Ownership Share Ratio — Decision Framework
A purchase decision involving arsa payı should be based on a small number of clearly separated questions. The central fact is the registered ownership share attached to the exact independent unit. From there, the buyer decides whether the share is confirmed, whether a discrepancy can be cured before completion, or whether the inconsistency is serious enough to stop the transaction. This framework keeps the decision focused on the share ratio instead of allowing unrelated property issues to blur the conclusion.
Decision question 1: Is the legal object certain?
Confirm the independent unit, block, floor and parcel first. If those identifiers are not stable, do not decide on the share ratio. A fraction taken from another unit is irrelevant even if it looks commercially reasonable. The physical apartment, the contract and the current title record must identify the same legal object.
Decision question 2: What ratio is currently registered?
Record the numerator and denominator exactly. TKGM guidance treats arsa payı as the share of the main property allocated to an independent unit and states that the shares are tied to the units. That registered fraction is the starting legal fact. Marketing percentages, management spreadsheets and valuation commentary may help explain the context but do not replace the registry entry.
Decision question 3: Is there credible contradictory evidence?
A different ratio in an old deed, project schedule or management document needs a date and explanation. If the difference is historical and a later lawful registration explains it, the issue may be closed. If two current official sources point to different ratios, the conflict is not suitable for assumption; obtain clarification or correction from the competent authority.
Decision question 4: Does the discrepancy matter to this purchase?
Not every typographical difference changes value or rights, but the reviewer should identify the consequence rather than guessing. The ratio can affect the owner’s position in the main property and may matter in common-property and redevelopment contexts. A buyer should also avoid treating the ratio as proof of exclusive use of a parking place, garden or terrace. Those claimed benefits require their own legal basis.
Three possible outcomes
Proceed: the independent unit is identified, the current registry shows a clear share, and related official project information is consistent. Proceed only after a defined cure: the current legal position is understandable but a discrepancy must be corrected or formally explained before a payment or title-transfer milestone. Do not proceed: the property identity is uncertain, current official records conflict materially, or the seller expects the buyer to accept an unregistered share or benefit as though it were already legally attached to the unit.
Conditions should be specific
If the decision is conditional, describe the exact evidence needed. “Seller will fix arsa payı” is too vague. A usable condition identifies the competent office, the target registered fraction or correction, the document that proves completion and the date by which it must occur. The payment schedule should reflect the importance of the unresolved issue.
Do not confuse the decision with valuation
The framework does not declare that a larger share automatically makes a unit more valuable or that a smaller share makes it defective. Value depends on many factors. The legal decision is narrower: does the buyer understand and accept the registered share attached to the exact unit, and is any discrepancy resolved well enough to complete the transaction?
A written conclusion should name the unit, state the registered ratio, list the conflicting document if any, and record the chosen outcome. That conclusion is useful because it captures the property-specific reasoning without turning the page into a generic transaction checklist.
Official sources
- TKGM guidance on Kat Mülkiyeti and Kat İrtifakı.
- Law No. 634 on Condominium Ownership.