There are two challenges posed by your question.
The first relates to early human migration. Of course, we know that the European "age of discovery" involved very little discovery and that actually most places "discovered" by Europeans between the 15th to 19th centuries were already inhabited by homo sap communities. Therefore, you need to think about what stopped humans from spreading out across your world in its prehistory. Isolation of your inhabited continent won't do it: Polynesians and Melanesians used small outrigger canoes to settle islands thousands of kilometres apart, thousands of years ago.
Rather than looking for environmental or geographic reasons to impede seafaring, why don't you establish a culture that is, for some reason, historically averse to travelling over water, or exploration, and then an event in recent history which changes that?
Preconditions for industrial revolution
The second challenge relates to the implications for industrialisation if you remove seafaring. I am referring here to to mercantile capitalism and the global networks of exchange that emerged as European powers started to develop technologies such as square-rigging and establish themselves overseas; seizing new natural resources, exploiting new labour forces, creating new markets, etc.
The fundamental problem is whether the industrial revolution would even have been possible without this prior stage, and I would argue that it would not have.
Look at China, the empire of a thousand year dynasties that has more often than not been ahead of the pack throughout history. The Haijin policy of maritime isolationism following Admiral Zheng He's expedition to Africa in the Ming Dynasty inhibited China's participation in mercantile capitalism - and therefore the institutional (in terms of property rights, etc) and technological developments that laid the foundations for industrial revolution. Result is that China has only recently "caught up" with the countries that had their industrial revolutions earlier.
Think also of cotton, the driver of the industrial revolution across Europe. Cotton's story is inherently one of mercantile, globe-straddling war capitalism: labour ripped from West and Central Africa, transported across the ocean to the Americas to work as slaves growing high-quality cotton on fertile grounds seized by Europeans from native populations, all in order to undercut Indian growers, spinners and weavers and ensure the domination of merchants in London and Antwerp, and mills in Liverpool and Alsace-Lorraine.
The golden age of cotton was borne of seafaring, a triangular trade: finished cotton goods from English mills to African traders for slaves, slaves sold to the Americas where ships loaded raw cotton that was then transported to European centres of cotton production. Without seafaring, would the mechanised mills that powered the industrial revolution have come to pass?
I think this is a harder challenge to meet. To create a realistic, early-industrial world absent seafaring will require you to generate a material, political and technological history that meets the conditions of Earth's mercantile period but unfolds across one continent only.