[IYAS9YAS]

By law, you're incorrect everywhere in the United States. You do not own the airspace above your property.

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]

[gunnut]

But, a landowner may make any legitimate use of their property that they want, even if it interferes with aircraft overflying the land.>/i>

I could make the argument that drone skeet shooting was a legitimate sporting use on my land.

[morphing libertarian]

so is a drone in navigable airspace?

[CodeToad]

More specifically, federal aviation regulations stipulate the operation of an aircraft cannot come closer than 500 to any person.