Yes, You Own the Airspace Over Your Property

And the planes overhead ARE flying through your airspace.

[ItumelengS]

Steve what about airplanes... what about airplanes

[alassandra]

This reminded me of this: there are situations where property owners have been arrested and heavily fined for rain water catchment because the state they're living in claims they "own the rainwater". Would love to see you do a video on this.

[romeolima]

I own a house in a suburb in Michigan. My neighbor put a cow statute in there yard.
I just thought it was silly. But some of my neighbors. Got bent out of shape. I told them when they complained to me. " he pays the taxes and has title. If he wants a cow statue on HIS PROPEETY IT IS HIS RIGHT. " Much to my chagrin, the neighbors must have complained. The neighbor with the statue was told by the city to remove it or face fines for everyday it was in place after a certain date. There is NO home owners association. What the city did never sat well with me. The statue neighbor and I shared information about the known complainers and ostracize them to the point they had to rely on the property value that they where so worried about.
Because they had to move within two years. I still hold to "tend to your own knitting."
If your property value is worrisome to you? Your neighbor isn't your problem YOU'RE MONEY MANAGEMENT IS.
I also have a property up north in Michigan. The township says you can't build a building with in 3 feet of the property line. The reason I know it's a problem. Is because my neighbor helped me build a storage shed. When we built it he asked me to bring it up to his property line so as not to block his view. After it was built the town ship sent me a letter, saying I had to remove it. Ba ha ha ha.
I told the neighbor about it.
He gifted me 3ft. by 20 feet of his property. We both gave the township the finger. I then showed up on a weekend when the neighbor was up. He was shocked when I took him out to the storage building.
To show him the new door. That openned to his property. I tossed him keys to the lock and told him to open it. Inside was a brand new zero turn mower. He has a set of keys to it as well as the lock. If our properties need mowing? I or my neighbor mow both our properties. Be a good neighbor but leave people alone. Tend to your own knitting. Neither me or that neighbor do social stuff together. Other then get along.

[romrimland]

I had a dog in my youth that would whole heartedly agree with you. She would bark at every plane that crossed overhead from the moment it crossed the fence line until it left the other side.

[marklewus]

Hey Steve, great video. You were talking about drones. The FAA regulates all airspace in the United States but some towns have made hobby drone use illegal. If you take off from property you own, fly in any airspace (whether above owned property or not) in a manner consistent with the rules set out by the FAA, and land on your own property, you're legal. When a town outlaws drones they can't outlaw the flying of them, they can only outlaw the taking off and landing because the FAA controls all airspace for flying vehicles.

[The_Privateer]

For us 'drone' or UAS pilots - The FAA disagrees - Yes, even at grass level on your own property. Even if you're in the middle of hundreds of acres of your own rural property far away from any airports or people. There is currently a lawsuit against the FAA for their recent 'remote ID' related rulemaking regarding 'airspace ownership' and recreational (and business) drone use.

[tylerhomephotography]

Hey Steve, I went deep into the rabbit hole on this subject, and for the most part you are right (maybe some super technical discrepancies, but nothing worth arguing over by any means.) A lot of this that you covered has been covered in a number of Supreme Court cases after Causby is one of the clearest distinguishing lines for how much airspace you own. In quick summery police hovered over a mans house that they suspected of growing marijuana for 5 hours until he walked outside with said marijuana. 

Riley argued that it violated his 4th amendment rights because it was over his house at a low altitude, the Supreme Court disagreed and cited that their main reasoning is that the helicopter did not disturb the normal use of the land. They considered both the noise level (helicopters are very loud at this altitude) and the amount that it disturbed the trees, grass, and other things in his back yard. Because it was not a pervasive noise (days or weeks or other long stretches) and did not disturb the ground, it was not a violation of the fourth amendment. 

The court also used the reasoning that because a normal person could do the same, the police were allowed to do so. 400 ft is within the FAA definitions of safe altitude for a helicopter, and allows pilots to make judgement calls for flying lower because of the aircraft's ability to hover in very tight confines of space. 



See also dow chemical vs United States for no privacy from aerial photography by drone even in heavily guarded facilities. 


The dow chemical case particularly is of interest because the courts said that unless the area is both fenced and covered, the open fields doctrine applies and there is no expectation of privacy, even when high fencing and gated entry with guards present. This ruling absolutely enshrines that in order for an individual to expect privacy, not only do you have to have fencing (walls) but also a roof.





So where does one actually own airspace? While Causby Vs US did set a precedent that the ownership of airspace does not extend to the heavens, it also set how high you actually own. The reasoning in the case was that you own the airspace up to the point that you are actually using for structures and trees. Above that, it is public right away. There can be cases like in Causby though where the government has unconstitutionally seized the airspace in which it causes disturbance to the ground below. Causby was ruled in Causbys favor not because the government flew planes occasionally over the property, but because the flight was both regular, and because it disturbed the ground below as evidenced by killing some of his chickens.

While it seems there is grey area in ownership of airspace, it actually is pretty well settled case law, but it takes some digging to find all of the relevant cases.

To your joke about the bridge, I would argue that there would actually be a good case for the government to be allowed to build a bridge over a house, AS LONG AS it did not disturb the ground below it with pervasive noise, or other disturbances. For instance if the government was able to control the sound of the cars on the bridge, and make it so that it was high enough that it was above what the individual could reasonable use within zoning laws, that it would probably stick as being allowed (almost something like Old New York and New New York in the Futurama Series if you have ever watched it.

If you read all the way through this, thanks for reading, love your videos as they break down complex subjects for the average person to understand!!

[stanhunderwood]

As a licensed Farm & Ranch Real Estate Broker since March 1976, I've encountered many easement situations and have referred clients to attorneys. Okay... You may own the land and everything beneath it, as many state laws say. But there are PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENTS: Anyone who routinely passes over your property without interruption after a set number of years (per state law) LEGALLY OWNS an easement to continue doing so. That happens a whole lot out in the country where neighbors (and county roads) intersect private property. In the heart of the city as well.

Also, we all must realize the government REALLY owns our property. Government seized it from the original owners (native Americans) and loaned it to homesteaders. Don't pay your annual rent (property taxes) to the government and you'll find yourself evicted by the sheriff and you replaced by a new "tenant" the government leases the property to. Don't believe me - go ahead and find out.

[FliesFLL]

There is actually another easement. The FAA describes what is known as an "obstruction plain", which starts at the center of an airport and rises the farther you go away from that center. Basically, no ground-based structure can intrude into the obstruction plain, which means that you cannot build a tower or a tall building on your property if you are close to an airport. Thus this easement is used to prevent use, not allow use.

Great video!

[acdii]

As soon as I saw the title I KNEW which case you were going to refer to. I am an RC pilot and fly scale model aircraft and have been following the FAA case on "drones". I ran across a case where a property owner was being fined for a messy back yard that is surrounded by a fence you can't see through. Apparently the police used a remote controlled drone to take video of the persons back yard. The police lost the case due to the case you mentioned which made it to the SC. Up to I think 500' AGL you have complete ownership of your airspace, ANYTHING that crosses that airspace is considered trespassing, even aircraft, which goes back to the arrest you mentioned, they more than likely were power gliding under the 500' AGL. Anything OVER 500' AGL is considered free to fly over, however, you cannot HOVER over someones property like in a helicopter without the landowners explicit permission.

If someone flies a drone over your house under 500', they can be charged with trespassing. However, you being the homeowner cannot shoot the drone down if it is in your backyard due to other laws on the book about illegal discharge of firearms blah blah blah, because it is in no way a threat to life.

[jameswhitaker]

‘So let’s talk about the law. I am an attorney, after all.’ LMAO

It’s always seemed very unfair to me that heavenly bodies are constantly permitted to violate my property rights.

[OnesteptotheRight]

most people who have never worked in construction lack basic knowledge of right of way and utility easements. Its understandable, and zoning and property set backs vary throughout the country. To be clear, speaking of zoning, although the space above your plot is owned by you, you cannot exceed above 4 floors in most residential areas based on zoning. Pretty interesting stuff, I mean there were no airplanes when the first laws were written, but yes you did a great job explaining.

[noladol]

"It's yours until we say It's not."

~U.S. Government

[doctorbobdc]

I'm so glad I own the airspace above my property because my house was built in that airspace.

[BarryB]

Steve, what happens when Amazon wants to fly a delivery drone over your property to make a delivery? I believe the laws are muddled at this point and it's going to get worse.

[fredflintstone]

The topic of mineral rights would be interesting to cover. There are also cases of where oil, water, and natural gas drilling companies will drill at an angle and extract from underneath someone else's property. Is this legal?

[PintoPopProductions]

This topic was discussed in the 2010 movie Burlesque with Cher and Christina Aguilera as a way of protecting their theater from a developer. They went to the owner of the condo tower across the street and made a deal to preserve his tenants' view of the city by not having another high-rise blocking it. I would laugh if someone cited that in court.

[maxsmodels]

I had to study the Causby case when I got a Masters degree in Aviation Science. They almost accidentally decided that the sky up to 83 feet above your soil is yours by default as that was the altitude that the military planes passed over Causby’s farm as the took off and landed. This is not a rock solid limit but it is a virtually guaranteed minimum..

[jeffvantreese]

The upward limit of airspace in Michigan is 1, 000 feet above average ground level in an urban area. I represented a city airport that had to condemn about 50 avigation easements in the course of extending a runway. To make things interesting, the surveyor forgot to include the height of the transom….I had to amend the legal description to add 3 feet to the top in each of the cases. FYI, the limit is 500 feet in any non-urban area.

[spirithorse]

I think the most simple example would be tree branches from a neighbor's tree that hang over into your property without touching anything (usually fenced, ) can legally be cut.