* You have a clear parent/main website and a set of subsites associated with it.
* You have a group of simple, commonly themed websites
* Your websites contain some overlapping content, and you want to avoid the redundancy of making the same update to content that exists on multiple CMS installations.
* You have simple content websites that use the same templates and modules, and are managed by the same team, but have different themes.
* Content editing of the subsites is through the same team, so there is no problem around editors having access to all the files for each subsite, nor around having CMS admin(s) who control access to all the sites.
* You have constraints on what content CMS editors can and cannot view between subsites.
* You have a business critical website, and adding complexity around changes and releases for subsites creates unwanted risk.
* There is a significant security risk around putting the websites into the same CMS installation. This could be the risk of content bleeding between sites, or the risk of an editor on one site gaining access to content on the other site.
* Websites that are distinct and use customised modules and/or bespoke code
* Websites that are owned by different business units and/or managed by different development and web teams. (not technical, it just organisational complexity).
It is important to remember that the only unique trait each site can have is its theme (look and feel), whilst all the other building blocks of the site — the code, database, and modules — are shared. Therefore, one of the biggest drawbacks to using subsites is exposure to a single point of failure. If there is a bug in code that is only used on one subsite, it nevertheless affects all other subsites, because they share a codebase. Similarly, if the database becomes corrupt, all subsites are affected. Further, it is not possible to create or restore backups of any given subsite. Backups must represent and replace the entire collection of sites.