Determining The Ownership Of Improvements On Immovable Property Under Turkish Law

An action for determining the ownership of improvements on real property is a crucial legal mechanism for accurately establishing the economic value of the immovable and ensuring a fair distribution among co-owners. In properties subject to shared ownership, disputes frequently arise over who owns structures, facilities, or plantings that were added over time, and this uncertainty directly affects numerous legal processes—from inheritance distribution to property sales, from partition actions to claims for unjust occupation (ecrimisil). Situations such as one co-owner constructing a building with their own resources and another co-owner later attempting to claim ownership of it, the identity of the person who created the improvements being forgotten in inherited properties passed down within a family, or unauthorized construction activities carried out by third parties often make a proper determination of ownership necessary. This article explains what improvements mean under Turkish practice and examines in detail what an action for determining the ownership of improvements involves, how the determination process operates, and which legal methods are followed in practice when disputes arise.

What Are Improvements?

Although not explicitly defined in legislation, improvements are recognized in Turkish law as "structures, facilities, or additions that are later created on an immovable property and that did not originally exist as part of its natural condition." In this respect, improvements differ from the integral parts of the property; while integral parts (mütemmim cüz) constitute inseparable components of the immovable, improvements refer to elements subsequently built and technically capable of being assessed independently from the land. In practice, the scope of improvements is broad, and many elements such as annex buildings, storage units, garages, sheds, security cabins, prefabricated structures, boundary walls, greenhouses, fountains, wells, artesian wells, irrigation systems, solar energy panels, and even tree plantings may qualify as improvements. All such elements must be man-made and must create additional value compared to the original state of the property.

The determination of improvements is especially important in shared ownership. When one co-owner constructs a structure using their own means, other co-owners may later assert rights over it, or disputes may arise regarding claims related to construction costs. Similarly, in inherited properties, improvements built years ago by one heir may be claimed by others and lead to serious disagreements during the distribution phase. Therefore, whether an element qualifies as an improvement, which co-owner built it, and when it was created are technical matters that often require expert examination.

Determining the Ownership of Improvements

Determining the ownership of improvements refers to identifying who owns the buildings, facilities, or additional elements that were later constructed on an immovable property. Although improvements physically exist on the land, their ownership does not always belong to the landowner or all co-owners. Many disputes in practice arise from this distinction, as a structure built by one co-owner with their own resources may be perceived by the others as a "common element" of the property, directly affecting economic distribution and usage rights. For this reason, determining the ownership of improvements is a critical step, particularly in cases involving shared ownership, inheritance distribution, unjust occupation, actions for preventing unlawful possession, and partition.

According to the established case law of the Court of Cassation, the fundamental criterion for determining who owns an improvement is "who constructed it and with whose resources." As a general rule, if a person adds a structure to the property through their own labor and financial means, the improvement belongs to that person. However, structures built with the express or implied consent of the other co-owners may produce different legal consequences between the parties. For example, even if a storage unit constructed for the common use of all co-owners was built by only one of them, separate evaluations may be required in terms of usage rights and value sharing.

Determining the ownership of improvements is not limited to identifying the rightful owner; this determination is directly applied in future distribution, sale, or valuation processes. The value of the improvement is calculated as an element independent from the total value of the immovable property, and this value is allocated to the relevant person. In this way, fairness is ensured in the distribution among co-owners.

Action for Determining the Ownership of Improvements

An action for determining the ownership of improvements is a declaratory lawsuit filed to establish, by court decision, who owns the improvements located on an immovable property. This action is a primary legal remedy used to resolve disputes in co-owned properties where, over the years, it has become unclear who constructed certain buildings, facilities, or additional elements. Determining the owner of an improvement is crucial both for the protection of property rights and for ensuring the correct allocation of the property's economic value.

The purpose of the lawsuit is to distinguish the ownership of the improvement from the general ownership of the property and, through technical examination, determine which person the value belongs to. For example, an annex building, storage unit, shed, well, or tree planting work funded and created by one co-owner may over time be treated and claimed by the others as a "common structure." If the ownership of the improvement is not determined, processes such as sale, distribution, or unjust occupation cannot be carried out fairly. Therefore, this action functions as a prerequisite for many disputes.

An action for determining the ownership of improvements can be filed not only between co-owners but also among heirs, former owners, third parties, or tenants. Situations such as unauthorized construction on the property, exceeding the agreed boundaries of use, or the lack of certainty in agreements made between the parties may necessitate determining ownership. The court reaches a decision based on site inspections and expert reports, identifying when, by whom, with what resources, and in what manner the improvement was constructed. Although this action does not itself transfer ownership, it forms the legal basis for many subsequent processes, including the distribution of economic value, allocation of sale proceeds, and claims for unjust occupation.

Conditions for Filing an Action for Determining the Ownership of Improvements

An action for determining the ownership of improvements cannot be filed in every situation; certain legal and factual conditions must be present. Therefore, before filing the lawsuit, the condition of the immovable property, the nature of the improvement, and the scope of the dispute between the parties must be carefully evaluated. The first requirement is that the claimant must have a legitimate legal interest. If there is no uncertainty or existing dispute as to who owns the improvement, there is no legal determination that needs to be made, and the court may dismiss the case for lack of legal interest. Accordingly, determining ownership is only possible when there is a dispute that will produce legal consequences.

In lawsuits regarding the determination of ownership of improvements, all registered co-owners of the immovable property—other than those who expressly accept during the partition proceedings that the improvement was constructed by the claimant—must be joined as parties to the lawsuit.

The second requirement is the actual existence of an improvement on the immovable property. The structure or facility must physically exist on the property and must have been created later. Improvements that are imaginary, removed, or no longer present cannot be the subject of such a determination. Moreover, the improvement must have been created by human effort and must carry economic value.

Another requirement is the availability or obtainability of evidence regarding who constructed the improvement. According to the case law of the Court of Cassation, the ownership of an improvement is determined by considering elements such as the manner of construction, materials used, who financed the expenses, technical characteristics, and whether the other co-owners consented. Therefore, witness statements, photographs, invoices, historical records, municipal documents, and expert examinations constitute the core evidence of the lawsuit.

Finally, situations such as the property being subject to shared ownership, having passed through inheritance, or disputes arising regarding usage boundaries between the parties are typical grounds for filing the action. The existence of these conditions forms both the legal and factual basis of an action for determining the ownership of improvements.

Competent and Authorized Court in Actions for Determining the Ownership of Improvements

Given the nature of the dispute, the competent court for an action for determining the ownership of improvements is the Civil Court of First Instance. Since the case involves a request for a judicial determination, the amount or value of the improvement is irrelevant. Competence is a matter of public order; therefore, the parties cannot agree to bring the case before another court, and the court must consider lack of competence on its own motion. The Civil Court of First Instance is authorized to manage the technical stages of the case, such as evaluating the legal status of the immovable property, the scope of the improvement, and expert reports.

In terms of jurisdiction, the court located where the immovable property is situated has exclusive jurisdiction. This rule derives from the Code of Civil Procedure, which establishes exclusive jurisdiction for lawsuits relating to rights in rem over immovable property. Therefore, the lawsuit cannot be filed anywhere other than the court of the property's location; if filed elsewhere, the court must issue a decision of lack of jurisdiction. The purpose of this rule is to ensure that site inspections, expert evaluations, and assessments of the physical characteristics of the property are conducted effectively.

Ownership of Improvements in Shared Ownership

Disputes over the ownership of improvements are among the most common issues in properties subject to shared ownership. When one co-owner constructs an additional structure—such as a building, tree planting, storage unit, shed, or garage—to increase the property's value using their own resources, the other co-owners may eventually claim that the structure is common property. This situation leads to significant disputes regarding both usage rights and the distribution of the property's economic value. According to the established decisions of the Court of Cassation, an improvement created by a co-owner with their own money and labor belongs, as a rule, to the person who constructed it; however, determining this often requires technical examination.

In shared ownership, improvements are sometimes made with the express or implied consent of the other co-owners. In such cases, if the structure was built for common use, different evaluations may be necessary; however, consent does not automatically make the improvement jointly owned. What matters is who financed the construction and the legal basis for its use.

The ownership of improvements also plays a critical role in partition (division of co-owned property) cases. When the immovable property is put up for sale, the value of the improvement is calculated independently from the total sale price and paid to its owner. Therefore, determining the ownership of improvements in shared ownership is an essential step both for ensuring fair distribution and for protecting property rights.

Frequently Asked Questions

How long does an action for determining the ownership of improvements take?

These cases typically conclude within 8 to 18 months. However, the duration may vary depending on the number of site inspections, expert reports, objections, and the parties' submission of evidence. In busy courts, the process may extend up to 2 years.

Does filing this lawsuit stop the sale of the property?

Filing the lawsuit alone does not automatically suspend a sale. However, a party may request a preliminary injunction to temporarily prevent the sale of the immovable property. The court evaluates the existence of the improvement and the nature of the dispute when deciding on such an injunction.

Can heirs claim ownership of improvements?

Yes. Heirs may assert ownership claims regarding improvements constructed either by the deceased during their lifetime or by the heirs themselves. Old photographs, witnesses, and expense documents are particularly important. In inheritance distribution, the value of the improvement is allocated in favor of the heir who constructed it.

Who can file an action for determining the ownership of improvements?

The lawsuit may be filed by: – Co-owners of the immovable property, – Third parties who claim to have constructed the improvement, – Heirs, – Individuals who have been using the property and created improvements. What matters is that the claimant asserts a legal right over the improvement.

Are unlicensed structures considered improvements?

Yes. A structure does not need to be licensed to qualify as an improvement. According to established legal practice, the decisive factor is whether a human-made structure or addition was later created on the immovable property. Therefore, even unlicensed annex buildings, prefabricated units, sheds, storage areas, fences, greenhouses, or wells may qualify as improvements. However, the lack of a construction permit may lead to separate administrative consequences under zoning regulations, independent of the determination of ownership of the improvement.

Conclusion

Determining the ownership of improvements is one of the most technical and frequently disputed areas of property law. Uncertainty regarding usage boundaries among co-owners, disagreements among heirs regarding old structures, confusion over additions built decades ago, or unauthorized construction by third parties often make this lawsuit unavoidable. A correct determination not only protects property rights but also ensures fair distribution of economic value, facilitates smooth sale or partition processes, and enables accurate calculations in unjust occupation claims.

This lawsuit involves highly technical steps, including site inspections, expert evaluations, and the analysis of photographs and historical records. Proper management of the legal process prevents loss of rights and contributes to resolving the dispute more quickly. Especially in disputes involving shared ownership, inheritance, or property sales, determining the ownership of improvements forms the basis for all subsequent legal steps.

At Paldımoğlu Law Firm, we evaluate both the technical and legal aspects of disputes involving the ownership of improvements and work to ensure that site inspections and expert assessments are conducted correctly, preventing potential loss of rights.

Originally published 05 November 2025

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.