To be more specific, how did the technical characteristics, performance and specifications of naval aircraft (Especially WW2-era aircraft) differ from their land-based counterparts, and why were they different?
It's a general statement (given we are talking about British, US, Japanese, and sort of German designs) however:
Most naval aviation had some sort of reinforced landing gear (either heavier construction, or wider stance). Carrier landings are inherently more rough than landing ashore (approach tends to be faster, deck is solid steel, deck may be in motion etc) so durable gear is very important.
Most carrier aircraft had some sort of tailhook to allow for the use of arresting gear while landing. Basically modern monoplane came in too fast to land conventionally, so the hook and cables were pretty much required at this point.
While not completely universal, many carrier planes tended to have sturdier structures to survive the hard landings, or sudden stops resulting from carrier landings.
Many carrier aircraft had some sort of folding wings. For some, this was very modest (wing tips), while others would allow the entire wing structure to fold flush against the airplane's fuselage.
Aircrew survival equipment could also be much more robust vs land based planes.
The resulting carrier planes tended to be heavier on account of their unique landing requirements and folding components, and as a result potentially tougher. Your mileage varies of course (British Seafires were infamously frail, Wildcat/Hellcats were known to be from the "Grumman Iron Works" on account of their weight and sturdiness).
The differences it's worth nothing are not entirely irreconcilable. USN and USMC squadrons often operated from shore based locations with no major difference in performance to their land based counterparts, the British and Germans both used modified land based planes as carrier fighters (or intended to as the case was for the Germans).