Not if you want to trigger " any 'when you hit with an attack' feature "
There are examples of attacks which don't involve attack rolls. The Arcane Archer's seeking arrow is an example of this. "When you use this option, you don’t make an attack roll for the attack." (XGE, p. 30).
But there evidence from designer commentary that these are not generally intended to trigger an "on a hit" ability without an attack roll. Through an (unofficial) tweet, JC has clarified this, saying:
If a feature, such as Sneak Attack and Assassinate, does something special when an attack hits, that special effect doesn't occur if there's no attack roll that hits.
If you just want an attack that inevitably hits in-and-of itself, there are options
There are a few examples of attacks done by various creatures that do not require any attack rolls to hit. A Salamander (MM, p. 266) is one such creature, provided an enemy is grappled by its tail (SilentAxe and MagicalItemSmith's answers cover this example well). Another potent example is the Marut (MToF, p. 213), which states (ibid, non-italicized bold added):
Multiattack. The marut makes two slam attacks.
Unerring Slam. Melee Weapon Attack: automatic hit, reach 5 ft., one
target. Hit: 60 force damage, and the target is pushed up to 5 feet
away form the marut if it is Huge or smaller.
Doubtless, there are more such examples, and likely more will develop as time goes on (and more creatures are introduced into the rules).
Ok... but do those count as attacks?
On this topic, the rules are vague. We have clear guidance on the usual manner of attack in the PHB (p. 194, first sentence of section labeled "Attack Rolls"):
When you make an attack, your attack roll determines whether the
attack hits or misses.
This statement's contrapositive (which is logically equivalent to the original statement) is "If an attack roll didn't determine whether the attack hits or misses, then you didn't make an attack." This seems quite straightforward. However, we have to remember that this is a general rule, which can be overruled by specific exceptions. And one could definitely argue that the rules explicitly describing the marut's slam as an "attack" means that it is an exception to this general rule.
How do we reconcile the designer statements with rules (which give more than one answer anyway)?
As usual, on a case by case basis.
It's worth noting that Crawford's tweet above was directed at a very specific question (though it gave a broad answer): that question was:
How does Assassinate, Sneak Attack, and Arcane Archer's Seeking/Piercing Shot play together if it's the first attack of a combat?
And how does Sharpshooter play with Seeking/Piercing Shot?
Seeking and Piercing shot are both abilities that allow you to make an attack without an attack roll, and whose damage is dealt based on a saving throw: if characters fail that saving throw, then they take damage "as if it were hit by the arrow" (XGtE, p.29 and 30 respectively). So it's possible that Jeremy Crawford's answers were especially intended to apply to similar effects.
Also, it's worth reiterating that Crawford's tweets are no longer considered official rules unless they appear in the Sage Advice Compendium. An analogous answer there (on page 17) is a bit more vague:
Does the extra damage from hex only apply if there is an
attack roll? The extra damage in the hex spell requires an
attack that hits.
This question was directly asking whether an "attack roll" was needed for a feature that activates when you "hit... with an attack" (see text of Hex spell), but the answer sidesteps that specific part of the question, leaving room for the possibility that an "attack" that "hits" without an attack roll could activate Hex.
If a DM takes RAI ("rules as intended") statements to heart, including unofficial ones, they might rule that a Warlock true-polymorphed into a Salamander can't get their extra Hex damage on their automatic tail hits, because there was no attack roll that hits (going off of Crawford's tweet at the top of this answer). However, another might decide that such a tweet is a "general" rule, that is superseded by the Salamander's very unusual manner of attacking, and allow Hex to apply. And a third might not consider JC's tweet relevant at all, because his unofficial tweets are not RAW any more.
Ultimately, you'll need to decide on a case by case basis. But when you do, keep a few things in mind: most (if not all) features that trigger on attacks that hit (e.g. Sneak Attack) are balanced with the assumption that such hits require attack rolls against an enemy's armor class. Some (such as the Sharpshooter feat's third bullet point) even explicitly are balanced by increasing that attack roll's difficulty. This question requested a feature that required no attack roll "that will trigger any 'when you hit with an attack' feature": this "any" in the request should give a reader pause. Just as every "auto-hit" "attack" will need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis to see if it qualifies as an "attack" that "hits" (for example, Seeking Arrow probably wouldn't while the marut's slam probably would), a DM may need to individually assess a "on a hit" feature to decide whether or not they apply to these auto-hit conditions.
As an example, let's look at the specifics of the Sharpshooter feat (PHP, p. 170):
Before you make an attack with a ranged weapon that you are proficient with, you can choose to take a -5 penalty to the attack roll. If that attack hits, you add +10 to the attack's damage.
The last sentence above does not explicitly require an attack roll that hits: but the context lets us know that such a feature depends on (or at the very least assumes) an attack roll taking place, and the outcome of that roll mattering. Many DMs could decide that as such, you can't gain this benefit without an attack roll that hits.
So are there attacks which hit without attack rolls? Absolutely. Are there such attacks which will trigger "any 'when you hit with an attack feature'"? That will very much depend on the feature, the attack, and honestly the DM.