Earthquake Risk Screening Workflow Guide
Earthquake Risk Screening Workflow Guide: 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.
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.
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.
Before a decision is made, 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. Start with AFAD site hazard and building age/system, and tie both to the exact property, party and transaction date.
In practical due diligence, 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.
For this review, Earthquake Risk Screening Workflow Guide: 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.
The transaction consequence is clearer when 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. Start with AFAD site hazard and building age/system, and tie both to the exact property, party and transaction date.
For this review, 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. A document can be genuine yet still be unusable if it belongs to a different unit, parcel, year or transaction.
Frequently asked questions
Can earthquake hazard versus building-specific risk affect financing or valuation?
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. Classify the decision as preliminary information with no obvious alert but not a substitute for engineering review; indicators requiring specialist assessment; or an existing official/technical finding requiring legal and engineering resolution before purchase. Avoid unsupported safe/unsafe labels. 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.
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. 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.
Which identifiers must match when checking earthquake hazard versus building-specific risk?
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. Workflow: locate the building accurately → review AFAD hazard parameters → collect construction year, permit, project, structural system and alterations → check prior reports/decisions → when warranted, obtain a building-specific assessment from a qualified/authorized body. 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.
How can earthquake hazard versus building-specific risk affect the legal ability to use the property?
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. Ask the construction year, permit/occupancy documents, structural system, strengthening or removed columns/walls, prior earthquake damage, engineering reports, any 6306 Riskli Yapı determination, and any active urban-transformation process. 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.
How does earthquake hazard versus building-specific risk affect a foreign buyer?
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. Preserve building coordinates/address, AFAD hazard result/date, permits, engineering reports, inspection photos, any Riskli Yapı determination and the identity/authorization of the assessor. This prevents importing conclusions from neighboring buildings. 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.
Which document fields or legal details on earthquake risk screening matter most after the underlying record changes?
If registry, project, numbering or share data changes after verification begins, preserve the old and new versions with date and reason. A valid change may be legitimate; relying on a superseded version is the real risk. Earthquake screening should begin with site hazard but must not end there. AFAD explicitly states that the national earthquake hazard map is not a building risk map, so a map colour cannot be converted into a structural-safety conclusion for a specific property. Where structural concern exists, separate geographic screening from the formal Riskli Yapı process. The Ministry states that risky-building determinations follow prescribed technical principles and are made through authorized bodies under the 6306 framework.
What final condition should block closing if still unresolved — earthquake hazard versus building-specific risk?
earthquake risk screening: AFAD explicitly states that Türkiye’s Earthquake Hazard Map is a HAZARD map, not a building RISK map; assessing a specific building requires exposure/structural information and local conditions in addition to regional hazard.
Which record, date and identifier should be saved in the file — earthquake hazard versus building-specific risk?
AFAD’s current hazard map took effect on 1 January 2019 and is a hazard map, not a building-risk certificate; it uses point-based ground-acceleration values rather than the old earthquake-zone grades. 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. Regional hazard data does not freeze building condition.
Which fee, delay or remediation cost should be budgeted — earthquake hazard versus building-specific risk?
earthquake risk screening: AFAD explicitly states that Türkiye’s Earthquake Hazard Map is a HAZARD map, not a building RISK map; assessing a specific building requires exposure/structural information and local conditions in addition to regional hazard. AFAD’s current hazard map was published on 18 March 2018 and entered into force on 1 January 2019. earthquake risk screening: AFAD explicitly states that Türkiye’s Earthquake Hazard Map is a HAZARD map, not a building RISK map; assessing a specific building requires exposure/structural information and local conditions in addition to regional hazard.
What cost can arise from a problem in earthquake hazard versus building-specific risk?
AFAD explicitly states that the national earthquake hazard map is not a building risk map, so a map colour cannot be converted into a structural-safety conclusion for a specific property. Revalidate site hazard through AFAD and official risky-building status/process through the Ministry. Under Law 6306, official risky-building determinations follow defined technical rules and authorized bodies; marketing opinions do not replace that process. 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.
How should the cost be reflected in the purchase decision — earthquake hazard versus building-specific risk?
AFAD’s current hazard map took effect on 1 January 2019 and is a hazard map, not a building-risk certificate; it uses point-based ground-acceleration values rather than the old earthquake-zone grades. Revalidate site hazard through AFAD and official risky-building status/process through the Ministry. Under Law 6306, official risky-building determinations follow defined technical rules and authorized bodies; marketing opinions do not replace that process. 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.
