Every cross-border farmland buyer eventually faces the same fork — the SPV vs direct title decision: own the land directly, title in your name — or own it through a vehicle, typically a special-purpose company (SPV) holding the land for a group of investors. Both are legitimate. They solve different problems, suit different buyers, and fail in different ways. Here is the comparison nobody’s brochure gives you straight.
What each structure actually is
Direct title means the land registry records you as owner — in Türkiye, a Tapu with your name and the parcel’s Ada/Parsel numbers (the mechanics are in our ownership guide). An SPV is a company created for one purpose: holding a specific project. Investors own shares in the company; the company owns the land. Your rights live in the company’s constitutional documents, not in the land registry.
Direct title — strengths and costs
- The strongest claim that exists. State-registered ownership: sellable, inheritable, mortgageable, and independent of any company’s fate.
- No vehicle risk. There is no company that can be mismanaged, diluted, or wound up between you and your asset.
- Clean exit. You sell land, a thing the market has priced for centuries — not shares in a private company that needs a willing buyer who accepts its documents.
- The cost: higher entry (you buy a whole parcel), and the operating relationship is yours to hold — which is why a written operator agreement matters so much.
The SPV — strengths and costs
- Lower entry, shared scale. A group can hold one large, professionally run project that no single member would buy alone — and scale genuinely matters in farming (machinery, inputs, and field operations get cheaper per hectare as projects grow).
- One set of books, one operator, one report. Governance is centralised instead of fragmented across dozens of owners.
- The costs: your claim is indirect; your liquidity depends on share-transfer mechanics in the company documents; and the vehicle’s jurisdiction, management, and audit quality become part of your risk.
The comparison at a glance
| Direct title | SPV (shared) | |
|---|---|---|
| Your claim | State land registry, your name | Shares in a company that owns the land |
| Entry | A whole parcel | A share of a larger project |
| Exit | Sell the land on the open market | Transfer shares per the company documents |
| Governance | Your decisions | Collective, per the shareholders’ agreement |
| The operator answers to | You, directly | The company |
| What to read hardest | Sale + operator agreements, title search | Shareholders’ agreement, articles, exit clauses |
SPV vs direct title: six questions that decide it
- Ticket size. Does your budget buy a whole viable parcel, or a share of something bigger?
- Horizon. Multi-generational holding favors direct title (inheritance of land is simpler than inheritance of foreign shares).
- Liquidity expectations. Neither structure is liquid — but land sells on the open market (subject to the foreign-ownership rules in our guide); shares sell to whoever the documents allow.
- Control appetite. Want decisions about replanting, operators, or selling to be yours alone? That’s direct title. Comfortable with collective governance? SPV.
- Document tolerance. An SPV is only as good as its constitutional documents — exit clauses, valuation method, manager removal. If you won’t read them with counsel, don’t buy them.
- The seller’s incentive. Ask why the seller chose the structure they’re offering. A coherent answer teaches you more than the brochure.
What to read before signing — either way
- Direct title: the sale agreement (what exactly is delivered, when), the title search, and the operator agreement — scope, annual cost, reporting cadence, termination.
- SPV: the shareholders’ agreement and articles — share classes, transfer restrictions, exit windows, manager fees and removal, what happens if the project underperforms. Then the land documents underneath the company.
How we use both
We’re not neutral observers — we’ve run both structures, and we match them to project shape. Our broader Türkiye walnut and Egypt olive projects include shared-ownership participation precisely because scale serves those projects. Our current Denizli & Uşak walnut release is the opposite case: individual parcels sold with direct Tapu only — no vehicle, no shares — because each parcel is developed into its own individually titled orchard after purchase. Structure follows the land, not the other way around. The reasoning is laid out in Why This Model.
Frequently asked
Your next step
Decide your answer to the six questions above before you look at any offer — it immunises you against being sold a structure instead of an asset. Then compare the live examples: direct-title parcels versus the broader project’s shared-participation track. We’ll tell you on the first call which of the two actually fits you — including when the answer is neither.