>If that wasn’t true, then there would be nothing preventing someone from extending their home over someone’s else property by simply ensuring the extension nev

>If that wasn’t true, then there would be nothing preventing someone from extending their home over someone’s else property by simply ensuring the extension never touched the ground. Seems like they could just say "nothing touching the ground can impede on my property." But I concede the point to you. My first thought (and why I was mentioning sarcasm) was because there's a ton of air traffic above private property all the time. But then I read into it a bit after reading your response and it looks like the legal definition is "air rights extend to the airspace above the surface that could reasonably be used in connection with the land." OK, so the 747 above my house is likely fine. But why about the tiny prop plane flying over head to take pictures of my property? Or the obvious drones? It looks like they generally say anything above 500ft - 1000ft is not owned, depending on congestion. So drones are out but that annoying guy in the plane taking pictures to try to sell them to me is still allowed.