perform in a future earthquake.
9. Decision-stage check
Before closing, summarise evidence under four headings: site hazard, soil, building records and technical assessment. Mark each as confirmed, missing or conflicting. If purchase depends on engineering comfort, make the necessary report a condition before irreversible payment. Where a formal Law 6306 process or municipal decision exists, analyse its effect on occupation, financing, demolition, strengthening and project timing.
10. Red flags
- An AFAD map colour is presented as a safety rating for the building.
- The property is described as outside earthquake risk without current hazard data.
- Soft or reclaimed ground is present with no site study available.
- An open commercial ground floor or major alteration has no structural file.
- Cracks or concrete repairs lack a competent technical explanation.
- An old damage report exists but repair or strengthening cannot be evidenced.
- DASK is presented as proof of earthquake resistance.
- The absence of a formal riskli yapı decision is treated as proof of safety.
Frequently asked questions
Does the AFAD map tell me whether a building is safe? No. AFAD describes it as a hazard map, not a risk or building-safety map.
Is a new building automatically safe? No. Construction era is useful evidence but does not replace design, execution, alteration and current-condition review.
Can a screening replace an engineer? No where warning signs exist or the purchase decision materially depends on structural performance.
Official sources
- AFAD — Türkiye Earthquake Hazard Map
- AFAD — Interactive hazard map and limitations on local soil effects
- AFAD — Turkish Building Earthquake Code
- Ministry of Environment, Urbanisation and Climate Change — Law 6306 implementing regulation and risky-building definition
Additional questions and context
What does earthquake hazard versus building-specific risk prove, and what does it not prove?
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. Begin by separating site earthquake hazard from building-specific risk. AFAD expressly notes that the Türkiye Earthquake Hazard Map is not itself a risk map; building safety cannot be inferred from a map colour without structural and exposure information. Begin by separating site earthquake hazard from building-specific risk. AFAD expressly notes that the Türkiye Earthquake Hazard Map is not itself a risk map; building safety cannot be inferred from a map colour without structural and exposure information. This record applies that evidence specifically to earthquake hazard versus building-specific risk, and should be reconciled to the exact property rather than generalized from another unit. This article has one purpose: resolve the question raised by “Earthquake risk screening Verification Guide” for the topic Earthquake risk screening. Start with AFAD site hazard and building age/system, and tie both to the exact property, party and transaction date.
Which official record is the primary evidence for earthquake hazard versus building-specific risk?
Begin by separating site earthquake hazard from building-specific risk. AFAD expressly notes that the Türkiye Earthquake Hazard Map is not itself a risk map; building safety cannot be inferred from a map colour without structural and exposure information. Begin by separating site earthquake hazard from building-specific risk. AFAD expressly notes that the Türkiye Earthquake Hazard Map is not itself a risk map; building safety cannot be inferred from a map colour without structural and exposure information. For earthquake hazard versus building-specific risk, preserve the current official record, its date and the identifiers used to reach the conclusion. This article has one purpose: resolve the question raised by “Earthquake risk screening Verification Guide” for the topic Earthquake risk screening. Start with AFAD site hazard and building age/system, and tie both to the exact property, party and transaction date.
What should a buyer compare before relying on earthquake hazard versus building-specific risk?
Begin by separating site earthquake hazard from building-specific risk. AFAD expressly notes that the Türkiye Earthquake Hazard Map is not itself a risk map; building safety cannot be inferred from a map colour without structural and exposure information. Begin by separating site earthquake hazard from building-specific risk. AFAD expressly notes that the Türkiye Earthquake Hazard Map is not itself a risk map; building safety cannot be inferred from a map colour without structural and exposure information. For earthquake hazard versus building-specific risk, an unresolved conflict remains a transaction condition until the competent record or authority resolves it. The evidence file should cover AFAD site hazard, building age/system, alterations, technical reports and Riskli Yapı records. A document can be genuine yet still be unusable if it belongs to a different unit, parcel, year or transaction.