Yes, architectural shooters(and others in more "industrial" type of shooting) can/did use multiple exposures on the same roll/frame/sheet of film.
The problem however, with doing this is REGISTRATION. Even if a view camera(say a 4x5) set up on a sandbagged tripod, on solid ground, can still be vexed by the film flexing between the first shot frame and subsequent exposures being applied to that same sheet of film.
Take this for example:
Subject: backlit(setting sun, twilight, etc.) office building/skyscraper. Full length exterior shot
Shot needed: Sky w/ great detail, but lights inside of building/on building in full splendor(as in every exterior office/room/hallway lit nicely.
Technique I'd use:
1. shoot 1st exposure for sky, so sky's density is properly shown on the film
2. Wait until sky is completely black(see moon charts for such a night). Assuming you're working with building staff to turn on/off lights inside the building, I'd then make exposures carefully metered to expose for the windows/offices, and if there are roof details such as stone outcroppings, carvings/scultpures/etc. I'd put those onto a different exposure(again, building staff to actually time the exposure).
It's a long process, but being able to "paint" the light onto the film would really allow you, the photographer, to be in control. This can also allow you to gel for different color balances if including different types of lighting sources(fluorescent, tungsten, halogen, etc...) This is, of course, if you want a NEUTRAL color balance, so no shift in color is evident.
Now, with digital, the technique is relatively the same. With film, the film can shift in the holder(even due to humidity fluctuations during the dew point of the evening if working during that time. Even re-cocking a shutter can jar the camera enough to cause the film to shift out of place, so you can run into "double image" issues. It can be maddening. Digital on the other hand, is like blending multiple exposures, so you're "masking in" the different elements of what you want/need to construct that final shot.
Back to film: there were a number of companies that made VACUUM backs to suck the film completely flat during exposure. Schneider was probably the best(and also the most expensive) of the lot, but it was a bulky system that was finicky to use outside of the studio.
Light painting can work well, but is very time consuming. Some like its effect, frankly it does nothing for ME, but I don't cast doubt on anyone else's techniques, as long as it works for them