I think the "special case" is nominally mid-ocean places like the Tuamotus, and so on, an area both sometimes inaccurately charted, or inherently dangerous due to charted but awash reefs and atolls.
Sable Island comes to mind, as do places like the Torres Strait, the Barrier Reef and like this: Pacific Ocean - Elizabeth & Middleton Reefs
(this whole site is great for weird little islands and reefs.)
If you chart a course and keep a running fix from CN, divergences due to current or steerage (like XTE with GPS) will eventually appear and can be corrected. Sailors used to plot courses to avoid land, but GPS sailors will, by contrast, tend to want to sail past land for the visual confirmation or because it's a more direct route. "Waypointers" don't always keep a prudent offing, in my view, because so much of the navigation is left to the plotter and the AP.
Because of its greater "circle of uncertainty", by contrast, CN encourages caution and land other than the destination is ideally avoided altogether.
How do I know this? From the changing nature of boating accidents and groundings...people are very precisely hitting the same damn rocks four feet below the surface of the ocean! We've all heard about people piling into breakwalls, huge buoys, piers and the like, sometimes at speed. It's sheer carelessness, aided and abetted by precision instrumentation that itself doesn't have a stake in staying dry.
I have to wonder if some sort of cutting and pasting of lat/lons goes on instead of looking at the right charts, and manually plotting a course that gives a good offing that is clear of fringing reefs and yet close enough to get into a viable anchorage promptly.