Not in the US. Property owners do not own the airspace above their property.
However, even the US, that isn't entirely true.
United States v. Causby (1946) sets the precedent that property owners own the airspace above their property to (at least) 83 feet.
The FAA has exclusive sovereignty over "navigable airspace", which is considered a public highway. This navigable airspace generally begins at 500 feet above the surface in uncongested areas and 1000 feet above the highest obstacle in congested areas. Aircraft flying within this navigable airspace are generally not considered to be trespassing.
There is a "gray area" between the immediate airspace controlled by the landowner and the federally controlled navigable airspace. While the FAA asserts its authority to regulate all airspace, including this lower stratum, the exact delineation of private airspace rights within this zone, particularly concerning new technologies like drones, is not clear.
I always thought it looked weird but now I wonder if it's because it's largely surrounded by private property.
[1] been decades since I've read the textbook on it, but IIRC it involves higher load on rotor and engines than "running" methods that utilize ground effect and provide horizontal momentum against wind gusts.
Probably one of the most misunderstood cases ever. Causby's complaint was that his chickens were dying as a result of the stress from low altitude military flights over his property. The Supreme Court ruled this was a violation of his fifth amendment rights because the government was taking something from him (chickens) without compensation.
83 feet was simply the lowest recorded flight. People took that to be some sort of magical barrier, but would only be relevant if your issue was also with chicken deaths.
Even if you take it to apply to drones, it would only apply to government drones that in some way cause you real and demonstrable financial loss.