FFS dude, they're all derived from common law; you realize you are grasping at straws here by trying to limit this now to Virginia... but ok fine... let's play your little game:
We have previously recognized that an action for common law trespass to land derives from the "general principle of law [that] every person is entitled to the exclusive and peaceful enjoyment of his own land, and to redress if such enjoyment shall be wrongfully interrupted by another.
Tate v. Ogg, 170 Va. 95, 99, 195 S.E. 496, 498 (1938).
We have also recognized:
[A] trespass is an unauthorized entry onto property which results in interference with the property owner's possessory interest therein. Thus, in order to maintain a cause of action for trespass to land, the plaintiff must have had possession of the land, either actual or constructive, at the time the trespass was committed. In addition, to recover for trespass to land, a plaintiff must prove an invasion that interfered with the right of exclusive possession of the land, and that was a direct result of some act committed by the defendant. Any physical entry upon the surface of the land constitutes such an invasion, whether the entry is a walking upon it, flooding it with water, casting objects upon it, or otherwise.
Cooper v. Horn, 248 Va. 417, 423, 448 S.E.2d 403, 406 (1994) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
Significantly, for the purposes of this case, Virginia applies the modified common law rule applicable to surface water. Mullins, 226 Va. at 589, 311 S.E.2d at 112. Under this rule, "surface water is a common enemy, and each landowner may fight it off as best he can, provided he does so reasonably and in good faith and not wantonly, unnecessarily or carelessly." Id. (emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted).
We observed in McGehee v. Tidewater Railway Co.:
Two general rules prevail in the United States with
emphasis mine. But let me repeat it here again for you:
"Any physical entry upon the surface of the land constitutes such an invasion, whether the entry is a walking upon it, flooding it with water, casting objects upon it, or otherwise."
Are we done yet?
If I recall correctly, you earlier cited criminal code as the law which may require the stricter test for the defendant to get jailtime over it, but trespass is also a civil matter; and he can definitely be subject to a lawsuit based on it.
Drone use may also fall under the nuisance law. I read another virginia opinion where 'dust and noise' from a neighboring property under construction was rejected as a trespass suit, but the plaintiff was invited to refile it as a nuisance suit. That said, I think drones still fall under trespass as the operator is in much more direct control over what the drone does, and the drone represents a real physical invasion in a way dust particulates don't. Of course, until someone actually takes one to court in virginia it will be an open question. But as a legal theory it is pretty sound.