You do to a reasonable distance.
In the case of United States v. Causby,[4] the U.S. Supreme Court declared the navigable airspace to be "a public highway" and within the public domain. At the same time, the law, and the Supreme Court, recognized that a landowner had property rights in the lower reaches of the airspace above their property. The law, in balancing the public interest in using the airspace for air navigation against the landowner's rights, declared that a landowner owns only so much of the airspace above their property as they may reasonably use in connection with their enjoyment of the underlying land. In other words, a person's real property ownership includes a reasonable amount of the airspace above the property. A landowner can't arbitrarily try to prevent aircraft from overflying their land by erecting "spite poles," for example. But, a landowner may make any legitimate use of their property that they want, even if it interferes with aircraft overflying the land."[5]
“By law, you’re incorrect everywhere in the United States. You do not own the airspace above your property.”
Nor do you own the water or mineral rights; the FedGov does. I was reminded several times by the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers, on my Family Farm Business. I was told, “you’re only a temporary renter”.
“By law, you’re incorrect everywhere in the United States. You do not own the airspace above your property.”
You do own the airspace a reasonable distance above your property, certainly the distance of shotgun range!
That's all well and good. If I see an honest-to-gosh drone over my property, I'm quite likely to be on the wrong side of the law.
I said as far as I’m concerned.