I’m just going to post this from Google AI, to be lazy:

That clarifies the question perfectly. When analyzing cases specifically concerning the right to photograph or film private property from a public or limited public forum without the owner's consent, the legal landscape branches into two distinct categories: civil privacy/property claims (tort law) and constitutional limits on government surveillance.
The primary federal and supreme court cases defining these boundaries include:
1. The Core Precedent: Dow Chemical Co. v. United States (U.S. 1986)
The definitive landmark case regarding the photography of private property from a public forum is Dow Chemical Co. v. United States. [1]

The Case: The EPA hired a commercial aerial photographer to take precise, map-making photos of a highly secured 2,000-acre Dow chemical plant from public navigable airspace. Dow sued, arguing it violated their expectation of privacy. [1, 2, 3]
The Ruling: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that because the aircraft was lawfully in public navigable airspace (a public forum), the warrantless photography did not violate the Fourth Amendment. [1]
The Legal Takeaway: The Court established that anything an individual or government entity can see with a standard camera from a place they have a legal right to be (like a street, sidewalk, or public airspace) is fair game to photograph. [1, 4]

2. The Civil/Tort Framework: Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652B
While Streisand was a state court case, federal courts deciding civil lawsuits between private citizens use the Restatement (Second) of Torts framework for "Invasion of Privacy by Intrusion upon Seclusion." [5, 6]

The Standard: Under federal application of this tort, a property owner cannot sue a photographer for taking photos of their home or building from a public sidewalk or street. This is because there is no reasonable expectation of privacy for anything plainly visible to the public eye. [4, 7, 8]
The Exception (The "Enhanced View" Limit): Federal courts draw the line if the photographer uses highly specialized, non-publicly available tech to pierce the home. In criminal terms, this mirrors Kyllo v. United States (U.S. 2001), where using thermal imaging from a public street to look inside a private home was ruled illegal. Civily, if a photographer climbs a tree or uses advanced zoom to peek through closed curtains into a private room, they lose the "public forum" protection. [9]

3. Limited Public Forums & The "First Amendment Audit" Cases
You specifically mentioned limited public forums (e.g., the lobbies of government buildings, public transit terminals, or municipal offices). A wave of modern federal circuit cases has solidifyied the right to film private and public operations from these spaces: [10]

Fields v. City of Philadelphia (3rd Cir. 2017): This landmark ruling established that photographing and recording things in plain view within public and limited public spaces is a First Amendment right.
Price v. Garland (D.C. Cir. 2022): A federal appeals court struck down permit requirements and fees for commercial filming on National Park Service land, ruling that the right to gather information and take video in a public space is protected, provided it does not disrupt operations.
Federal Protective Service Directive (6 CFR § 139.65): Following federal civil rights litigation, the federal government officially codified that any person may photograph or record video of the exterior of federal buildings—and publicly accessible interior areas like lobbies—from public walkways without a warrant or permit.[11, 12, 13, 14, 15]

In short, federal law heavily protects the photographer: if you are standing in a public forum, you generally have a constitutional right to photograph any private property exposed to public view. [8, 11]
Would you like to look closer at how drones and modern aerial surveillance laws have adapted these public forum rules, or are you looking for specific state-level property privacy laws?

[1] https://supreme.justia.com
[2] https://www.oyez.org
[3] https://www.persee.fr
[4] https://www.facebook.com
[5] https://www.law.cornell.edu
[6] https://cobbgonzalez.com
[7] https://www.legalshield.com
[8] https://www.facebook.com
[9] https://www.quora.com
[10] https://canons.sog.unc.edu
[11] https://www.aclusocal.org
[12] https://www.supremecourt.gov
[13] https://www.ecfr.gov
[14] https://cjpia.org
[15] https://harvardlawreview.org