Danish investors increasingly enter the Turkish property market alongside family members, business partners, or fellow investors rather than as sole buyers. Pooling capital for a coastal apartment in Bodrum, a mixed-use asset in Istanbul, or a development plot on the Aegean coast can make sense financially, but it introduces a legal question that many buyers underestimate: how the co-ownership itself is structured. Getting this wrong at the outset creates friction later, particularly when partners have different timelines, residency plans, or inheritance considerations.
Shared Title Deeds: The Default Structure
When two or more people buy property together in Türkiye without forming a company, the title deed (tapu) is typically issued as "hisseli tapu," a shared ownership deed recording each buyer's percentage interest. This is the simplest route and the one most Danish co-investors default to because it requires no additional corporate registration. Each owner's share is legally distinct and can, in principle, be sold, mortgaged, or transferred independently of the others.
Important : hisseli ownership does not automatically divide a property into physically separate units. Unless the parties execute a "kat irtifakı" (floor easement) or later a "kat mülkiyeti" arrangement, all co-owners hold an undivided interest in the whole property, not a defined portion of it. For a single apartment purchased jointly, this rarely matters day to day, but it becomes significant if the group later wants to sell one owner's share to an outside party or divide a larger land parcel.
Company Structures as an Alternative
For larger acquisitions, particularly land intended for development or multi-unit projects, Danish investors sometimes prefer to hold the asset through a Turkish limited liability company (LLC) rather than as direct co-owners. Each investor then holds shares in the company rather than a fractional interest in the real estate itself. This approach offers cleaner governance: shareholder agreements can set out decision-making thresholds, profit distribution, and exit rights with far more precision than a shared title deed allows.
The trade-off is administrative. A company structure carries its own accounting, tax filing, and annual compliance obligations in Türkiye, and dissolving or restructuring it later is more involved than simply reselling a fractional title interest. For a single holiday home shared among family members, this level of formality is usually unnecessary. For a commercial or development-stage acquisition among unrelated investors, it is often the more prudent choice.
Drafting a Co-Ownership Agreement
Regardless of which structure is used, a written co-ownership or shareholder agreement, separate from the title deed itself, should address a handful of recurring points: how maintenance and running costs are shared, what happens if one party wants to sell their interest, whether remaining owners have a right of first refusal, how disputes over use (particularly for a shared holiday property) are resolved, and what happens on the death of a co-owner.
*This last point matters more than many Danish buyers expect*. Turkish inheritance law can apply to real estate located in Türkiye regardless of the deceased owner's nationality or domicile, and forced heirship rules differ meaningfully from Danish succession law. A co-ownership agreement cannot override statutory inheritance rules, but it can specify buyout mechanisms so that surviving co-owners are not left in indefinite joint ownership with heirs they have never met.
Financing and Liability Considerations
Where a mortgage is involved, lenders will generally require all named co-owners to be joint borrowers, meaning each is liable for the full debt rather than only their proportional share. Danish co-investors should confirm this point explicitly with the lender before signing, since it changes the risk profile considerably compared to a scenario where liability is capped at one's ownership percentage.
Practical Recommendation
Before signing a preliminary sale agreement, Danish investors buying jointly should decide, in writing, whether hisseli tapu or a corporate structure better fits the scale and purpose of the acquisition, and should have a Turkish lawyer draft a co-ownership agreement addressing exit, inheritance, and cost-sharing before funds are transferred. Structuring these terms at the outset costs little and materially reduces the risk of dispute once the property is held and generating value.