My building was declared a "risky structure" - now what should I do? A step-by-step roadmap for property owners

A building being designated a risky structure (riskli yapı) means it has been technically documented that the structure does not possess sufficient resistance to safeguard human life against earthquakes and similar disasters. This decision rests on inspections carried out by licensed organizations within the framework of Law No. 6306 on the Transformation of Areas Under Disaster Risk (6306 sayılı Afet Riski Altındaki Alanların Dönüştürülmesi Hakkında Kanun). The decision does not mean that demolition will take place immediately; it means that a process has begun.

For property owners, the greatest risk at this stage is giving in to panic and making hasty, uninformed decisions. Contracts signed without understanding the process, reports read only partially, or missed appeal deadlines can lead to consequences that are difficult to remedy later. In reality, the risky-structure status - when managed correctly - is a legal foundation that enables the property owner to obtain a safer and, in most cases, more valuable property.

This article is not intended to substitute for legal counsel covering the entire process; rather, it has been prepared to help the property owner understand what they are facing and which steps they should take, and in what order. For the details of the concepts, you can make use of the Urban Transformation and Zoning Legislation Guide on our site (/en/urban-transformation-guide/).

When a risky-structure assessment is made, the decision is officially notified to the property owners. With this notification, certain time periods begin to run: the appeal period, the period granted for vacating the premises, and the subsequent stages of the process. The first step the property owner should take is not to panic, but to clearly understand the date and content of the notification and the time periods granted to them.

The assessment report sets out why the building is deemed risky and on what technical grounds this is based. It is important that this report be read through the eyes of an expert, because all of the property owner's subsequent decisions will be built upon this document. The technical content of the report also affects the answers to critical questions, such as whether the building can be saved through strengthening (retrofitting).

Time management is decisive at this stage. When the periods granted under the legislation are missed, the options available to the property owner may narrow, and the process may pass out of the owners' control and into the administrative track. For this reason, the first thing a property owner should do upon receiving the notification is to clarify the timeline and to evaluate the report together with an expert.

Property owners have the right to appeal a risky-structure assessment within the period prescribed by the legislation. While an appeal does not mean that the process is stopped entirely, it can enable the assessment to be technically re-examined. Knowing that this right exists is important in allowing the property owner to position themselves not as a passive subject of the process, but as the party making the decision.

The decision to appeal should be made on technical, not emotional, grounds. Whether the building is genuinely risky, whether it can be saved economically through strengthening, and the difference in value that transformation will bring to the property owner should all be evaluated together. In some cases an appeal makes sense, while in others, accelerating the transformation is in the property owner's favor.

At this point, an independent technical opinion provides great benefit. The property owner wants to see, in numbers, both the accuracy of the assessment and which of the alternatives (strengthening, reconstruction, build-in-exchange-for-flats arrangement, or sale) is more advantageous for them. The decision becomes defensible only once this comparison has been made.

In buildings with many independent units, transformation does not proceed on the decision of a single property owner; it advances on a joint decision taken by the owners with the majority prescribed in the legislation. At this stage, communication with neighbors, the management of shared expectations, and a transparent decision-making process become critical. The greater part of disputes arises from the process not having been set up fairly and openly from the outset.

Once the joint decision is made, the selection of the project and the contractor comes onto the agenda. The most common mistake property owners make here is choosing only the party that offers the highest sharing ratio. In reality, delivery quality, the permit (ruhsat) timeline, the strength of the guarantees, and the technical content of the contract are at least as decisive as the ratio. Our article on the build-in-exchange-for-flats contract, where we examine this subject in detail (/makaleler/kat-karsiligi-kentsel-donusum-sozlesmesi-malik-rehberi/), will help you make this decision on firmer ground.

Choosing the right project directly determines the quality of the asset the property owner will end up with at the end of the process. For this reason, the decision should be made not under momentary pressure or on the recommendation of an acquaintance, but through a technical and financial reading of the contract and the project.

During the urban transformation (kentsel dönüşüm) process, there are government incentives that property owners can benefit from: rent assistance (kira yardımı), transformation loans / interest-rate support, and various fee exemptions are among the foremost. These supports are designed to ease the property owner's burden in the post-vacancy period and to make the process economically sustainable.

An important caveat: rent assistance amounts, loan terms, and support rates change periodically and are officially determined by the Urban Transformation Directorate (Kentsel Dönüşüm Başkanlığı). For this reason, one should rely not on outdated figures circulating online, but on the current official amounts in force at the time of application. Benefiting from the supports often depends on a timely and complete application.

It is important for the property owner to view these supports as part of their plan. If it is known from the outset which support will come into play, when, and under what conditions, the cash flow of the process is managed much more comfortably. The supports should be factored in at the decision stage, rather than being remembered at the end of the process.

In the risky-structure process, the property owner faces three different languages: engineering (the condition of the structure and strengthening), law (the contract and rights), and finance (the sharing, value, and cost). A perspective that can read these three languages at the same time moves the property owner from being an object of the process to being the party that makes the decisions. Lizaz Emlak's approach, grounded in environmental engineering and field experience, works precisely at this point of intersection.

Technical advisory provides concrete benefit at points such as reading the assessment report correctly, making the appeal decision based on numbers, auditing the technical clauses of the contract, and timing the supports correctly. The aim is not to turn the process to one party's advantage; it is to ensure that the property owner acts with knowledge, a realistic timeline, and measurable assurances.

If you are a property owner whose building has been designated a risky structure, the first step you should take is not a hasty signature, but an independent technical reading of your situation. To evaluate the process together, you can reach us via our contact page (/iletisim/) and request that we assess your file through an expert's eyes.